The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Morphology 9780367331573, 9780429318191

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of tables
List of figures
List of contributors
Acknowledgements
Introduction
PART I Basic concepts and issues
1 The main units of Spanish morphology: roots, affixes, stems, words
2 Morphological formal means (I): asymmetries between prefixes and suffixes
3 Main morphological formal means (II): approaches to parasynthesis
4 Main morphological formal means (III): approaches to conversion
5 Inflection, derivation and compounding: issues of delimitation
6 Morphological variation in the Spanish-speaking world
7 Synchronic vs diachronic morphology: convergences and divergences
PART II Inflection and word formation in Spanish
8 The inflection of nouns: gender and number
9 The basic inflectional structure of verbs (I): aspect, tense, mood and agreement
10 The basic inflectional structure of verbs (II): conjugation classes and other paradigmatic properties of verbs
11 The basic inflectional structure of adjectives: degree and agreement
12 Main issues in the diachronic development of Spanish inflection
13 Derivation and category change (I): nominalisation
14 Derivation and category change (II): adjectivalization
15 Derivation and category change (III): verbalization
16 Suffix evolution in derivation: four cases from Latin to Spanish
17 Prefixation
18 The historical evolution of Spanish prefixes
19 Appreciative morphology
20 Main compounding types in Spanish: synchronic issues
21 The diachrony of Spanish compounding
22 Blending and truncation
PART III Morphology and its interfaces
23 Spanish morphology and the architecture of grammar
24 Allomorphy and suppletion
25 Phonotactics of Spanish morphology
26 Stress in morphologically simple and complex Spanish words
27 Interfixation
28 Metonymy in Spanish word formation
29 Morphology and pragmatics
30 Semantic change in the history of Spanish word formation
31 Argument structure, aspectual structure and morphological marking
32 Periphrases, idioms and other units
33 The status of clitics
34 Participles and gerunds
35 Grammaticalization
PART IV Beyond morphology
36 Morphology and L1 acquisition
37 Morphology and L2 acquisition
38 Morphology in Spanish heritage language grammars
39 Words vs. rules: issues of storage in Spanish
40 Morphology and neurolinguistics of Spanish
41 Morphology and language pathologies in Spanish
42 Morphology and language teaching
Index

Citation preview

The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Morphology

The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Morphology presents a state-of-the-art, detailed and exhaustive overview of all aspects of Spanish morphology, paying equal attention to the empirical complexities of the morphological system and the theoretical issues that they raise. As such, this Handbook is relevant both for those interested in the facts of Spanish morphology and those interested in general morphology that want to explore how the Spanish facts illuminate our understanding of human language and current theories of morphology. This volume is also unique in its extent and coverage. Written by an international team of leading experts in the feld, it contains 42 chapters divided into four sections, covering all synchronic and diachronic aspects of Spanish morphology, including infection; derivation; compounding and other processes of word formation; the interaction of morphology with other modules of grammar and the role of morphology in language acquisition, psycholinguistics and language teaching. Antonio Fábregas is a Professor of Hispanic Linguistics at the University of Tromsø-Arctic University of Norway. Víctor Acedo-Matellán is an Associate Professor of Portuguese and Spanish Linguistics at the University of Oxford (UK). Grant Armstrong is an Associate Professor in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA). María Cristina Cuervo is an Associate Professor of Linguistics and Spanish at the University of Toronto (Canada). Isabel Pujol Payet is an Associate Professor Spanish Linguistics at the Universitat de Girona (Spain).

Routledge Spanish Language Handbooks Series Editors: Manel Lacorte, University of Maryland, USA, and Javier Muñoz-Basols, University of Oxford, UK

Routledge Spanish Language Handbooks provide comprehensive and state-of-the-art overviews of topics in Hispanic Linguistics, Hispanic Applied Linguistics and Spanish Language Teaching. Editors are well-known experts in the feld. Each volume contains speciallycommissioned chapters written by leading international scholars. Each Handbook includes substantial pieces of research that analyse recent developments in the discipline, both from a theoretical and an applied perspective. Their user-friendly format allows the reader to acquire a panoramic perspective of selected topics in the felds of Spanish language and linguistics. Published in English or in Spanish, the Handbooks are an indispensable reference tool for undergraduate and postgraduate students, teachers, university lecturers, professional researchers, and university libraries worldwide. They are also valuable teaching resources to accompany textbooks, research publications, or as self-study material. Proposals for the series will be welcomed by the Series Editors. THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SPANISH IN THE GLOBAL CITY Edited by Andrew Lynch THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SPANISH PHONOLOGY Edited by Sonia Colina and Fernando Martínez-Gil THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SPANISH PRAGMATICS Foundations and Interfaces Edited by Dale A. Koike and J. César Félix-Brasdefer THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SPANISH MORPHOLOGY Edited by Antonio Fábregas, Víctor Acedo-Matellán, Grant Armstrong, María Cristina Cuervo and Isabel Pujol Payet For more information about this series please visit: www.routledge.com/RoutledgeSpanish-Language-Handbooks/book-series/RSLH

The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Morphology

Edited by Antonio Fábregas, Víctor Acedo-Matellán, Grant Armstrong, María Cristina Cuervo and Isabel Pujol Payet Series Editors: Manel Lacorte and Javier Muñoz-Basols

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 selection and editorial matter, Antonio Fábregas, Víctor Acedo-Matellán, Grant Armstrong, María Cristina Cuervo and Isabel Pujol Payet; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Antonio Fábregas, Víctor Acedo-Matellán, Grant Armstrong, María Cristina Cuervo and Isabel Pujol Payet to be identifed as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-33157-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-31819-1 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

ContentsContents

List of tables List of fgures List of contributors Acknowledgements Introduction Antonio Fábregas, Víctor Acedo-Matellán, Grant Armstrong, María Cristina Cuervo and Isabel Pujol Payet PART I Basic concepts and issues 1 The main units of Spanish morphology: roots, afxes, stems, words Elena Felíu Arquiola

ix xi xii xvii xviii

1 3

2 Morphological formal means (I): asymmetries between prefxes and sufxes Antonio Fábregas

15

3 Main morphological formal means (II): approaches to parasynthesis Jaume Mateu

28

4 Main morphological formal means (III): approaches to conversion Salvador Valera

40

5 Infection, derivation and compounding: issues of delimitation José-Luis Mendívil-Giró

55

6 Morphological variation in the Spanish-speaking world Enrique Pato and Elena Felíu Arquiola

68

7 Synchronic vs diachronic morphology: convergences and divergences Ignacio Bosque

81

v

Contents

PART II Infection and word formation in Spanish 8 The infection of nouns: gender and number José Camacho

95 97

9 The basic infectional structure of verbs (I): aspect, tense, mood and agreement Ramón Zacarías-Ponce de León

113

10 The basic infectional structure of verbs (II): conjugation classes and other paradigmatic properties of verbs Bruno Camus Bergareche

129

11 The basic infectional structure of adjectives: degree and agreement Alberto Pastor

152

12 Main issues in the diachronic development of Spanish infection Antonio Fábregas and Isabel Pujol Payet

163

13 Derivation and category change (I): nominalisation Gabriela Resnik

182

14 Derivation and category change (II): adjectivalization Josefa Martín García

195

15 Derivation and category change (III): verbalization Olga Batiukova

209

16 Sufx evolution in derivation: four cases from Latin to Spanish Antonio Rifón

222

17 Prefxation Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo

236

18 The historical evolution of Spanish prefxes Isabel Pujol Payet

255

19 Appreciative morphology Laura Malena Kornfeld

269

20 Main compounding types in Spanish: synchronic issues Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata

285

vi

Contents

21 The diachrony of Spanish compounding María Irene Moyna

303

22 Blending and truncation Francesc Torres-Tamarit

317

PART III Morphology and its interfaces

333

23 Spanish morphology and the architecture of grammar Víctor Acedo-Matellán

335

24 Allomorphy and suppletion Grant Armstrong

347

25 Phonotactics of Spanish morphology Sonia Colina

361

26 Stress in morphologically simple and complex Spanish words Violeta Martínez-Paricio

375

27 Interfxation María Ohannesian

387

28 Metonymy in Spanish word formation Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio

399

29 Morphology and pragmatics Mónica Cantero

416

30 Semantic change in the history of Spanish word formation Franz Rainer

430

31 Argument structure, aspectual structure and morphological marking Margot Vivanco

441

32 Periphrases, idioms and other units Begoña Sanromán Vilas

458

33 The status of clitics María Cristina Cuervo

470

34 Participles and gerunds Rafael Marín and Antonio Fábregas

484 vii

Contents

35 Grammaticalization Carlota de Benito Moreno PART IV Beyond morphology

499

511

36 Morphology and L1 acquisition Adriana Soto-Corominas

513

37 Morphology and L2 acquisition Silvia Perpiñán

526

38 Morphology in Spanish heritage language grammars Silvina Montrul

538

39 Words vs. rules: issues of storage in Spanish María del Carmen Horno-Chéliz and José Manuel Igoa

550

40 Morphology and neurolinguistics of Spanish Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

561

41 Morphology and language pathologies in Spanish Vicenç Torrens

585

42 Morphology and language teaching Claudia H. Sánchez Gutiérrez

599

Index

611

viii

Tables

TablesTables

1.1 1.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 8.1 8.2 9.1 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 15.1 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 17.1 21.1 21.2 24.1 26.1 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5

Paradigm of blanco Present subjunctive Criteria for the distinction between infection and derivation Present indicative paradigm of cantar ‘sing’ (Partial) word family of the adjective claro ‘clear’ (Partial) word family of the adjective oscuro ‘dark’ Strong pronoun paradigm Weak pronoun paradigm (clitics) First infectional class: hablar ‘to talk’ Second infectional class: comer ‘to eat’ Third infectional class: vivir ‘to live’ Paradigm of Latin bonus Paradigm of Latin fortis Spanish verb system: amar The regular verb pattern. First conjugation in -a-: amar ‘to love’ The regular verb pattern. Second conjugation in -e-: temer ‘to fear’ The regular verb pattern. Third conjugation in -i-: partir ‘to leave’ Core selectional properties of verbalizing sufxes in Spanish Meanings created by sufxes -dor/a and -(t/s)or/a. Only the most productive and interesting ones for sufx evolution are included Quantitative evolution of derivative words from sufxes -dor/a, -(t/s)or/a and -triz Meanings created by sufxes -dero/a and -(t/s)orio/a; only the most productive and interesting ones for sufx evolution are included Quantitative evolution of derivative words from sufxes -dero/a and -(t/s)orio,a Quantitative evolution of derivative words from sufx -ble Quantitative evolution of derivative words from sufx -dizo/a Semantic classes of prefxes First and latest attestations of each Spanish compound pattern Productivity of [V+N]N compounds by century Infectional paradigm of ir Regular and irregular stress patterns in a stem-based account Classifcatory terms for sources and targets Illustrative examples of types of metonymy in Spanish Top ten sufxes in terms of types of metonymy in Spanish Most frequent types of metonymy activated by the Spanish sufx -ero Most common word class patterns in Spanish

10 10 56 60 60 61 102 103 118 118 119 131 131 133 135 136 137 211 223 224 228 229 232 234 242 308 313 350 379 404 405 406 406 407 ix

Tables

28.6 28.7 28.8 28.9 31.1 31.2 32.1 33.1 35.1 36.1 40.1 40.2 40.3 42.1

x

Most common metonymy patterns in Spanish Frequency study of the top ten types of metonymy (in comparison with the general study) Metonymy patterns with fve or more types of metonymy (in comparison with the general study) Top ten metonymy patterns of the neology study (in comparison with the frequency study) Spanish SE-constructions Inherently pronominal verbs Classes of phrases Spanish clitic pronouns Latin habēre, Spanish haber, and the Spanish future and conditional tenses Number of clauses, adultlike infnitives, and RIs in Bel (2001) Language-related ERPs Summary of ERP studies Summary of fMRI studies (and one TMS study) Example of word matrix

408 410 411 412 443 448 463 472 501 519 563 575 582 607

Figures

FiguresFigures

5.1 16.1 16.2 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 40.1 42.1

The place of morphology in the faculty of language Timeline of sufxes derived from the Latin sufx -tor. The dates are documented, but always approximate Timeline of sufxes derived from the Latin sufx -torius. The dates are documented but always approximate Relative frequency of compounds by lexical class over time (1000s–2000s) Relative frequency of compounds by headedness over time (1000s–2000s) Relative frequency of decreasing head-fnal compounds over time (1000s–2000s) Relative frequency of head-initial compounds over time (1000s–2000s) Comparison of relative frequencies of head-initial [N+A]N and head-fnal [A+N]N compounds over time (1000s–2000s) Relative frequency of increasing head-fnal compounds over time (1000s–2000s) Left-hemisphere regions consistently associated with morphological processing Example of morphological fow chart

57 224 229 309 309 310 310 311 311 563 607

xi

Contributors

ContributorsContributors

Víctor Acedo-Matellán is an Associate Professor of Portuguese and Spanish Linguistics at the University of Oxford. His main research interests lie in the morphosyntax of argument structure and the interface between syntax and the lexicon and morphology. He has published the monograph The Morphosyntax of Transitions in Oxford University Press, and he has articles in publications like Probus and The Linguistic Review. Grant Armstrong is an Associate Professor in the department of Spanish and Portuguese at the

University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research centres on the morphology and syntax of different varieties of Spanish and of Mayan languages. Olga Batiukova is an Associate Professor in the Department of Spanish Philology at the

Autonomous University of Madrid. She has researched and published in areas involving lexical theory and its impact on lexicography, syntax-lexicon interface, morphological encoding of lexical information, verbal aspect and psycholinguistic study of aspectual features. She recently co-authored the book The Lexicon (2019, Cambridge University Press) with James Pustejovsky. Carlota de Benito Moreno is an Assistant Professor of Language and Space in Ibero-Romance at the University of Zurich. Her research and publications focus on the study of morphosyntactic variation and change in Spanish and other Ibero-Romance languages, as well as methodological aspects of corpus linguistics. Ignacio Bosque is a Honorary Professor of Spanish Linguistics at the Complutense University

(Madrid) and a member of the Spanish Royal Academy. His felds of expertise include Spanish syntax and morphology, as well as the syntax-lexicon interface. He has also carried out some research in lexicology, lexicography and grammar teaching. Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata is an Associate Professor at the Department of Spanish Phi-

lology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), member of the Center for Theoretical Linguistics (CLT) and also member of the Lexicography and Diachrony Research Group. Her research interests are focused on Spanish morphology, particularly compounding, and linguistic variation, with special attention to Spanish and its dialectal and diachronic variation. José Camacho is a Professor of Hispanic Linguistics at the University of Illinois Chicago. His research focuses on the morphosyntax of Spanish, both monolingual and bilingual and Amazonian languages, specifcally coordination, switch-reference, questions, focus and aspect. He is particularly interested in syntactic variation across the Spanish-speaking world, including the Caribbean region. xii

Contributors

Bruno Camus Bergareche is a Professor of Spanish Linguistics at the University of Castile-La Mancha at Ciudad Real. His main research interests are Spanish morphology, historical syntax and the linguistic contacts between Basque and Spanish and the description of the varieties of Spanish in contact with Basque. Mónica Cantero is a Professor of Spanish at Drew University. The framework of her research is cultural linguistics, where she examines cultural-pragmatics and sociolinguistic representations of words, images and metaphors. Her scholarly articles have appeared in the journals Arizona Journal of Cultural Studies, Film-History, Filología y Lingüística, Developmental Science and Journal of Comparative Psychology, among others. Her interest in morphology focuses on analyzing the connection between word formation and pragmatic meaning in Spanish. Sonia Colina is a Professor of Hispanic Linguistics at the University of Arizona. In addition to

numerous chapters and articles on Spanish phonology, she is the author of Spanish Phonology (2009) and the coeditor of The Handbook of Spanish Phonology (2020), Fonología generativa contemporánea de la lengua española (2014), Romance Linguistics (2009) and Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology (2006). María Cristina Cuervo is an Associate Professor of Linguistics and Spanish at the University of

Toronto. Her main research focus lies on the syntax and morphology of argument structure and the construction of verbal meanings. Her research draws on natural language from a variety of sources (speakers’ intuitions, corpora and experimental data) and speaker populations (children, adult native speakers and second language learners). Antonio Fábregas is a Professor of Hispanic Linguistics at the University of Tromsø-Arctic University

of Norway. His main research interests are the syntactic analysis of morphological phenomena, the interface between syntax and phonology/semantics and the theoretical triggers for language variation. Elena Felíu Arquiola is of Spanish at Associate Professor at the Universidad de Jaén (Spain).

Her research focuses on Spanish morphology (mainly word formation) and on the relationships of morphology with phonology, semantics and syntax, as well as on morphological variation. Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo is a Juan de la Cierva postdoctoral researcher at the Universitat Rovira

i Virgili. She received her PhD from the Universitat de Girona in 2017. Her research focuses on morphology and its interaction with syntax and lexical semantics. She is especially interested in the morphosyntax of prefxes, the aspectual nature of adjectival participles, the typology of motion events and the linguistic cycle. Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Romance Languages

(Faculty of Arts) of Palacký University Olomouc (Czech Republic). He has published fve books and over 35 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, mainly on Spanish and Czech morphology and phraseology. María del Carmen Horno-Chéliz is an Associate Professor at the University of Zaragoza. She received her PhD in linguistics from the same university in 2001 and a degree in psychology (itinerary of clinic) by UNED in 2014. Her main feld of interest is the lexical-syntax interface, both from a theoretical and experimental (psycholinguistic) point of view. José Manuel Igoa is an Associate Professor at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, where

he teaches psycholinguistics and related subjects. He holds a PhD in psychology from the xiii

Contributors

Universidad Complutense de Madrid and has co-authored two books. He has published book chapters and journal articles on word and sentence comprehension and production, fgurative language understanding and bilingual language processing. Laura Malena Kornfeld is an Associate Professor of Spanish Grammar and Linguistics at the

University of Buenos Aires and an independent researcher within the National Scientifc and Technical Research Council (CONICET). She is the director of research projects concerning the description (and explanation) of the grammatical, lexical, pragmatic and social aspects of diferent linguistic varieties in Argentina. Rafael Marín is a Researcher of Linguistics at the laboratory STL (UMR 8163), CNRS/Uni-

versité de Lille 3. His work focuses on lexical aspect and related phenomena. He has mainly worked on non-verbal predication (adjectives and participles, copular constructions), psychological predicates and derivational morphology (nominalizations, deverbal adjectives). He is the editor of several volumes and has published in journals such as NLLT, Journal of Linguistics, Lingua and Linguistics. Josefa Martín García is an Associate Professor of Spanish Linguistics at the Universidad

Autónoma de Madrid. Her main research focuses on derivational morphology. She is the author of several books, chapters and articles on prefxation, nominalization and adjectivalization, among other topics. Her other felds of research are morphology teaching and the relationship between morphology and dictionary. Violeta Martínez-Paricio is an Assistant Professor in Spanish Linguistics at Universidad Complutense de Madrid. She received a PhD in linguistics from the University of Tromsø in 2013. Her area of specialization is theoretical phonology. More concretely, she is interested in metrical phonology and the interaction between phonology and morphology. Jaume Mateu is an Associate Professor of Catalan Language and Linguistics at the Universitat

Autònoma de Barcelona and senior researcher at the Center for Theoretical Linguistics (CLT). Most of his work is on the syntax and semantics of argument structure in Romance and Germanic languages. His current research is focused on the syntax of word formation and the structure of participles in Latin. José-Luis Mendívil-Giró is a Professor of General Linguistics at the University of Zaragoza (Spain). His research has focused on grammatical theory (with special attention to syntax and morphology), the nature and extent of language change and variation and the history and philosophy of linguistics. Silvina Montrul is a Professor of Spanish, Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition at the

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research focuses on linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to adult second language acquisition and bilingualism, with expertise in language loss and retention in minority language-speaking bilinguals. María Irene Moyna is a Professor of Hispanic Linguistics at Texas A&M University. She is

the author of Compound Words in Spanish (Benjamins, 2011), and she coedited It’s Not All About You: New Perspectives on Address Research (Benjamins, 2019) and Forms of Address in the Spanish of the Americas  (Benjamins, 2016). Her work has appeared in over 30 journals and collections. xiv

Contributors

María Ohannesian is an Associate Professor at the Department of Spanish Language and Lit-

erature in the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, where she is also member of the Center for Theoretical Linguistics (CLT). Her research area centres on phonological and morphological processes, especially in relation to Romance languages and Latin. Isabel Oltra-Massuet is an Associate Professor–Serra Húnter Fellow at the Rovira i Virgili

University. Her main research interests are in morphology and its interface with syntax, semantics and the lexicon, in argument structure, and the theory of distributed morphology. Since 2015, she has been working as external collaborator of the NeLLAB-NYUAD, with Alec Marantz’s team. Alberto Pastor is an Associate Professor of Spanish and General Linguistics at Southern Methodist University. His research focuses on the syntax-semantics interface, specifcally degree constructions in the adjectival and nominal domains. Additionally, he explores sociolinguistic issues related to Spanish in the United States such as language contact, language maintenance/loss, language ideologies and attitudes and linguistic landscape. His publications have appeared in peer-reviewed journals, including Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, Probus and Bilingual Research Journal. Enrique Pato is a Professor at the Université de Montréal (Canada). Doctor in Spanish philology from the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, his feld of research focuses on the study of Spanish grammar and its varieties in Spain and America. To date, he has supervised six doctoral theses and 27 master’s theses. Silvia Perpiñán is currently a “Beatriz Galindo” senior researcher at the Universitat Pompeu

Fabra in Barcelona (Spain). She obtained her MA and PhD at the University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign (USA). She has worked on the acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax by L2 learners and heritage speakers and on the expression of morphology in Catalan-Spanish bilingualism. Isabel Pujol Payet is an Associate Professor at the Universitat de Girona (Spain). Her main area of research is historical morphology, particularly the evolution of prefxing processes and the interaction with semantics, argument structure and lexical aspect in complex verbs and psych verbs. She has published a signifcant amount of articles and chapters in international journals, such as Morphology, and publishing houses, such as OUP. Franz Rainer is a Professor of Romance Languages at WU Vienna and Member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Academia Europaea. His main feld of research is Romance word formation. He is the author, among many other contributions, of Spanische Wortbildungslehre (1993). He is also co-editor of La formazione delle parole in italiano (2004, with Maria Grossmann) and the fve volumes of Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (2015–16, with P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, and S. Olsen). Gabriela Resnik is an Associate Professor in Spanish Grammar at the Universidad Nacional de

General Sarmiento, near Buenos Aires, Argentina. Her research work focuses in Spanish DP syntax, with publications on the functional structure of event nouns, grammaticalized adjectives and vocatives, often from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. Antonio Rifón is a Professor in the Spanish Language Department at the University of Vigo. He holds a PhD in Hispanic philology and a degree in philosophy. His research focuses on word xv

Contributors

formation and lexical semantics of Spanish language. He is currently working on applying the graph theory to word formation and thematic analysis of discourse. Claudia H. Sánchez Gutiérrez is an Assistant Professor of Spanish Linguistics at the Univer-

sity of California, Davis. She specializes in second language acquisition, with an emphasis on vocabulary studies and derivational morphology. Her publications have focused on diferent aspects of the acquisition of morphological awareness and morphological teaching and their impact on vocabulary learning. Begoña Sanromán Vilas is a Senior Lecturer and Adjunct Professor in Spanish Linguistics at

the University of Helsinki. Her research interests are related to the lexicon-grammar interface. She has published papers on collocations, light verb expressions, semi-lexicality, grammaticalization, and the category of evidentiality and epistemic modality. Adriana Soto-Corominas is an Assistant Professor at the Universitat Internacional de Cata-

lunya. Her research focuses on the development of morphosyntax and vocabulary in bilingual children, with special emphasis on individual diferences and trajectories. Linnaea Stockall is a Reader in the Cognitive Neuroscience of Language at Queen Mary

University of London and a member of the Morphemes and Meaning Research Group. She uses the tools of psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics to investigate the earliest stages of morphosyntactic and morphosemantic processing, with a comparative cross-linguistic focus. She has also worked on genericity, telicity, the grammar of mass/count and L2 grammatical attainment. Vicenç Torrens is an Associate Professor at the National Distance Education University, Madrid.

His research interests are the acquisition of clitic pronouns, tense, agreement, mood and aspect in language acquisition and language impairment. He has been a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a visiting scholar at Harvard University. Francesc Torres-Tamarit is a Researcher at SFL, CNRS/Université Paris 8. He is a phonolo-

gist specializing in metrical and prosodic phonology, constraint-based theories of phonological computation, and the phonology of Romance languages. Salvador Valera is an Associate Professor in English Linguistics at the University of Granada. He has authored and edited books, journals, book chapters and journal papers on morphology and has organized and taken part in a number of international events and research actions. He has worked under the supervision of scholars as Prof. Laurie Bauer, Prof. Dieter Kastovsky and Prof. Pavol Štekauer. Margot Vivanco is an Assistant Professor of the University of Castile–La Mancha (Spain) and a member of the research group Grammatica Varia (GraVa). Her research focuses on the syntaxsemantics interface, middle voice, valency alternations and lexical aspect. She is also interested in diachronic syntax and linguistic variation. Ramón F. Zacarías-Ponce de León is a Senior Researcher in the Department of Spanish Linguistics at the Institute for Philological Research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), where he received his PhD in linguistics in 2009. His research and publications focus on Spanish morphology and semantics. He is the head of the project Morfolex for studying neologism and lexical structure.

xvi

Acknowledgements

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Acting as an editor is normally not an easy task, but the editors of this volume are happy to say that for them it has been a pleasant experience from beginning to end. We would like to thank, frst of all, Javier Muñoz-Basols and Manel Lacorte for having the idea of commissioning to us this much-needed handbook and also for giving us a great deal of freedom in how to shape the volume. Second, we would like to thank all our contributors, who have managed to deliver great pieces on time in the middle of a global pandemic and in particular understood the need to be synthetic in the information even when that meant that a lot of their knowledge on the subject could not be represented on paper. We must say that our contributors have been the main reason editing this volume has been a fruitful and pleasant experience for us. Antonio Fábregas would like to thank, in particular, the other editors for a great coordination and fruitful discussions at diferent stages of the project. Víctor Acedo-Matellán would like to thank Antonio Fábregas for coordinating the whole thing while paying attention to all the details and doing it with unwavering enthusiasm and all the editors for making everything smooth and easy in the middle of a very difcult time. He also acknowledges funding by Ministerio de Economía y Empresa (MINECO) (Spain) via the project “Redes de variación microparamétricas en las lenguas románicas” (FFI2017–87140-C4– 1-P) [“Networks of microparametric variation in Romance languages”]. Grant Armstrong would like to thank Antonio Fábregas for expertly coordinating this project and the other editors for their insight and assistance. María Cristina Cuervo thanks her fellow editors for forming a fantastic working team, with special thanks to Antonio Fábregas for his leadership, understanding and encouragement in regular and difcult times. Isabel Pujol Payet acknowledges the fnancial support from Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad (MINECO) (Spain) via the project FFI2017–87140-C4–2-P “Variación microparamétrica y cambio lingüístico en morfología, sintaxis y discurso” and from Generalitat de Catalunya via the research group 2017 SGR 634. She also thanks Antonio Fábregas for his leadership in this project and the group of editors for their willingness and the shared privilege of seeing this work born.

xvii

Introduction

IntroductionIntroduction

Antonio Fábregas, Víctor Acedo-Matellán, Grant Armstrong, María Cristina Cuervo and Isabel Pujol Payet

This handbook presents, in a synthetic and easy-to-manage format, the current state of the feld in Spanish morphology. The chapters that compose this volume present a balance between empirical description and analytical questions, ofering the reader both the main empirical facts in each domain and the main theoretical questions and analytical options that those empirical facts have motivated. The chapters included in this handbook cover all major areas of Spanish morphology, its main processes, its synchronic and diachronic manifestation, its acquisition and loss and its applications to language teaching.

1 Goals of this volume To the best of our knowledge, this is the frst handbook specifcally dedicated to the feld of Spanish morphology, attending both to the empirical properties and the analyses that have treated them. For those of us who were studying Hispanic linguistics during the 90s or late 80s, the range of works that we could use to understand Spanish morphology was quite reduced, in particular when compared to the available works in syntax or dialectology. This seemed to us surprising, given the proverbial richness of the morphological component in Spanish, with a rich infectional system and a good number of active word-formation processes in both derivation and compounding. Before the publication of Bosque and Demonte (1999), with 13 chapters dedicated to morphology—covering almost 800 pages—most available works were purely descriptive and/or restricted in scope. The Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española (RAE 1973) contained less than 200 pages about morphology, where many of the sections actually talked about categorial syntax—the identifcation of grammatical categories—and the analytical options were rarely mentioned. Lang (1990) was frequently used in the classroom through its Spanish translation, but the text was concentrated on derivational processes and adopted a decidedly descriptive point of view, which, however, was welcome given the attention paid to variation facts. There were also some classic works that were viewed with reverence but rarely studied in the classroom, such as Alemany Bolufer (1920). The situation was arguably a bit better in the domain of historical morphology (for instance, Alvar and Pottier 1983), but the only available work that tried to cover both description and analysis for Spanish synchronic morphology was Varela (1991), a book that constituted for many of us the real introduction to the feld of morphology and the scientifc analysis of word structure. As young scholars or students, our theoretical sources were almost always texts written from the perspective of other languages, such as Aronof (1976), Booij (1977) and, above all, Scalise (1983), concentrating on xviii

Introduction

Italian, which was our only additional source for some analytical problems that were specifc to Romance languages and therefore also relevant for Spanish—parasynthesis, restrictive compounding, wide-ranging agreement, theme vowels or desinences. The 800 pages about Spanish morphology in Bosque and Demonte (1999) improved the situation to some extent. At that point, scholars interested in Spanish morphology already had a detailed description of the empirical facts of the language, from infection to compounding, and their interaction with syntax and phonology—to a smaller extent, also with semantics. However, this work was strongly descriptive, as the title of the grammar expresses (Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española), and the perspective adopted in each chapter could be very different, with some works adopting a heavily diachronic point of view that other chapters simply ignored. Despite these limitations, which are unavoidable in a descriptive grammar of collective authorship, those 13 chapters established the basis for other studies that contributed to flling the gap. Alvar (2000) dedicates fve chapters to morphology in a textbook about Hispanic linguistics, when the typical situation before this had been to only include one chapter, if anything. Varela (2005), concentrating again on word formation, constituted a very useful addition to the literature, with a textbook that combined theory and practice in a synthetic form that was particularly appropriate to introduce undergraduate students into morphological research. Many established Spanish morphologists felt encouraged to publish compilations of their articles, and morphological information—already with some analytic observations—started to be more frequently represented in general works, such as the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas (RAE and ASALE 2005). Thanks, in part, to the attention paid to morphology in Bosque and Demonte (1999), the frst volume of the Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española (RAE and ASALE 2009) considerably expanded the description of morphological facts, going far beyond the information contained in Bosque and Demonte (1999), adding a broad range of variation facts and incorporating diachrony and synchrony to each of the ten chapters devoted to morphology in the volume. However, some facts still remained under the radar, such as the acquisition or loss of morphology, the so-called minority word-formation processes—such as blending or truncation—and despite several observations about potential analytic problems that are included in the text, the perspective was openly descriptive. Theoretical issues in Spanish morphology were partially covered in some works. Several handbooks of Spanish linguistics came out in the years following the Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española, such as Hualde, Olarrea, and O’Rourke (2012), Gutiérrez Rexach (2016) and Geeslin (2018). In all these works, there are chapters or entries about morphology, but it is frequently the case that morphological phenomena are put together into one or two chapters that make a heroic efort to condense the information. In 2013, two textbooks of morphology came out in Spanish: Fábregas (2013) combines description and theory, but it does not specifcally discuss Spanish morphology; Aguirre (2013) concentrates more on Spanish but adopts a highly descriptive view, again. This handbook tries to fll the gap that the other volumes, given their diferent goals and contexts of publication, did not fll. We hope to have provided the interested reader with a representative overview of all things concerning the current feld of Spanish morphology, combining empirical description with the discussion of analytical or theoretical problems. The volume is, we believe, useful both for undergraduate students and postgraduate students and researchers in the feld. The undergraduate student will fnd an introduction to the main empirical facts, and the researcher will be pointed to the more problematic empirical properties and the analytical options that have been entertained to account for them. Similarly, we hope that the volume will be equally relevant for linguists working on Spanish and researchers xix

Introduction

working on morphological theory. The frst group will fnd relevant information about the language of study and how the morphological phenomena interact with other components of grammar. The second group will be able to see how the Spanish facts have been used to argue for particular theories about language and the architecture of grammar; it is with this second group of scholars in mind that we have chosen to publish the volume in English.

2 Scope and structure of this volume The reader using this volume, or parts of it, as an introduction to Spanish morphology might be surprised by some of the contents that are discussed here, as they include interface questions with phonology, semantics, pragmatics and syntax. Those already familiar with morphological research, in contrast, will not be surprised. In practice, there are two ways to understand “morphology”. In a restricted sense, morphology is the part of grammar that discusses the internal structure of words, period. In a broader sense, morphology is the branch of linguistics that discusses “all things related to words”, and as such, units and operations in morphology are a necessarily interrelated component of a general theory of language. We have adopted the second perspective here. The reader will fnd chapters discussing traditional morphology, such as the units of analysis; the processes that generate new words and the traditional discussion about the main morphological operations of infection, derivation and compounding, but also chapters devoted to the acquisition of morphology, the representation of words in the mind, the relation between morphology and syntax, the interaction between morphological marking and phonological processes and morphology in the context of language pathology. This volume contains 42 chapters, divided into four parts. The frst part provides an introduction to the main problems in morphological research: units (Chapter  1), formal marking (Chapters 2, 3 and 4), the diferent operations (Chapter 5), variation (Chapter 6) and the dialogue between synchronic and diachronic approaches (Chapter 7). The second part expands on the diferent processes from a morphologically internal perspective: the infectional properties of the main categories (Chapters 8 to 11), derivation through sufxes (Chapters 13 to 15), prefxes (Chapter 17) and appreciative morphology (Chapter 19), compounding (Chapter 20) and other processes (Chapter 22), also from a historical perspective (Chapters  12, 16, 18 and 21). The third part presents the grammar-internal connections between morphology and other areas (with a general overview in Chapter 23): phonology (Chapters 24 to 27), semantics and pragmatics (Chapters 28 to 30) and syntax (Chapters 31 to 35). Finally, Part IV presents the relations between morphology and broader language felds, such as acquisition (Chapters  36 to 38), psycholinguistics (Chapters  39 to 41) and language teaching (Chapter 42).

References Aguirre, C. 2013. Manual de morfología. Madrid: Castalia. Alemany Bolufer, J. 1920. Tratado de la formación de palabras en la lengua castellana. Madrid: Suárez. Alvar, M., dir. 2000. Introducción a la lingüística española. Barcelona: Ariel. Alvar, M., and B. Pottier. 1983. Morfología histórica del español. Madrid: Gredos. Aronof, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Booij, G. 1977. Dutch Morphology. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Bosque, I., and V. Demonte, dirs. 1999. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Fábregas, A. 2013. La morfología. Madrid: Síntesis. Geeslin, K., ed. 2018. The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. xx

Introduction

Gutiérrez Rexach, J. 2016. Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica. New York and Oxford: Routledge. Hualde, J. I., A. Olarrea, and E. O’Rourke, eds. 2012. The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Lang, M. 1990. Spanish Word Formation. Oxford: Routledge. Real Academia Española. 1973. Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2005. Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Scalise, S. 1983. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Varela, S. 1991. Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis. Varela, S. 2005. Morfología léxica: La formación de palabras. Madrid: Gredos.

xxi

Part I

Basic concepts and issues

1 The main units of Spanish morphology Elena Felíu Arquiola The main units of Spanish morphology

Roots, afxes, stems, words (Principales unidades en morfología española: raíces, afjos, temas, palabras)

Elena Felíu Arquiola

1 Introduction This chapter presents the basic units used in the morphological analysis of Spanish. In section 2, we characterise the object of study of morphology. In section 3, we present and defne the main units of Spanish morphology (morpheme, root, afx, stem, word). Finally, in section  4, we address some of the analytical and theoretical problems these units raise. Keywords: units of analysis; Spanish morphology; infection; word formation En este capítulo se presentan las unidades básicas empleadas en el análisis morfológico del español. En la sección 2 se caracteriza el objeto de estudio de la morfología. Posteriormente, en la sección 3 se presentan y defnen las principales unidades de la morfología del español (morfema, raíz, afjo, tema, palabra). Finalmente, en la sección 4 se abordan algunos de los problemas analíticos y teóricos que estas unidades plantean. Palabras clave: unidades de análisis; morfología del cespañol; fexión; formación de palabras

2 Basic relations within a word The aim of this chapter is to present, defne and discuss the main units of Spanish morphology. The units of a scientifc discipline are the instruments that are used to delimit, characterise and analyse the object of study of that discipline. So we will begin by determining what the object of study of morphology is. Morphology can be defned in general terms as the subdiscipline of linguistics that studies the systematic relationship between the forms of words and the grammatical and semantic

3

Elena Felíu Arquiola

information they contain. From this point of view, examples like those in (1) are of interest for morphology: (1) a. for ‘fower’, fores ‘fowers’ b. cárcel ‘prison’, cárceles ‘prisons’ Two kinds of relationship may be identifed in (1). On the one hand, in (1a), we fnd a pair of word forms that share a constituent (for) and show a related meaning (‘sprout of many plants, formed by coloured leaves, from which the fruit will be formed’), with the diference that fores has a plural feature which for is lacking (see Camacho, this volume). A similar relationship is found in the case of (1b) between cárcel and cárceles. As we know, fores and cárceles are not included in the dictionary; we have to search for for and cárcel instead. The reason is that plural nouns (fores, cárceles) are considered grammatical forms of the nouns for and cárcel, respectively, and not diferent words from a lexical point of view. On the other hand, fores and cárceles relate to each other by the fact that the feature plural is expressed by the same formal means. These two types of relationship (between a singular and a plural noun form and between two plural noun forms showing the same formal exponent) are the kind of object of study of one of the main areas into which morphology is divided, namely infection or infectional morphology, which deals with the diferent grammatical forms that a word can display. In addition to this, infectional morphology is also interested in grammatical properties of words, even though these properties may not have formal expression in a particular word. This is the case of the gender feature of the noun for: the value feminine lacks a formal exponent in that noun but manifests itself in other elements of the NP due to the agreement relationship, as shown in (2): (2) una for blanca a.f fower.f white.f ‘a white fower’ Finally, this area of morphology also deals with the analysis of meaningless constituents which play a role in the structure of the word, as is the case of the thematic vowel of Spanish verbs (hablar ‘to talk’, temer ‘to fear’, partir ‘to leave’), present both in diferent forms of the verbal paradigm (hablar, hablaban, hablaremos) and in some deverbal formations (hablador ‘talkative’, hablante ‘speaker’). Let us pay attention now to the examples in (3): (3) a. for ‘fower’, forero ‘vase’, forista ‘forist’, forecer ‘to fourish’ b. cárcel ‘prison’, carcelero ‘prison guard’, carcelario ‘related to prison’, encarcelar ‘to imprison’ Diferent relationships can be identifed in (3). The most obvious is the one between for and the rest of examples in (3a) and cárcel and the rest of examples in (3b). In both series, there is a constituent that is shared by all the members (for and cárcel, respectively); there is also a shared meaning related to that constituent. In both series, the shared constituent is combined with other formal elements (-ero, -ista, -ecer, -ario, en- + -ar) in such a way that new formations are obtained. These new formations include the meaning of the shared constituent together with more lexical semantic content (for instance, forero ‘glass to put fowers in’); therefore, they are collected in dictionaries as independent entries. The relationship between members of series like those in (3a) and (3b) is the object of study of the other main area into which morphology 4

The main units of Spanish morphology

is divided, namely word formation (see Mendívil, this volume, for a more detailed delimitation of infection and word formation). In addition to this, other relationships can be identifed in (3) which are also of interest to morphology. For instance, forista designates the person whose job deals with selling or arranging fowers, whereas the name for the person who guards the prison is carcelero (and not carcelista). At the same time, forero usually designates a glass to put fowers in. Phenomena like the expression of the same meaning by diferent formal means (forista ~ carcelero), as well as the expression of diferent meanings by identical formal means (forero ~ carcelero), are of interest for morphology too, specifcally for the area of word formation. Together with these phenomena, morphology focuses on determining the relationships which are established among the constituents of an adjective like inmovilizable, since diferent internal relationships are associated with diferent meanings (Varela 1990, 2005): (4) a. [in [[[movil]A iza]V ble]A]A = ‘that which cannot be mobilised’ b. [[[in [movil]A]A iza]V ble]A = ‘that which can be immobilised or made immobile’ Finally, morphology is concerned with the analysis of the rules or patterns that give rise to new words and the identifcation of the constraints that restrict their application. This is the case of the formation of adjectives by means of sufx -ble, which combines—in general terms—with transitive action verbs (aconsejar ‘to advise’ > aconsejable, plegar ‘to fold’ > plegable), whereas it adjoins neither to transitive stative verbs (tener ‘to have’ > *tenible) nor to intransitive verbs (morir ‘to die’ > *morible). A more detailed presentation of the issues and problems that morphology deals with can be found in Fábregas and Scalise (2012) and Fábregas (2015).

3 Delimitation of the concepts and empirical aspects As we have seen, morphology deals with the internal analysis of words, which can be considered the major unit of morphological analysis. Morphemes are the other basic unit. Traditionally, a morpheme is defned as the minimal linguistic sign, that is to say, the minimal pairing of form and meaning. If we go back to an example like forero ‘vase’ in (3a), we see that two morphemes can be identifed (for ‘fower’ and -ero ‘place or object related to N’) because of their recurrency in other formations with a similar meaning (for ‘fower’, forero ‘vase’, forista ‘forist’, forecer ‘to fourish’; forero ‘vase’, cenicero ‘ashtray’, llavero ‘key-ring’, avispero ‘wasp’s nest’). However, as will be shown in the next section, this traditional defnition is problematic (see also Camus, this volume). Morphemes can belong to two main subtypes: roots and afxes. A root is usually defned as a morpheme with lexical meaning—roughly, a meaning that refers to independent concepts— shared by all the members of a lexical family, as is the case of for in the examples in (3a). The main diference between roots and afxes is related to their distributional properties. Roots may appear as independent forms or free morphemes (5a), although they can also be bound morphemes (niñ-o). In addition, roots usually show a certain positional freedom in the complex word (5b), in the sense that the same root can appear both in the right edge and in the left edge of the word (Fábregas and Scalise 2012, 8). Instead, afxes are bound morphemes that cannot appear as independent forms (6a). They need to combine with another element, either a root (6b) or a more complex unit (6c), and their position is fxed in the complex word (6d), to the point that they are named according to that position. Thus, des- in desleal (6d) is a prefx because it is situated to the left of the root, whereas -ero in forero (6d) is a sufx because it is added to the right of the root (see Fábregas, this volume; Gibert-Sotelo, this volume): 5

Elena Felíu Arquiola

(5) a. for ‘fower’, leal ‘loyal, faithful’ b. lealtad ‘loyalty’, desleal ‘disloyal’ (6) a. *des-, *-ero, *-tad b. desleal ‘disloyal’ c. desaconsejar ‘to advise against’ d. desleal ‘disloyal’, desobediente ‘disobedient’; forero ‘vase’, cenicero ‘ashtray’ Together with prefxes and sufxes, other types of afxes are usually identifed in Spanish morphology according to their distribution: infxes and interfxes. Infxes are afxes that appear inside the root, as is the case of the diminutive afx in formations like those in (7): (7) a. azúcar ‘sugar’ > azuqu-ít-ar b. Víctor > Vict-ít-or Both -ar and -or are not decomposable morphemes but segments belonging to the root morpheme, as can be seen in other derived words like azucarillo ‘sugar cube’, azucarar ‘to sweeten’ or Victorcito ‘Víctor.dim’. However, there is no consensus regarding the consideration of the diminutive afx as an infx in Spanish: whereas this hypothesis is defended in the work of Méndez Dosuna and Pensado (1993), among others, it is rejected in the work of González Ollé (1961) and, more recently, of Martín Camacho (2001). These latter authors consider azuquítar and Victítor hypercorrect reconstructed forms created from azuquita and Victito. In turn, these would be diminutive nouns formed from the pronunciation of the nouns azúcar and Víctor without a fnal consonant, which is typical of the varieties spoken in the South of Spain. Since Malkiel (1958), interfxes (see Ohannesian, this volume) are defned in Spanish morphology as afxes that appear between the root and another afx, either a sufx (humo ‘smoke’ > humareda ‘cloud of smoke’) or a prefx (ancho ‘wide’ > ensanchar ‘to widen’), although the latter case is not always recognised as an interfx (see, for example, Portolés 1999). Some authors also include among interfxes linking vowels that appear inside compounds, like pelirrojo or termómetro (Dressler 1986; Pena 1999). These types of interfxes are usually defned as linking elements devoid of meaning, a characterization that poses problems to the traditional concept of morpheme, as will be discussed in section 4. In addition to the aforementioned examples, units like -isc- in enamoriscarse ‘to fall in love not very seriously’ (from enamorarse ‘to fall in love) or -ot- in bailotear ‘to dance about’ (from bailar ‘to dance’), which add an aspectual modifcation to the verbal base, are also considered interfxes (Portolés 1999), although other authors consider them verbal appreciative sufxes (Pena 1993) (see Kornfeld, this volume). Now that the concept of afx has already been introduced, the defnition of root can be completed in the following way: a root is the unit that remains in a word when all the afxes (both derivational and infectional) are removed (Pena 1999): des-leal-es ‘disloyal.pl’. Both roots and afxes may present formal variants called allomorphs, as shown in (8). The phenomenon is known as allomorphy (see Armstrong, this volume): (8) a. Root allomorphy: escuela ‘school’, escolar ‘related to school’ b. Afx allomorphy: maduro ‘mature’ > madurez ‘maturity’, bello ‘beautiful’ > belleza ‘beauty’ A special kind of root can be identifed in Spanish morphology, namely classical roots (see Buenafuentes, this volume). These elements, which come from Classical Greek or Latin, cannot be used as independent words. Instead, they need to combine either with a derivative afx (9a), with another classical root (9b) or with a Spanish word (9c): 6

The main units of Spanish morphology

(9) a. ácrono ‘achronic’, crónico ‘chronic’ b. cronograma ‘timeline’ c. cronoescalada ‘uphill time trial’ One of the main diferences between classical roots and afxes consists of the fact that classical roots can be combined with each other (9b) or with an afx (9a) in order to create new words. However, afxes do not give rise to derived words in combination with other afxes: *in+ción, *a+dad (Varela and Martín García 1999). Together with roots and afxes, the notion of stem is also fundamental in Spanish morphology. Diferent defnitions can be found in the literature. On the one hand, the stem is understood as the unit that is left once we remove the infectional afxes from a word (Pena 1999), like in canta-n ‘sing.3pl’, where we fnd the root cant- plus the thematic vowel -a-.1 In this sense, the stem can coincide with the root (blanc-o ‘white’) or not (blancuzc-o ‘whitish’, cantá-bamos ‘we sang’) (Pena 1999, 4316). From this point of view, a diference is made between words whose fnal vowel marks gender, in which root and stem coincide (blanc-o ‘white’), and words whose fnal vowel is not related to gender infection (libro ‘book’, alegre ‘cheerful’), in which the stem is considered to be formed by the root (libr-, alegr-) plus the fnal unstressed vowel (stem = libr- + -o, stem = alegr- + -e). On the other hand, the notion of stem is more recently defned as “the root plus a morpheme that marks (or defnes) the word class adscription of the root, excluding infectional afxes for tense, person or number” (Fábregas 2018, 262). In the case of verbs, the morpheme that marks the word class adscription is the thematic vowel (cantar to sing’, comer ‘to eat’, partir ‘to leave’). Thematic vowels defne diferent verbal conjugations. For example, verbs belonging to the frst conjugation, like cantar, form the imperfective past in -ba (cantaba ‘sang.1sg/3sg’), whereas verbs belonging to the second (comer) and third conjugations (partir) form that tense in -ía (comía ‘ate.1sg/3sg’, partía ‘left.1sg/3sg’) (see Camus, this volume). In the case of nouns and adjectives, the element that marks the word class adscription is traditionally called desinence, both in cases where this fnal unstressed vowel is not associated with gender infection (suel-o ‘foor’, mes-a ‘table’, muell-e ‘dock’) and in cases where the desinence is a gender marker (blanc-o ‘white.m’, blanc-a ‘white.f ’) (see Camacho, this volume, and Pastor, this volume). Summing up, three levels of constituency are distinguished in Spanish infected words like the verb form cantan ‘sing.3pl’ (10) or the plural noun encuentros ‘meeting.pl’ (11): (10) cantan (Fábregas 2018, 262) a. root: cantb. stem: cant-a c. word: cant-a-n (11) encuentros (Bermúdez-Otero 2013, 4) a. root: encuentrb. stem: encuentr-o c. word: encuentr-o-s As can be seen in (10) and (11), stems play a role in infection, since they are the target of infectional processes. In addition, stems play a role in word formation. There are some wordformation processes that take roots as their bases,2 that is to say, as the unit to which they apply, as shown in (12). However, other word-formation processes take stems as their bases, as shown in (13): 7

Elena Felíu Arquiola

(12) a. Derivation: confesar ‘to confess’, confes-ión ‘confession’; pelo ‘hair’, pel-udo ‘hairy’ b. Compounding: agri-dulce ‘sweet and sour’, pel-i-rrojo ‘redhaired’ (13) a. Derivation: agrupar ‘to group’, agrupa-miento ‘grouping’; aburrir ‘to bore’, aburri-miento ‘boredom’ b. Compounding: corta-césped ‘lit. cut.ThV + mown’ ‘lawnmowner’, para-sol ‘lit. stop.ThV + sun’ ‘sunshade’. Finally, let us turn to the frst unit of analysis we mentioned at the beginning of this section, the word. Although it is an intuitive concept, it is very difcult to defne using crosslinguistically valid criteria, as Haspelmath (2011) argues in detail (see also Piera 2009 for relevant refections on the defnition of word). The characterization of the word is also difcult from an intralinguistic point of view, because the results difer depending on the criterion used. Leaving aside the orthographic criterion (unit delimited by two spaces in writing), whose relevance is low, the main criteria usually used in order to defne the word are the following (Felíu Arquiola 2015): phonological, morphological, lexical, distributional, combinatory, syntactic. From a phonological point of view, the word constitutes a pronunciation unit. In this sense, an example like la mesa ‘the table’ could be considered a word. By contrast, adverbs in -mente like cuidadosamente ‘carefully’ could be excluded from that characterization, since two accents can be identifed (cuidadòsaménte). As for the morphological criterion, the word is characterised by the fxed order of its constituents, as well as by their inseparability. The frst part of the defnition is usually true (forero but *erofor; desleal but *lealdes). However, the characteristic of inseparability is not always fulflled, as is the case of coordination structures like tranquila y cuidadosamente ‘calmly and carefully’ or becas pre- y postdoctorales ‘pre- and postdoctoral scholarships’. Let us turn to the lexical criterion. From this perspective, the word can be understood as the citation form or lemma of a set of word forms (for in the case of for and fores; cantar in the case of cantas, cantan, cantábamos, cantaremos, etc.). As for the point of view of lexical storage, the word has been defned as a unit stored in the lexicon (see Horno and Igoa, this volume). However, other types of form-meaning pairings can also be listed in the lexicon, as is the case of afxes (re- ‘again’ in reescribir ‘to rewrite’, reedifcar ‘to rebuild’), on the one hand, or multiverbal expressions whose meaning is not compositional (tomar el pelo a alguien ‘to pull someone’s leg’), on the other hand. Regarding a distributional point of view, the word is characterised as the minimal free form. Many elements considered words in Spanish grammatical tradition do not conform to this characterisation, since they cannot appear independently: articles (la mesa ‘the table’), unstressed possessives (mi mesa ‘my table’), prepositions (las patas de la mesa ‘the legs of the table’), conjunctions (la mesa y la silla ‘the table and the chair’), unstressed object pronouns (Limpié la mesa ‘I cleaned the table’ > La limpié ‘I cleaned it’) and some adverbs (una mesa muy grande ‘a very big table’). However, the combinatorial criterion, which states that words are characterised by the possibility of introducing other words between them, identifes some of these units as words (la gran mesa ‘the big table’, mi gran mesa ‘my big table’). Other elements, like unstressed object pronouns, cannot be considered words from this point of view either. Compare, in this sense, *la casi limpié with casi la limpié ‘I almost cleaned it’. Finally, we will take into account the syntactic criterion, which says that “words are the smallest units that syntax can manipulate” (Fábregas and Scalise 2012, 28). This means that words are syntactic atoms; that is, syntactic operations do not have access to word components, which is the usual formulation of the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (see Bosque 2019 for a recent revision of this principle). This fact is exemplifed in (14) with a case of pronominalization. As can be seen, the antecedent of a pronoun cannot be a part of a word: 8

The main units of Spanish morphology

(14) *Compré un lava[platos]i pero no losi lava bien (Varela 1990, 37) ‘I bought a dishiwasher but it does not wash themi well’ However, the defnition of words as syntactic atoms poses several problems, as will be discussed in section 4.

4 Analytical and theoretical questions raised by the units of morphology In this section, we will address some of the theoretical questions that arise from the units presented in section 3. In particular, we will focus on the morpheme concept, on the stem as a unit of lexical storage and, fnally, on the word as a syntactic atom. In section 3, we defned the morpheme as the minimal linguistic sign, or the minimal pairing of form and meaning. However, this traditional defnition has to face several questions. On the one hand, not every formal constituent of a complex word is associated with a meaning. This is the case, as we have seen, of some interfxes (ensanchar, humareda). It is also the case of thematic or stem vowels (cantar, mesa). Although these latter elements lack meaning, they are part of the formal structure of the word and have a grammatical function, since they mark the word class adscription of the root and provide information on the conjugational or declensional class to which the stem belongs. On the other hand, it is often possible to distinguish morphological constituents in series of words to which it is not possible to assign a clear meaning from a synchronic point of view, as happens with the root duc- and the prefxes of the following learned verbs: aducir ‘to claim’, conducir ‘to drive, to lead, to conduct’’, inducir ‘to induce’, producir ‘to produce’, reducir ‘to reduce’ and so on. In order to give account of this type of data, the defnition of the morpheme has been reformulated in such a way that the reference to meaning is removed. Thus, the morpheme is characterised as the minimal grammatical unit by many researchers from Aronof (1976) onwards. In addition, there are other types of phenomena in Spanish morphology—and in the morphology of fusional languages in general—that have led diferent authors to question the validity of the morpheme as the basic unit of analysis. This is the case of cumulative exponence or the many-to-one mapping between meaning and form in morphological expressions, very frequent in Spanish verbal conjugation (see Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume, and Camus, this volume). An example comes from the verbal forms cantáramos and cantásemos, in which the constituents -ra- and -se- mark three morphosyntactic categories: tense (past), aspect (imperfective) and mood (indicative and subjunctive, respectively). It is also the case of multiple or extended exponence or the one-to-many mapping between meaning and form. For instance, in the verbal form quepas (from caber ‘to ft’), subjunctive is marked both by the constituent -a- (quepas) and by the allomorph of the root /kep-/ (quepas) (see Pena 1999; Fábregas 2013 for a detailed exposition of the difculties raised by the morpheme as a unit of analysis). In order to account for this kind of phenomena, diferent morphological theories have been proposed which do not recognise the morpheme. It is the case, on the one hand, of Item-andProcess Theory (Aronof 1976; Beard 1995). Its main unit of analysis is the lexeme, which undergoes morphological processes or operations—conceived as functions—that are marked by diferent means, either afxes, formal changes in the lexeme, both possibilities or none. An example dealing with the formation of plural noun forms is shown in (15): (15) Plural of the nouns casa ‘house’, for ‘fower’ and crisis ‘crisis’: a. plural (casa) = casas 9

Elena Felíu Arquiola

b. plural (for) = fores c. plural (crisis) = crisis Word-and-Paradigm Theory (Matthews 1974, 1991; Stump 2001) also rejects the morpheme as a unit of analysis. Instead, the word is considered the basic morphological unit, which cannot be decomposed in smaller units. From this point of view, word forms in a paradigm express diferent sets of grammatical properties. Unlike Item-and-Process, it is not necessary to consider that there is a basic word form from which other word forms are generated by means of the application of a morphological process, since all the forms of a word are understood as members of the word paradigm at the same level. It is not a derivational theory of morphology but a realisational one, since the base of the analysis is not the processes or the derivations that a word or a lexeme undergo but the correspondences that exist between diferent forms of a word and diferent sets of grammatical properties, as shown in Table 1.1 for the case of the adjective blanco ‘white’ and in Table 1.2 for the case of the present subjunctive of the verb caber ‘to ft’: Table 1.1 Paradigm of blanco

Table 1.2 Present subjunctive

blanco ‘white’

caber ‘to ft’ Present subjunctive

masc.sing.

blanco

fem.sing.

blanca

1st sg.

quepa

masc.pl.

blancos

2nd sg.

quepas

fem.pl.

blancas

3rd sg.

quepa

1st pl.

quepamos

2nd pl.

quepáis

3rd pl.

quepan

We will turn now to the second issue mentioned at the beginning of this section: the stem as a unit of lexical storage. As Fábregas (2018) discusses, there is a debate in the literature regarding the minimal units that are lexically listed in Spanish: roots or stems. In Distributed Morphology, acategorial roots, which are segmentable units, are listed in the lexicon, and they constitute the beginning of the morphological derivation of a complex word. For instance, the complex adjective nuboso ‘cloudy’ would be derived from the root nub- plus sufx -os- and the theme vowel -o. In other morphological theories, like the one proposed by Bermúdez-Otero (2013), the unit of lexical storage is the stem (root + theme vowel), since “the theme vowel that a particular stem will in fact select can be predicted neither from the phonological shape of its root nor from its syntactic features” (Bermúdez-Otero 2013, 6). From this point of view, morphological derivations are stem based. For instance, in the case of the derived adjective nuboso, the base would be the stem of the e-class noun nube ‘cloud’. The absence of the theme vowel -e in the derived adjective is explained by means of a general and regular phonological process deleting unaccented stem-fnal vowels before sufxes beginning with another vowel. An exception to stem-based derivations would be cases of derivatives with bound bases like empír-ico ‘empirical’ and empir-ismo ‘empiricism’, in which a root-based derivation is recognised. Phonological and morphological arguments in favour of the hypothesis that stems are the units of lexical storage can be found in Bermúdez-Otero (2013) and are summarised and discussed in Fábregas (2018).

10

The main units of Spanish morphology

Finally, we will briefy address some of the problems that arise from the conception of the word as a syntactic atom. It has been pointed out repeatedly in the literature that there are exceptions to the hypothesis that syntactic operations do not have access to word internal constituents, although, as Bosque (2019, 1) says, these exceptions “are restricted, as well as confned to very specifc grammatical areas”. Among the diferent phenomena usually mentioned, those that concern Spanish are mainly coordination structures, phrasal scope of some prefxes, pronominalization and modifcation of part of compounds. Coordination structures in which parts of words are involved, like becas pre- y postdoctorales ‘pre- and postdoctoral scholarships’ or lenta y tranquilamente ‘slowly and quietly’, have often been claimed to be counterexamples to the hypothesis that syntax does not have access to word internal structure, since coordination and ellipsis are usually considered syntactic operations (see Booij 1985; Bosque 1987, 2012; Spencer 2005; Chaves 2008; Bruening 2018; Felíu-Arquiola 2014, 2019, among others). However, it has been claimed that this process is phonological in nature (Booij 1985, 2009), in which case it would not be a violation of the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis. Another phenomenon usually mentioned against the idea that words are syntactic atoms is the fact that some prefxes have phrasal scope (Lieber and Scalise 2006; Booij 2009; FelíuArquiola 2014; see Gibert-Sotelo, this volume). As the examples in (16) show, the scope of pro- and ex- extends beyond the word limit: (16) a. manifestación pro-[legalización de las drogas] ‘pro- drug legalization demonstration’ b. un ex[futbolista del Barcelona] (Gràcia and Lieber 2002, 1307–8) ‘a former Barcelona footballer’ However, according to Bosque (2019, 11), since pro- and ex- show a diferent behaviour from other prefxes like negative or quantitative ones, which lack phrasal scope, “part of the problem undoubtedly lies in the syntactic label with which they are categorized”. As we saw in section 3, pronouns usually cannot have a part of a word as their antecedent (see 14), although examples like (19) are mentioned as a counterexample to this generalisation. In this sentence, the antecedent of él seems to be the base Zapatero, the surname of a former president of the Spanish government. However, as Fábregas (2012) shows, it is possible that the base of zapaterismo and él share the same reference not by means of a syntactic operation of anaphoric reference but by means of a pragmatic process: (17) El zapateri-ismo no puede seguir sin éli (Fábregas 2012) Finally, in contrast, the fact that the constituents of a compound cannot be modifed or complemented independently in Spanish, as shown in (18), has usually been mentioned as an argument in favour of the idea that words are syntactic islands: (18) a. [portafotos] [del jefe] ‘photo holder of the boss’ b. *[porta[fotos del jefe]] ‘holder of boss photos’

(Val Álvaro 1999, 4763)

The acceptance or not of the defnition of words as syntactic atoms divides morphologists into lexicalist and non-lexicalist and has repercussions on the delimitation of morphology and

11

Elena Felíu Arquiola

syntax. Haspelmath (2011, 31) considers that “we do not currently have a good basis for dividing the domain of morphosyntax into morphology and syntax”, since morphology and syntax are both defned in terms of the word, but “we do not have a good answer to the question of how to defne the notion of word in a clear and consistent way” (p. 32). This conception in which there is no diference between morphology and syntax can be found in diferent theoretical approaches, from constructionist theories of morphology (Distributed Morphology), in which complex words are built by means of the same syntactic operations that build phrases, to Construction Morphology (Booij 2010), in which both complex words and syntactic structures are analysed as constructions or pairings of forms and meanings. In these theories, the word does not play any specifc role; in Distributed Morphology, it is considered an epiphenomenon. By contrast, other approaches, although considering words syntactic constructions, defend their central role in human language: they are viewed as the systematic links between syntactic computations and stored phonological forms (Mendívil-Giró 2019), and they are claimed to have a privileged status as units of storage (Marqueta 2019). This would explain the lexical integrity phenomena as well as the restricted productivity shown by many derivative and compounding processes. This approach coincides with Anderson’s (1992) proposal of an a-morphous morphology, namely a word-based morphology, not a morpheme-based one. The main diference lies in the fact that words are not syntactic constructions in Anderson’s theory. In his proposal, words relate to each other by means of word formation rules. As can be seen from this brief presentation, the debate on the preeminence of the word or the morpheme in morphological analysis and the debate on the relationship between morphology and syntax are still open.

Notes 1 As Bermúdez-Otero (2013, 5, footnote 2) explains, “The English term theme vowel is unfortunately opaque, whereas the expressions vocal temática and voyelle thematique are transparently compositional in their respective languages. A more helpful rendering in English would be stem vowel: recall that Spanish tema and French theme both mean ‘stem’”. 2 The notion of base is also relevant in Spanish morphology. The term base is used to designate the unit to which a morphological process applies. In this sense, it is a relative concept (Pena 1999), since more than one base can be identifed in a complex word. For example, in the derived verb nacionalizar ‘to nationalise’, -izar takes nacional ‘national’ as its base, whereas -al takes nación ‘nation’ as its base (Felíu Arquiola 2009).

References Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aronof, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Beard,  R. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A  General Theory of Infection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2013. “The Spanish Lexicon Stores Stems with Theme Vowels, Not Roots with Infectional Class Features.” Probus 25 (1): 3–103. Booij, G. 1985. “Coordination Reduction in Complex Words: A  Case for Prosodic Phonology.” In Advances in Nonlinear Phonology, edited by H. van der Hulst and N. Smith, 143–60. Dordrecht: Foris. Booij, G. 2009. “Lexical Integrity as a Formal Universal: A Constructionist View.” In Universals of Language Today, edited by S. Scalise, E. Magni, and A. Bisetto, 83–100. Dordrecht: Springer. Booij, G. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bosque, I. 1987. “Constricciones morfológicas sobre la coordinación.”Lingüística Española Actual 9: 83–100. Bosque, I. 2012. “On the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis and Its (In)accurate Predictions.” Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4 (1): 140–73. 12

The main units of Spanish morphology

Bosque, I. 2019. “Lexical Integrity in Morphology.” In The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Morphology, edited by R. Lieber et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.584. Bruening, B. 2018. “The Lexicalist Hypothesis: Both Wrong and Superfuous.” Language 94 (1): 1–42. Chaves, R. P. 2008. “Linearization-Based Word-Part Ellipsis.” Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 261–307. Dressler, W. 1986. “Forma y función de los interfjos.” Revista Española de Lingüística 16 (2): 381–96. Fábregas, A. 2012. “Islas y penínsulas anafóricas: gramática y pragmática.” Estudios Filológicos 50: 23–37. Fábregas, A. 2013. La morfología. El análisis de la palabra compleja. Madrid: Síntesis. Fábregas, A. 2015. “Morphology in Linguistics.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, edited by J. D. Wright, 2nd ed., 819–25. Oxford: Elsevier. Fábregas, A. 2018. “Word Phenomena: Category Defnition and  Word Formation.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics, edited by K. L. Geeslin, 261–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fábregas, A., and S. Scalise. 2012. Morphology. From Data to Theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Felíu Arquiola, E. 2009. “Palabras con estructura interna.” In Panorama de la lexicología, edited by E. de Miguel, 51–82. Barcelona: Ariel. Felíu-Arquiola, E. 2014. “Word-Defning Properties from a Lexical Approach to Morphology.” In To Be or Not to Be a Word: New Refections on the Defnition of Word, edited by I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano and J. L. Mendívil-Giró, 66–92. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar Publishing. Felíu Arquiola, E. 2015. “Morfología.” In Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica, edited by J. Gutiérrez Rexach, 234–46. London: Routledge. Felíu Arquiola, E. 2019. “Clases y categorías en formación de palabras: los ‘prefjos separables’.” In Clases y categorías en la formación de palabras en español, edited by A. Adelstein, E. Bernal, and C. Sinner, 13–29. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag. González Ollé, F. 1961. Los sufjos diminutivos en castellano medieval. Madrid: CSIC. Gràcia, L., and R. Lieber. 2002. “Sobre el prefjo ex-.” In IV Congreso de Lingüística General, vol. III, edited by M. D. Muñoz Núñez et al., 1307–18. Cádiz: University of Cádiz. Haspelmath, M. 2011. “The Indeterminacy of Word Segmentation and the Nature of Morphology and Syntax.” Folia Linguistica 45: 31–80. Lieber, R., and S. Scalise. 2006. “The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a New Theoretical Universe.” Lingue e Linguaggio 6: 7–32. Malkiel, Y. 1958. “Los interfjos hispánicos. Problema de lingüística histórica y estructural.” In MisceláneaHomenaje a André Martinet, edited by D. Catalán Menéndez-Pidal, vol. 2, 107–99. La Laguna: Biblioteca Filológica de la Universidad de La Laguna. Marqueta, B. 2019. “La composición, la estructura del léxico y la sintaxis de las palabras con estructura interna en español.” PhD diss., University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza. Martín Camacho, J. C. 2001. “Sobre los supuestos diminutivos infjados del español.” Anuario de estudios flológicos 24: 239–342. Matthews, P. H. 1974. Morphology. An Introduction to the Theory of Word-structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, P. H. 1991. Morphology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Méndez Dosuna, J. V., and C. Pensado. 1993. “¿Hasta qué punto es innatural ‘Víctor-Vict-ít-or’? Los diminutivos infjados en español.” In La formación de palabras, edited by S. Varela Ortega, 316–55. Madrid: Taurus. Mendívil Giró, J. L. 2019. “If Everything Is Syntax, Why Are Words so Important? An A-morphous but Non-Lexicalist Approach.” Linguistics 57 (5): 1161–215. Pena, J. 1993. “La formación de verbos en español: la sufjación verbal.” In La formación de palabras, edited by S. Varela Ortega, 217–81. Madrid: Taurus. Pena, J. 1999. “Partes de la morfología. Las unidades del análisis morfológico.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, vol. 3, 4305–66. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Piera, C. 2009. “Una idea de la palabra.” In Panorama de la lexicología, edited by E. de Miguel, 25–49. Barcelona: Ariel. 13

Elena Felíu Arquiola

Portolés, J. 1999. “La interfjación.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, vol. 3, 5041–73. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Spencer, A. 2005. “Word-Formation and Syntax.” In Handbook of Word-Formation, edited by P. Štekauer and R. Lieber, 73–97. Dordrecht: Springer. Stump, G. T. 2001. Infectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Val Álvaro, J. F. 1999. “La composición.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, vol. 3, 4757–841. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Varela, S. 1990. Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis. Varela, S. 2005. Morfología léxica: la formación de palabras. Madrid: Gredos. Varela, S., and J. Martín García. 1999. “La prefjación.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, vol. 3, 4993–5040. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.

14

2 Morphological formal means (I) Antonio FábregasMorphological formal means (I)

Asymmetries between prefxes and sufxes (Procedimientos morfológicos formales I: asimetrías entre prefjos y sufjos)

Antonio Fábregas

1 Introduction This chapter describes the properties of prefxes, as opposed to sufxes, in Spanish. Prototypical prefxes in Spanish fail to change the grammatical category of the base, are recursive, select their bases through their semantics and are phonologically more independent from the base. This behaviour suggests that prefxes in Spanish are adjuncts, not heads, within the word structure. However, there are exceptions to these generalisations, suggesting that not all the afxes linearised to the left of the base belong to the same natural class with respect to their grammatical properties. Keywords: prefxes; sufxes; grammatical category; recursion; category change Este capítulo describe las propiedades que tienen en español los prefjos, en oposición a los sufjos. Los prefjos prototípicos del español son incapaces de alterar la categoría gramatical de la base, son recursivos, seleccionan sus bases conforme a criterios semánticos y son más independientes fonológicamente de sus bases que los sufjos. Este comportamiento sugiere que los prefjos son adjuntos dentro de la estructura de la palabra, y no núcleos. Sin embargo, existen excepciones a estas propiedades, algo que da a entender que no todos los afjos que se linearizan a la izquierda de la base pertenecen a la misma clase natural en virtud de sus propiedades gramaticales. Palabras clave: prefjos; sufjos; categoría gramatical; recursividad; cambio categorial

2 Afxes and their position The most typical morphological marking in Spanish is afxal, that is, through bound morphemes which have a fxed position with respect to the base. As is standard in the traditional literature, afxes are divided into classes that are defned through their relative position to the root. Leaving infxes and interfxes aside (see Ohannesian, this volume; Yu 2004), an afx is 15

Antonio Fábregas

classifed as a prefx or a sufx through the surface property of whether it appear to the left— prefx, (1)—or to the right—sufx, (2)—of the base. (1) a. preb. inc. re(2) a. -ción b. -ble c. -a

pre-contrato pre-contract ‘document issued before a contract’ in-maduro im-mature ‘immature’ re-leer re-read ‘to read again’ reduc-ción reduce-ation ‘reduction’ baila-ble dance-able ‘that can be danced’ obsesion-a obsession-ise ‘to get obsessed’

The classifcation of a morpheme as an afx presupposes two properties: (i) that it is a bound morpheme which cannot form a word without the help of a root and (ii) that it has a fxed position with respect to the word. By transitivity, ascribing a morpheme to the class of sufxes implies that the morpheme will never precede the root within its word; hence, if we classify the morphemes in (2) as sufxes, we entail that formations such as *cion-ama, lit. ‘ation-love’ will be impossible in Spanish. The same applies to prefxes, which are defnitionally morphemes bound to the left of a root. The debate about the boundaries between compounding and derivation (see Mendívil, this volume) revolves around morphemes that fail to comply with the frst or the second property, as it is the case with prefxes related to prepositions (3; see in particular Darmesteter 1875) or with some neoclassical formatives (4; see Stehlík 2011). (3) a. tras la tienda behind the shop b. tras-tienda behind-shop ‘back room’ (4) a. hiper-mercado hyper-market ‘hypermarket’ In this chapter, we abstract away from the wider defnition and classifcation problems (see Felíu, this volume, and Mendívil, this volume) and assume a bona fde defnition of prefx which would include the semantic classes in (5), taken from RAE and ASALE (2009, Chapter 10). See Gibert-Sotelo (this volume) for a more detailed presentation of the classes. (5) a. Locative prefxes (intra-, sub-, supra- . . .) b. Temporal and aspectual prefxes (ante-, post-, re- . . .) c. Quantifcational prefxes (multi-, bi-, nano- . . .) d. Degree prefxes (requete-, semi-, super- . . .) e. Negative prefxes (in-, des-, a- . . .) f. Opposition and favourable attitude prefxes (anti-, pro-, contra-) g. Prefxes with incidence on argument structure (auto-, co-, inter- . . .) h. Adjectival prefxes (proto-, pseudo-, maxi- . . .)

16

Morphological formal means (I)

Despite our acceptance of this bona fde notion of prefx, it is worth noting at this point that the reliance on the positional criterion to diferentiate sufxes and prefxes is a bit of an anomaly in modern linguistics. Using position to defne subclasses of afxes comes from a pretheoretical linguistic tradition going as far back as the Assyrian-Sumerian grammatical glossaries (Black 2000) and is therefore not grounded on grammatical tests but on surface properties. Position, in contemporary linguistics, is not used as the sole criterion to defne the relevant classes of objects in syntax or semantics: in our current linguistic methodologies, nobody would defne ‘subject’ as ‘the syntactic constituent that precedes the fnite verb’ or ‘quantifer’ as ‘the semantic object that follows determiners and precedes nouns’. Keeping this in mind is important to evaluate any type of generalisation that one tries to make about sufxes in opposition to prefxes. The two classes are defned by their surface position, but position alone does not guarantee that, within each class, the members share other relevant grammatical properties. We will see once and again in the course of this chapter that any generalisation that one tries to state in order to characterise prefxes in opposition to sufxes fnds counterexamples. It is worth considering the possibility that the counterexamples simply remind us that appearing to the left or to the right of the root is not solid enough as a criterion to defne natural classes in morphology. The rest of the chapter is organised as follows. In §2, we will summarise the prototypical properties of prefixes, differentiating in each case the empirical pattern from the explanations that have been given to those facts. As we are saying, any of these generalisations has exceptions in Spanish, so the following sections will discuss the main exceptions in turn: §3 considers exceptions to homocategorial derivation, §4 exceptions to recursion and §5 exceptions to selectional restrictions. We end the chapter (§6) with some conclusions.

3 Prototypical prefx properties Let us briefy overview the main properties related to prefxes in opposition to sufxes, although—as we will see later—none of them is exceptionless.

3.1 Prefxes do not change the grammatical category of the base The core grammatical distinction between prefxes and sufxes is that only sufxes can change the grammatical category of their base. Derivations involving prefxes tend to be homocategorial— the category of the base is identical to the category of the whole word—while any categorychanging process in Spanish is performed by sufxes (see Batiukova, this volume; Martín García, this volume; and Resnik, this volume, for category change in derivation). (6) illustrates this property for the prefx pre-. The prefx modifes the semantics of the base introducing some notion of temporal precedence, but note that in the three cases, the grammatical category remains unchanged. (6) a. [cocinar]V > [pre[cocinar]V]V cook pre-cook b. [elección]N > [pre[elección]N]N election pre-election c. [histórico]A > [pre[histórico]A]A historical pre-historical

17

Antonio Fábregas

We must immediately note that the generalisation never claims that all sufxes have as their role to change the grammatical category of the base. There are plenty of cases of sufxes which only modify the semantics of the base, such as the ones in (7), leaving aside sufxes used in infection. (7) a. [oso]N bear b. [amarillo]A yellow c. [zapato]N shoe

> [[os]N ezno]N bear-child ‘bear cub’ > [[amarill]A ento]A yellow-ish > [[zapat]N ero]N shoe-er ‘shoe-maker’

However, in such cases, it is still the case that the grammatical category of the whole word relates to the last sufx used (see Kornfeld, this volume, for exceptions): -ezno defnes nouns, like -ero, and -ento defnes adjectives. Thus, the generalisation tends to be that sufxes can carry information related to the grammatical category of the whole word, while prefxes cannot. Put like this, a corollary emerges: prefxes cannot be used for infection. Remember (Mendívil, this volume) that infection defnes the morphological paradigms of verbs, nouns and adjectives by producing all their grammatically relevant forms. Infection is then tightly connected to the grammatical category of the base. If the information about the grammatical category of a word is defned by sufxes, then one correctly expects that none of the morphemes used in infection will be a prefx in Spanish. To the best of our knowledge, this generalisation is real and exceptionless in all varieties of Spanish: person-number agreement, conjugation class, aspect, mood and tense are always expressed through sufxes (cf. Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume). This is the empirical generalisation, but how has it been explained? Assuming that this is a real generalisation, the main idea has been that sufxes are heads within words, while prefxes play the role of adjuncts or are close to being adjuncts. Let us clarify this. In morphology, as in syntax, the head of the structure is the constituent that imposes its grammatical and semantic properties to the whole. The grammatical properties of the head, crucially, include its grammatical category; thus, in a word, the morpheme that would impose its grammatical information to the whole word is the head. An adjunct, in contrast, is a constituent that does not alter the grammatical label of the whole structure, therefore never being the head of the whole, and whose role is to add semantic information that is otherwise not required by the head. The claim, then, would be that only sufxes can act as the grammatical and semantic heads of words. Williams (1981) proposed to formalise this generalisation with a principle which has been disputed (Hoeksema 1984) but which works for derived words in Spanish: the Righthand Head Rule (8): (8) The head of a word is its rightmost morpheme. This automatically excludes prefxes from being heads, because the prefx will always have at least the root to its left. If being a head is a precondition to change the grammatical category, then it follows that prefxes will never trigger category change when used in word formation. Prefxes, in contrast, would be adjuncts or close to adjuncts. DiSciullo (2005) infuentially proposed that afxes defned as prefxes are introduced at diferent positions but always being adjuncts that do not change the grammatical category of their bases. Their role would then 18

Morphological formal means (I)

be similar to prepositional complements and adverbs added to sentences to specify temporal notions, locations, manners, negation, and so on.

3.2 Prefxes can be recursive A second property of prefxes that distinguishes them from sufxes is a weak notion of recursivity: within a word, it is possible, under certain conditions, to add the same prefx to a word that already had it, obtaining a new semantics. The prime example of this case in Spanish would be some prefxes expressing opposition, such as anti- and contra- (Varela 1990; Varela and Martín García 1999). In (9a), prefxation by anti- produces a new word that denotes an instrument used to fght tanks; (9b) adds the same prefx, to obtain the denotation of an instrument used to repel attacks by the weapon described by (9a); if we wanted to refer to a weapon designed against the object denoted in (9b), we could create the word in (9c). It is in principle possible to continue the derivation in the same way, always denoting the weapon that repels attacks by the weapon denoted in the base. (9)

a. anti-tanque anti-tank b. anti-anti-tanque anti-anti-tank c. anti-anti-anti-tanque anti-anti-anti-tank

Another relevant case is the prefx tatara-, used in family kinship terms to express a diference of two generations with respect to the relation expressed by the base (cf. tatar(a)-abuelo ‘TATARA-grandfather, great-great-grandfather’). Similarly, among degree prefxes, requete- ‘very’ is another good example. (10) a. tatara-nieto TATARA-grandson ‘great-great-grandson’ b. tatara-tatara-nieto ‘the grandson of your great-great-children’ (11) a. requete-guapo REQUETE-handsome ‘very handsome’ b. requete-requete-guapo ‘very very handsome’ There are no cases of recursivity with sufxes in Spanish, although the diminutive afx -ito, which morphologically behaves rather as an infx (see Kornfeld, this volume) can also iterate. The explanation of this property as opposed to sufxes has also been related to the theoretical claim that prefxes are not heads within words. We expect heads not to be recursive. The reason is that the head imposes its own grammatical properties on the whole, which means that the second time that the head is introduced in the word, the grammatical properties would be repeated, vacuously, providing the same information twice—additionally, the second time that the word is repeated, we would be violating the selectional restrictions described in the next subsection. In contrast, under the theory that prefxes are adjuncts, we expect it to be possible that they are repeated, because introducing them only adds semantic modifcation to the whole without changing the formal properties. Note, in this respect, that it is perfectly possible to add more than one place adjunct to a sentence (John is eating on a chair in his kitchen at home). 19

Antonio Fábregas

3.3 Prefxes lack categorial restrictions Another observation is that, while sufxes tend to select the grammatical category of their bases, prefxes are generally only sensitive to the type of semantic concept that the base expresses. Consider nominalisations (cf. Resnik this volume). Diferent nominalisers pick diferent grammatical categories as their bases. With very few exceptions in Spanish, -dor ‘-er’ combines with verbs, and -idad ‘-ity’ combines with adjectives. Within derived adjectives, -ble ‘-able’ takes bases that are adjectives—again, with few exceptions—while -al ‘-ar’ takes nouns. In contrast, it is easy to fnd prefxes that combine with any of the three major lexical categories, obviously expressing the same or very similar meanings. One relevant case is the prefx des- (12). (12) a. [leal]A loyal b. [honor]N honour c. [hacer]V do

> > >

[des[leal]A]A dis-loyal [des[honor]N]N dis-honour [des[hacer]V]V dis-do ‘un-do’

In the analysis, this property has also been related to the proposal that only sufxes can be heads within words. One property of heads is that they can select the category of elements with which they combine. In fact, one can see a head as a function that takes a constituent with a particular category—say, for instance, a verb, V—and builds out of it a new structure where it imposes its category—as when one makes a noun out of a verb by adding a nominalising suffx. If this is the case, the heads might carry with them restrictions on the type of base whose category they can change (cf. the notion of subcategorisation; Booij 1977; Scalise 1984). However, in order to be able to select the grammatical category of the base, the morpheme in question has to carry information about grammatical category. Adjuncts do not carry this information because they do not operate on the grammatical category of the whole structure. Therefore, adjuncts will not be able to select the grammatical category of the base, although they are sensitive to what they mean—the same as in syntax, where it is not possible to add a place modifer to a verbal phrase that does not express a notion that can be located in space, as in *John is tall at home (Carlson 1977). One relevant case where this semantic restriction is visible is the prefx super-. In its degree interpretation, it combines both with adjectives and nouns (13), in the second case denoting a high degree of the positive qualities related to the noun. Its restriction in this interpretation, however, is that it can only combine with adjectives or nouns that denote sets of properties that are gradable; non-gradable adjectives (14) or nouns difcult to relate to evaluative properties (15) are excluded in the degree interpretation. (13) a. super-alto super-tall ‘very tall’ b. super-profesor super-teacher ‘teacher that performs her job in an exceptionally good way’ (14) *super-biológico super-biological (15) #super-aire super-air 20

Morphological formal means (I)

3.4 Prefxes are more phonologically independent than sufxes It has also been noted since Jakobson (1971) that, cross-linguistically, prefxes can remain less phonologically integrated with their bases than sufxes. This property is discussed in detail in Colina (this volume), so here we will just provide one example. If the phonological structure allows it, part of the base will be syllabifed with part of the sufx: in (16a), the fnal consonant of the root is syllabifed as the onset of the frst syllable of the sufx. In contrast, in many cases, even though the phonology would favour it, the prefx is syllabifed independently of the base. In (16b), the prefx maps onto one single syllable even though it would be phonologically less marked that the fnal /b/ of the prefx form a complex onset /bl/ with the frst consonant of the base. (16) a. [[clas]ifca] class-ify b. [sub[lunar]] sub-lunar

-

kla.si.f.ka

-

sub.lu.naι

We refer to Colina (this volume) for details and exceptions. We will just note here that it is possible to relate this property to the possible nature of prefxes as adjuncts: Uriagereka (1999) has proposed that adjuncts are phonologically independent of the rest of the structure due to the way in which they are introduced.

3.5 Prefxes can produce bracketing paradoxes The last diference is more subtle: introducing a prefx in some structures can produce a so-called bracketing paradox. A bracketing paradox is the situation where the segmentation suggested by the formal properties of the word is at odds with the segmentation suggested by its meaning. For instance, in (17), the fact that a word like *inter-nación ‘inter-nation’ is formally ungrammatical would suggest the segmentation in (17a), but the meaning—‘related to a reciprocal relation between nations’, not ‘reciprocally related to a nation’—suggests the segmentation in (17b). (17) internacional ‘international’ a. [inter [[nacion]al]] < [[nacion]al] inter nation al b. [[inter[nacion]]al] < *[inter[nación]] inter nation al In Spanish, there are no comparable cases in which a sequence of two sufxes produces this type of bracketing paradox—for instance, imagine a case where the second sufx has to be interpreted as directly operating on the base, excluding the frst sufx, even though it cannot directly combine with the base, as represented in (18). (18) base-Suf1-Suf2 a. [[[base]suf1]suf2] b. [[[base]suf2]suf1]

Formal segmentation Semantic segmentation

This type of bracketing paradoxes, importantly, emerge only with relational adjectives. Relational adjectives (Bosque 1993) are adjectives morphologically derived from nouns, and their 21

Antonio Fábregas

meaning is essentially identical to one expressed by their nominal bases: it is therefore plausible that the right segmentation is (17a), and the interpretation obtained refects the fact that the adjectival sufx is semantically transparent with relational adjectives.

4 Exceptions to homocategorial derivations None of the previous properties is exceptionless. In this section and the following two, we will examine cases where prefxes relate to category change, cannot be recursive and display category restrictions. Exceptions to their phonological behaviour are discussed in Colina (this volume). Starting with the cases related to category change, three situations have to be diferentiated: (i) cases where the presence of the prefx modifes the syntactic role played by the base but does not modify the infection of the base; (ii) cases where both the syntactic role and the infection are modifed when the prefx appears and (iii) cases in which the prefx is involved in category change, although there is an overt sufx present.

4.1 Anti- and proAs noticed frst in Martín García (2005), the prefxes anti- and pro-, expressing opposition and favourable attitude towards the entity denoted by the base, have the capacity to allow a nominal expression to act as the modifer of another noun. The relevant minimal pair is presented in (19). (19) a. *crema arruga-s cream wrinkle-pl b. crema anti-arruga-s cream anti-wrinkle-pl ‘antiaging cream’ This does not afect the infectional properties of the base, which remains of the nominal category. As can be seen in (19b), even though the prefxed structure is now a modifer of the head noun, there is no agreement between the two words: the plural infection of the prefxed word is independent of the infection of the head noun. It is unclear what produces this change in the syntactic distribution of the words prefxed by anti- and pro-. However, the properties of these two prefxes are also exceptional from other perspectives (Martín García 2005; Fábregas 2010). Unlike prototypical prefxes, they can combine with nominal bases that are already infected for number (cf. arruga-s ‘wrinkles’ in 19b) or even with whole nominal syntactic phrases including quantifers and determiners: (20) Es anti todo lo que defendemos. is anti all that that defend.1pl ‘He is against all that we stand for’ This suggests that these prefxes should actually be viewed as close to syntactic prepositions expressing opposition and favour. Note that prepositions in syntax also have the capacity to build noun modifers, as in (21) (cf. Sánchez 1997), which can be viewed as parallel to (19). (21) a. *un libro niños a book children b. un libro para niños a book for children 22

Morphological formal means (I)

Of course, anti- and pro- would not be full prepositions, at least from the perspective that they do not select the oblique form of pronouns (*anti-mí ‘anti-me’). However, if this analysis is correct, one should nuance the claim that no prefx is a head and, also, that recursivity in prefxation is related to their adjunct nature: anti- is recursive, as we saw in §2.2, and yet it acts as a head in the sense that it changes the distribution of its base.

4.2 Quantifer prefxes Some of the quantifer prefxes—multi-, pluri-, bi-, mono- and so on—and the privative prefx a(n)- also have the capacity to license the use of a noun as a modifer of another noun (Fábregas, Varela, and Gil 2010). (22) a. bandera *(multi-)color fag multi-colour ‘multi-coloured fag’ b. palabra *(tri)-sílaba word tri-syllable ‘trisyllabic word’ c. hombres *(an-)alfabeto-s men an-alphabet-pl ‘illiterate men’ In contrast with the case discussed in §3.1, here the presence of the prefx correlates with a change in the infectional properties of the base. As can be seen in (23)–(25), the base can agree in number and even gender with the base noun. (23) bandera-s multi-color-es fag-pl multi-colour-pl ‘multi-coloured fags’ (24) avion-es bi-motor-es plane-pl bi-engine-pl ‘planes with two engines’ (25) profesor-a-s an-alfabet-a-s teacher-f-pl an-alphabet-f-pl ‘illiterate female teachers’ Here, then, the prefx is not simply acting as a preposition. There are two main ways of addressing these cases. One of them is to argue that (23)–(25) in fact involve a prefx that defnes the base as an adjective, and these should be interpreted as adjectivalising prefxes (26a). The second would be to propose that the cases in (23)–(25) should in fact be assimilated to parasynthesis (Mateu, this volume) and that they in fact involve a null adjectivalising sufx (26b). (26) a. [tri[sílaba]N]A b. [tri[sílaba]N ø]A The second option seems in principle more likely. The reason is that some of these formations alternate with others where the adjectival sufx is overt (27); (26) would then just be the overt version of (27). (27) tri-siláb-ico tri-syllable-adj ‘trisyllabic’ 23

Antonio Fábregas

Second, all the cases discussed here involve, in addition to the quantifer meaning of the prefx, a notion of possession: a trisyllabic word is a word that has three syllables, a multicoloured fag is a fag that has many colours, and the prefx an- expresses privation. It is plausible that this systematic possession meaning is expressed in the structure of the word, and then the null morpheme could correspond to that notion.

4.3 En- and a- in parasynthesis Even though we will not discuss these cases here (see Mateu, this volume), it is worth noting that prefxes used as part of parasynthetic structures are associated with category change at least on the surface: when absent from (28), one does not obtain a well-formed verb despite the presence of the sufx. (28) *(en-)gord-a in-fat-ise ‘to get fat(ter)’

5 Exceptions to recursivity Some prefxes also fail to be recursive. Of course, prefxes associated with parasynthesis are not recursive, because they are involved in a change of category operation. Beyond this, however, other classes of prefxes fail the test. These divide into two groups: (i) prefxes that have some incidence in the grammatical properties of the base, beyond just adding a semantic notion, and (ii) prefxes associated with semantic operations that need to be formally satisfed.

5.1 Prefxes with incidence on argument structure One of the two classes of prefxes that is never recursive is formed by those that operate on the argument structure of the verb. Auto- imposes a refexive reading (29); inter-, a reciprocal interpretation (30) and co-, a collective reading whereby the subject must have performed the action with someone else (31) (Felíu 2003). (29) a. destruir to.destroy b. auto-destuir-se self-destroy-SE ‘to self-destroy’ c. *auto-auto-destruir-se (30) a. actuar to.act b. inter-actuar inter-act c. *inter-inter-actuar (31) a. producir to.produce b. co-producir co-produce c. *co-co-producir 24

Morphological formal means (I)

Even from an intuitive perspective, and although these prefxes do not change the category of the verb, it is clear that a change that afects the argument relations of the verb is more grammatical than simply adding a spatial or temporal notion—as recursive prefxes like pre- ‘before’ do. The three prefxes impose requisites on the arguments. For this reason, DiSciullo (2005) proposes that such prefxes are low-attached adjuncts that can access the core semantic properties of the predicate. It could also be the case that these prefxes are not really adjuncts and should rather be interpreted as modifers of the verbal arguments. In any case, their semantic role afecting a core semantic notion of the verb, like argument structure, is a plausible explanation of why they cannot be recursive. In fact the locative prefx sobre- in (32) has the role of introducing an internal argument that the verb does not select without the prefx; in this case, the prefx is not recursive either. (32) a. El avión *(sobre-)vuela la ciudad. the plane over-fies the city ‘The plane is fying over the city’

5.2 Prefxes that act as operators Recursivity is also impossible with quantifer prefxes like bi- even in the cases where they do not alter the grammatical category of the base. One relevant example where recursivity is blocked and the grammatical category is not changed is (33). (33) a. bi-campeón bi-champion ‘someone who has been champion twice’ b. *bi-bi-campeón Intended: ‘someone that in two occasions has been the champion twice’ In general, in fact, it is impossible to have two quantifer prefxes, even if they are not identical. (34) *multi-bi-campeón multi-bi-champion Intended: ‘someone that in several occasions has been the champion twice’ The plausible explanation of this restriction is that these prefxes, as quantifers, act as operators. Operators are semantic objects that condition the interpretation of another element in the structure, called their ‘variable’. In our example, the prefx quantifes over the number of cases in which the description ‘champion’ applies to a referent. Formally, every operator must have its own variable; when the operator does not fnd a variable, the result is ungrammatical (vacuous quantifcation; Partee, ter Meulen, and Wall 1990). Recursivity is blocked in these cases because the second quantifer prefx lacks a variable: the only variable that the base provides is already taken by the frst prefx. In other words, the combination is ungrammatical for the same reason that *three two books is ungrammatical: two already quantifes over the books, and three lacks any object to take as a variable. Again, we see that the prototypical properties of prefxes are not found when the contribution of the prefx goes beyond merely introducing some adjunct notion that is not required by the grammar of the base and does not formally interact with its meaning or function. Clearly, 25

Antonio Fábregas

then, the claim that all prefxes are adjuncts should be nuanced, at least in the traditional interpretation of adjunct.

6 Category selectional restrictions The claim that prefxes are not sensitive to the grammatical category of their bases is basically correct, but it has to be nuanced at least in two senses: (i) the productivity of a prefx can be signifcantly higher only with a subset of grammatical categories, and (ii) particular classes of prefxes might not combine with all available classes due to their meaning. The frst factor is easily identifable in the case of prefxes that have very similar meanings (Bauer 2001). Within the range of negative prefxes (see Gibert-Sotelo, this volume), consider des-. As we saw in §2.3, it can attach to nouns, verbs and adjectives, but it is only really productive with verbs, and there are very few adjectives that combine with it. One plausible reason might be that in the case of adjectives, the prefx in- is the most productive. Conversely, in- can attach to verbs (in-cumplir ‘un-deliver, to fail to deliver’), but there are very few such cases. Similarly, in their temporal precedence meaning, ante- and pre- compete, with ante- being almost unattested with verbal bases (ante-pagar ‘before-pay, to pay in advance’). The second factor can be illustrated with the case of degree prefxes. Due to their meaning, they are expected to strongly prefer adjectival bases in contrast to nouns or verbs—unless these last two can be related to a gradable notion. Thus, the intensifying prefx re- is productive with adjectives (re-fácil ‘very-easy’), much less productive with verbs (re-peinar, ‘RE-comb, to comb oneself too much’) and virtually unattested with nouns, because they are not directly gradable. Another relevant example is the adjectival prefxes, like paleo- ‘ancient’: given their use as predicates, they are more productive with nouns (paleo-dieta ‘paleo-diet’) or with relational adjectives derived from nouns—remember that relational adjectives keep the meaning of their nominal bases, as in paleo-medieval ‘paleo-medieval’.

7 Conclusions In this chapter, we have seen that the prototypical properties of prefxes relate to the notion of adjuncts as elements that add semantic notions without modifying the core grammatical properties of the rest of the structure, particularly its grammatical category. However, it is possible to fnd exceptions to all these properties within the grammar of Spanish, suggesting that the traditional notion of ‘prefx’, which defnes the class through the surface position of the afx with respect to the base, is too coarse to be used as the sole criterion in morphological analysis. Moreover, some of the properties need to be nuanced due to afx rivalry or the restrictions imposed by the meaning of individual prefxes or prefx classes.

References Bauer, L. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Black, J. 2000. “The Ancient Near East.” In Morphology. An International Handbook on Infection and WordFormation, edited by G. Booij, C. Lehmann, and J. Mugdan, 34–41. Berlin: De Gruyter. Booij, G. 1977. Dutch Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Bosque, I. 1993. “Sobre las diferencias entre los adjetivos relacionales y los califcativos.” Revista Argentina de Lingüística 9: 9–48. Carlson, G. N. 1977. “Reference to Kinds in English.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Darmesteter, A. 1875. Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française. Paris: Champion.

26

Morphological formal means (I)

DiSciullo, A.-M. 2005. Asymmetry in Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fábregas, A. 2010. “On Spanish Prepositional Prefxes and the Cartography of Prepositions.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 9: 55–77. Fábregas, A., S. Varela, and I. Gil. 2010. “¿Existen los prefjos categorizadores en español?” In 60 problemas de gramática, edited by M. V. Escandell Vidal, M. Leonetti, and C. Sánchez López, 360–66. Madrid: Akal. Felíu, E. 2003. Morfología derivativa y semántica léxica. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Hoeksema, J. 1984. Categorial Morphology. Oxford: Routledge. Jakobson, R. 1971. “The Phonemic and Grammatical Aspects of Language in Their Interaction.” In Selected Writings. Vol. 2, Word and Language, edited by R. Jakobson, 93–122. Amsterdam: De Gruyter. Martín García, J. 2005. “Los nombres prefjados en aposición.” Verba 32: 25–57. Partee, B. H., A. G. ter Meulen, and R. Wall. 1990. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. RAE and ASALE. 2009. Nueva gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Sánchez, L. 1997. “Syntactic Structures in Nominals.” PhD diss., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Scalise, S. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Stehlík, P. 2011. “El inventario de los prefjos del español en la GDLE (1999) y en la NGRAE (2009).” Études Romanes de Brno 32: 149–56. Uriagereka, J. 1999. “Multiple Spell Out.” In Working Minimalism, edited by S. Epstein and N. Hornstein, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Varela, S. 1990. Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis. Varela, S. and J. Martín García. 1999. “La prefjación.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, dirs. I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4993–5041. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Williams, E. 1981. “On the Notions ‘Lexically Related’ and ‘Head of a Word.’” Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245–74. Yu, A. 2004. A Natural History of Infxation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27

3 Main morphological formal means (II) Jaume MateuMain morphological formal means (II)

Approaches to parasynthesis (Principales mecanismos formales morfológicos: algunas aproximaciones a la parasíntesis)*

Jaume Mateu

1 Introduction This chapter is devoted to the word formation process referred to as “parasynthesis”, which involves an attachment of two afxes (a prefx and a sufx) for a categorial change to happen. After defning the concept and providing some prototypical examples that illustrate this word formation process (Section 2), I proceed to comment on some relevant empirical aspects and the main descriptive proposals of parasynthesis (Section 3). Next, a syntactic analysis is posited, which aims to solve the conundrum of an apparently simultaneous attachment of two afxes to form the parasynthetic word (Section 4). Finally, the chapter concludes with some brief remarks (Section 5). Keywords: derivation; compounding; binarism; (im)possible word; syntactic structure Este capítulo está dedicado al proceso de formación de palabras denominado “parasíntesis”, que implica una adjunción simultánea de dos afjos (un prefjo y un sufjo) para que ocurra un cambio de categoría. Después de defnir el concepto y proporcionar algunos ejemplos prototípicos que ilustran este proceso de formación de palabras (sección 2), procedo a comentar algunos aspectos empíricos relevantes y las principales propuestas descriptivas de la parasíntesis (sección 3). A continuación, se propone un análisis sintáctico que tiene como objetivo resolver el problema planteado por la adjunción aparentemente simultánea de dos afjos para formar la palabra parasintética (sección 4). Finalmente, el capítulo concluye con algunas breves observaciones (sección 5). Palabras clave: derivación; composición; binarismo; palabra (im)posible; estructura sintáctica

2 The notion of parasynthesis Parasynthesis has often been defned as the word-formation process that requires the presence of two afxes (a prefx and a sufx) for a categorial change to be possible. A typical example 28

Main morphological formal means (II)

used in the literature to exemplify this phenomenon is a denominal verb like Sp. em-barc-a(r) ‘to board, to embark’, which has been claimed to be formed by the simultaneous attachment of two afxes: the prefx en- ‘in’ and the verbal sufx involved in the infnitive -a(r) (see Batiukova, this volume, for the notion of verbalisation). Neither the prefx en- plus the nominal base barc(a) ‘ship’ nor the nominal root plus the verbal sufx are possible forms: cf. *em-barc(a) and *barc-a(r), respectively. Ancient Greek grammarians had already noted that parasýnthesis was a derivation process (more rarely, a composition process) based on a compound, whose product was called the parasýntheton. The frst author who is credited with introducing the concept of parasynthesis in the Romance philology was Darmesteter (1875). For example, according to Darmesteter (1875, 79–80), the Romance verb em-barc-a(r) is a parasynthetic form, since embarca is a compound formed by the preposition en ‘in’ and a noun. However, most Romance morphologists in the twentieth century analysed the attachment of en- as a prefxation process (hence as a derivation) rather than as a compounding process. So the defnition was changed, since for many Romance morphologists, a compound is not involved any longer in the formation of parasynthetic verbs like Sp. embarcar.1 Although most of the literature on parasynthesis has typically concentrated on prefxed denominal verbs like embarcar ‘to board’ and on prefxed deadjectival verbs like en-gord-a(r) ‘to fatten’, it is important to point out that there other types of parasynthetic forms: for example, parasynthetic adjectives like a-fortun-ad(o) ‘fortunate’ or des-alm-ad(o) ‘heartless’. Intermediate forms like *afortuna, which involves the prefx a- and the nominal base fortuna, or *fortunado, which is formed from the nominal root and the participle/adjectival morpheme, are not possible in Spanish. Something similar happens with the formation of desalmado: cf. *desalma and *almado. Adjectives like sub-mar-in(o) ‘submarine’ have also sometimes been included in the set of parasynthetic adjectives. However, this case is diferent from the previous examples, since the base marino does exist. Despite this, from an interpretational point of view, some authors have claimed that the prefx sub- does not modify the existing base marino but rather takes the root mar ‘sea’ as its complement. Submarino can be said to be included in the set of parasynthetic words due to the ill-formedness of *submar (see Serrano Dolader 1999, 2012b for a complete taxonomy of diferent types of parasynthetic adjectives). Finally, there are also parasynthetic compounds, which involve the merger of two lexical bases, giving a non-existing compound, with a derivational sufx or through a conversion process (Serrano Dolader 2012a, 427; see Buenafuentes, this volume, for compounding in general). For example, sal-piment-a(r) ‘to season’ is formed from sal ‘salt’ and pimienta ‘pepper’, but there is no nominal compound like *salpimienta nor a denominal verb like *pimentar. As pointed out by Serrano-Dolader (2012a, 2015), parasynthetic compounding is a very marginal word formation process in Romance languages (e.g., see Bisetto and Melloni 2008), at least compared to parasynthetic verbs, which are much more productive.

3 Empirical aspects and descriptive proposals of parasynthesis Most descriptive accounts of parasynthetic verbs like Sp. embarcar ‘to board’ or engordar ‘to fatten’ have concentrated on how to account for the apparent simultaneous attachment of a prefx and a sufx involved in their formation (see Serrano-Dolader 1995, 2015, 2016; Iacobini 2004, for some reviews of the relevant literature). Three main descriptive proposals are often distinguished: cf. the ones in (1). The proposal in (1a) is the one claimed by Crocco-Galèas and Iacobini (1992, 1993) and Iacobini (2004, 2010), which can, in fact, be traced back to Darmesteter (1875); (1b) is the one proposed by Corbin (1980, 1987); fnally, (1c) is the one posited by Scalise (1986), i.a. 29

Jaume Mateu

(1) a. prefxation and sufxation are simultaneous: [pref. [X]N/Adj suf.]V b. change of category due to prefxation: [pref. [X]N/Adj]V c. frst sufxation and then prefxation: [pref. [[X]N/Adj suf.]V]V Iacobini (2004) points out that in parasynthetic words like Sp. embarcar ‘to board’ or engordar ‘to fatten’, there is no derivative sufx with phonological content (e.g. cf. the sufx -ec- in the deadjectival (bello ‘beautiful’) verb embellecer ‘to embellish’), but a conversion process is involved. His claim is that the prefx and the verbal sufx behave like a single afx, that is, a circumfx. However, Serrano-Dolader (1995, 2015) criticises the circumfxation proposal because the prefx and the sufx of parasynthetic formations seem to be morphologically independent and fulfl diferent functions (e.g., according to him, only the sufx takes part in the transcategorisation process, that is, in the verbalisation process). The option in (1a) has also been said to be problematic, since Spanish does not appear to present other cases of circumfxes beyond the alleged ones involved in parasynthetic verbs, making this kind of derivation an ad hoc word formation process. Furthermore, Fábregas (2013, 104) points out that the circumfxation proposal is problematic when dealing with parasynthetic adjectives like afortunado ‘fortunate’: according to him, an alleged circumfx [a-  . . . -ado]A would not allow us to analyse afortunado as a participial adjective. Moreover, he notes that the relationship that this prefxed word establishes with unprefxed words like dentado ‘toothed’, barbado ‘bearded’ or jorobado ‘hunchbacked’ and many other words that express the possession of what is denoted by the base would then be lost. As for the representation in (1b), Corbin (1980, 1987) denies the existence of verbal parasynthesis, since she claims that the sufx is not derivational but infectional, whereby her proposal is to analyse parasynthetic verbs with the form [pref. + XN/Adj + infnitive ending] as the result of simple prefxation: [pref. XN/Adj]V. However, as pointed out by many morphologists, the main problem with this representation is her controversial proposal that the prefx can change the category of the base to which it is attached, which has been claimed to be impossible. Finally, the representation in (1c) is the one posited by Scalise (1986, i.a.). According to him, parasynthetic words are formed in two stages: in the frst (i.e., sufxation) stage, a possible but not necessarily attested or actual word is generated (e.g., °gordar ‘to fatten’), whereas in the second (i.e., prefxation) stage, the actual complex word is generated (e.g., engordar ‘to fatten’). An important advantage of this proposal is that the computational property of binarism, that is, the binary branching hypothesis, is preserved, although it is done at the expense of assuming an unattested intermediate stage. Similarly, Alcoba (1987) assumes the non-existing intermediate stage hypothesis, but, for him, this stage is formed by the prefx and the base: [[[pref.] [X]]X [suf.]]V. Crucially, unlike Corbin, Alcoba does not assume her controversial claim that the prefx assigns the grammatical category to the base. Rather, his claim is that the verbaliser is the thematic vowel involved in parasynthetic forms. As pointed out by Iacobini (2004, 2010) and Serrano-Dolader (2015), a problem with applying the representation in (1c) to parasynthetic verbs is that it does not distinguish among different types of these verbs. For example, according to Iacobini (2004, 2010), true parasynthetic verbs like engordar ‘to fatten’ must be distinguished from verbs like descafeinar ‘to decafeinate’: the former involves a non-meaningful prefx, whereas the latter involves a meaningful one. He also notes that the fact that an unprefxed verb like Sp. °cafeinar ‘to cafeinate’ does not exist is probably due to non-linguistic reasons (e.g., due to our encyclopaedic or world knowledge), whereas the reason for the absence of verbs like °gordar ‘to fatten’ is linguistic. According to Iacobini, only the former involve a circumfx, whereas the latter can be claimed to be formed through a double stage derivation [cf. (1c)]. 30

Main morphological formal means (II)

Although there appears to be no consensus in the literature as to which descriptive representation in (1) is the correct one, many morphologists have ended up assuming the hypothesis that the verbalisation in parasynthetic verbs is due to a zero morpheme. For example, ReinheimerRîpeanu (1974) claims that zero derivation is involved in parasynthesis as well as in the formation of unprefxed denominal and deadjectival verbs (see Serrano-Dolader 2015 for a recent review of diferent proposals for the zero morpheme in parasynthesis). At this point, after having sketched out the three main descriptive accounts of parasynthesis, two important methodological considerations are worth taking into account: on the one hand, Serrano-Dolader’s (2015) relevant remark that the formal analysis of parasynthetic word formation must be complemented with semantic considerations. On the other, Rainer’s (2016, 517) insightful conclusion that “an in-depth study of the mechanisms operative in afx coalescence, or reanalysis more in general, might be a more fruitful way of tackling the whole problem of parasynthesis than the purely synchronic treatments that have prevailed to now” (see also Allen 1981; Batllori-Dillet 2015; Pujol-Payet 2014, i.a., for similar remarks). As pointed out by Fábregas (2013, 105), if one assumes the previously mentioned twostage formation of parasynthetic words, unprefxed verbs like °fortunar ‘to fortunate’ and unprefxed participial adjectives like °fortunado ‘fortunate’ are expected to be possible. These forms turn out to be unattested in Spanish “due to historic, idiosyncratic or accidental reasons”. Fábregas’s point is correct since, for example, the Italian counterpart of Sp. afortunado is unprefxed: cf. It. fortunato ‘fortunate’. It is moreover important to realise that the variation we fnd when comparing Spanish and Italian participial adjectives (cf. Sp. afortunado and It. fortunato ‘fortunate’) is related to the variation that can also be found when dealing with denominal locatum verbs: for example, cf. the Spanish prefxed verb ensillar with the Italian unprefxed verb sellare ‘to saddle’. Here is when Serrano-Dolader’s (2015) previously mentioned remark becomes relevant: that is, the formal analysis of parasynthetic word formation must be complemented with semantic considerations. It should be noted that it is not accidental that the previously mentioned variation on (un)prefxed forms can sometimes be found in the area of locatum/possession meaning but never, or much less frequently, in the area of location meaning.2 It is the case that in Romance languages, parasynthetic denominal verbs of the locatum type can be prefxed or unprefxed, whereas parasynthetic denominal verbs of the location type are very often prefxed (see Di Sciullo 1997, 71, fn. 9).3 As we will see in the next section, this diference is not accidental but rather can be claimed to have a structural explanation (in contrast, what is indeed accidental is that some locatum verbs are prefxed, while others of the same type are not). For example, it is not accidental that the location verb to bottle is consistently prefxed in Romance languages: cf. Sp. embotellar/It. imbottigliare/Cat. embotellar/Fr. embouteiller, and so on. As noted previously, the location pattern in Romance languages is the prefxed one, whereby a possible verb like °botellar is not expected to have the location meaning. In fact, a nice prediction can be made in this case: if a verb like °botellar were created in Spanish, its meaning would be ‘to provide/cover a location/surface with bottles’ rather than ‘to put a locatum or fgural object into bottles’.4 A similar reasoning holds for the non-existent but possible verb °fortunar: to the extent it can be used as a locative verb, its meaning could not be ‘to introduce someone into a fortune’ (the location interpretation) but rather ‘to provide someone with a fortune’ (the locatum/possessive interpretation). A similar prediction holds for the unattested but possible participial adjective form °botellado. If attested, its meaning could not express the state of something put into bottles but rather the state of a surface/location covered with bottles. In this sense, note also that Fábregas’s (2013) previously mentioned examples of unprefxed stative participial adjectives like dentado ‘toothed’, 31

Jaume Mateu

barbado ‘bearded’ or jorobado ‘hunchbacked’, which crucially have a locatum/possessive but not a location meaning, are expected. We have just exemplifed why the analysis of parasynthetic word formation must be complemented with semantic considerations. However, note that there are some important issues that still remain unanswered: for example, why are there some parasynthetic denominal verbs of the locatum type prefxed in some Romance languages (e.g., Sp. ensillar and Cat. ensellar ‘to saddle’) but unprefxed in others (e.g., cf. It. sellare and Fr. seller ‘to saddle’)? Why does this variation exist in those parasynthetic words that have a locatum meaning like ensillar ‘to saddle’ but not in the ones that have a location meaning like embotellar ‘to bottle’? Serrano-Dolader (2015) points out that in Spanish there are triplets like embaldosar/baldosar/ baldosa ‘to tile/to tile/tile’. As predicted by our previous reasoning, the verb baldosar can only have the locatum reading ‘to provide/cover some surface with tiles’. But why is the prefxed variant embaldosar also possible with the same locatum reading? Here is when Rainer’s (2016, 517) previously mentioned remarks become relevant: purely synchronic treatments of parasynthesis cannot account for these issues. Indeed, a diachronic perspective is needed to address them. Accordingly, what follows is a bit sketchy but necessary to understand the phenomenon of verbal parasynthesis in Romance languages. As pointed out by Mateu (2019), an important empirical generalisation that can be drawn from Fruyt’s (2017a, 2017b) excellent descriptive works on parasynthetic verbs in Latin is that in this language, location verbs were typically prefxed, whereas locatum verbs could be prefxed or not. In Mateu (2019), I provided a theoretical syntactic account of Fruyt’s descriptive insights on Latin locative verbs and argued for the two following claims: (i) “true” locatum verbs are unprefxed [e.g., marginare ‘to provide a location with (a) border(s)’] and (ii) prefxed locatum verbs (e.g., elinguare ‘to tear the tongue of’) can be derived either from a location structure, which is always prefxed, (i.e., ‘to cause the tongue to go out of X’; for example, see also the Ground object raising posited by Acedo-Matellán 2010, 146–47) or, alternatively, can be derived from a causative change of state structure, that is, ‘to cause X to become deprived of a tongue’, that is, elinguare can be analysed as a “deadjectival” verb formed from the attested adjective elinguis ‘deprived of a tongue’. As for deadjectival verbs in Classical Latin, Haverling (2000, 2010) points out that they can be unprefxed or prefxed: for example, cf. mollire ‘to soften’ and emollire (ex- ‘out’ mollis ‘soft’) ‘to become completely soft’. As pointed out by her, in Classical Latin, a prefxed deadjectival verb was typically telic, whereas in Late Latin and in Romance, this is not the case.5 For example, a verb like incrassescere in Late Latin can have an atelic value (‘to grow fatter’), whereas in Classical Latin, this prefxed verb would be telic (‘to start to grow fatter’). As pointed out by Haverling (2010), the complex prefxal system of Classical Latin collapsed in Late Latin, whereby prefxed deadjectival verbs could be atelic in this period. Spanish and other Romance languages inherited this situation from Late Latin, where the prefx is no longer a marker of resultativity. Hence Sp. engordar can also express an atelic situation like the French unprefxed form grossir. A similar situation is relevant when accounting for the prefx en- in Spanish parasynthetic verbs of the locatum type like embaldosar ‘to tile’, ensillar ‘to saddle’, enharinar ‘to four’, engrasar ‘to grease’, and so on, where the prefx is not a resultative marker any longer. Cf. the following mixed patterns in French and in Italian, respectively: Fr. carreler ‘to tile’, seller ‘to saddle’ and graisser ‘to grease’ are unprefxed, whereas enfariner ‘to four’ is prefxed; It. piastrellare ‘to tile’ and sellare ‘to saddle’ are unprefxed, whereas infarinare ‘to four’ and ingrassare ‘to grease’ are prefxed (but cf. the unprefxed forms It. oliare and Sp. aceitar ‘to oil’). Unlike in Classical Latin, where prefxation is quite relevant for lexical aspect (see Romagno 2003; Acedo-Matellán 2010, 2016, i.a.), in Romance languages, these morphological diferences involved in denominal verbs of 32

Main morphological formal means (II)

the locatum type (i.e., whether these are prefxed or unprefxed forms) do not have consequences for their lexical aspectual interpretation. As for denominal verbs of the location type, it seems reasonable to assume that it must not be a coincidence that these verbs are typically prefxed in Latin, as well as in Romance languages. According to Fruyt (2017a), these verbs can be claimed to “agglutinate” a prepositional phrase in Latin: in humo > inhumare ‘to inhumate, to bury’; ex humo > exhumare ‘to exhumate’; e limine > eliminare ‘to carry out of doors, to eliminate’ (cf. also Serbat 1989). Furthermore, this French latinist assumes that the original preposition involved in these PPs was fnally reanalysed in Latin as a preverb; see also Lüdtke (2011) for a recent proposal that in Romance languages, location verbs like Sp. embarcar ‘to board, to embark’ also involve the incorporation of a prepositional phrase. To conclude this section, it is worth recalling that there are some issues that still remain to be answered: why is the prefx typically obligatory in parasynthetic verbs of the location type, whereas this element is not so systematically required in verbs of the locatum type? How different is the morphological/syntactic structure of parasynthetic verbs of the location type and of the locatum type? Finally, what is the syntactic structure of parasynthetic adjectives like afortunado ‘fortunate’ or submarino ‘submarine’ and less productive parasynthetic compounds like salpimentar ‘to season’ or machihembrar ‘to dovetail’ (e.g., see Serrano-Dolader 2012a, 2012b)? In the next section, some of these issues are addressed from a theoretical perspective.

4 Toward a possible explanation of parasynthesis: a syntactic analysis There is no consensus in the recent generative literature with regard to the role of prefxes in the syntactic/semantic structure of parasynthethic words in Romance languages. As for prefxed denominal and deadjectival verbs, some authors assume that the prefx is a path head (Di Sciullo 1997; Acedo-Matellán 2006; Gibert-Sotelo and Pujol-Payet 2015, i.a.), a place head (AcedoMatellán and Mateu 2013), a resultative head (Martínez-Vera 2016, i.a.) or a causative head (Darteni 2017, i.a.). This variety of proposals is not surprising, since, as pointed out by CroccoGalèas and Iacobini (1992, 1993) and Iacobini (2004, 2010), among others, the prefx in Latin verbs typically encodes a clearly specifc (locative or aspectual) meaning, whereas the prefx in Romance parasynthetic verbs typically encodes a less clear, more bleached meaning, which, basically, is signalling a change of state. As we will see in the following, the idea that Spanish parasynthetic verbs with prefxes en-, a-, and des- semantically express a change of state is crucial in the proposals reviewed in this section (see Labelle 2000; Mateu 2002 for the proposal that in denominal parasynthetic verbs of the location and locatum types the incorporated noun/root semantically identifes the fnal state of the process). Acedo-Matellán (2006) provides an insightful theoretical account of Crocco-Galèas and Iacobini’s (1993) descriptive proposal by claiming that in Latin, the semantically rich prefxes can take full arguments (NP/DP), whereas in Romance, the semantically bleached prefxes can only take roots as complements, where the root is, as noted previously, interpreted as a Ground expressing a fnal state. For instance, according to him, the semantic paraphrase of the Catalan example el vent va esboirar el cel ‘the wind out-fog-ed the sky’ is ‘the wind causes the event of the sky exiting the state of fog’, and its corresponding syntactic structure is the one depicted in (2), drawn from Acedo-Matellán (2006, 13) According to this author, the formation of parasynthetic verbs involves the steps shown in (2): frst, confation of the root √boir ‘fog’ into [R], that is, the eventive R(elational) verbal head, giving the unattested verbalised form (°boirar), and then afxation of the prefx es- ‘out’ to the verb, giving the fnal attested form (esboirar).6 Following 33

Jaume Mateu

Hale and Keyser (2002) and Mateu (2002), the prepositional head, which is occupied by the prefx es- ‘out’ in (2), is a birelational element that relates a Figure (el cel ‘the sky’) with a Ground (the state of √boir ‘fog’) (2)

FP el vent

F

F

R R el cel es-

˜boir

Acedo-Matellán’s (2006) theoretical claim that Romance prefxes take roots as complements is further exploited by Gibert-Sotelo (2018) in her analysis of des- ‘from’ prefxed verbs. According to her, Spanish des- prefxed verbs with ablative, privative or reversative values (e.g., cf. the parasynthetic verbs descarrilar ‘to derail’ and descorchar ‘uncork’ and the non-parasynthetic verb desatar ‘untie’, respectively) share the same syntactic structure. In her terms (p. 170), “ablative, privative, and reversative verbs encode Source-oriented change of state events in which a Figure (the internal argument) departs from a given state (a state that is inferred from the meaning of the verb root)”. Gibert-Sotelo (2018) shows that a similar structure can be provided for the prefx des- ‘from’ in parasynthetic verbs like descarrilar ‘derail’ or despiojar ‘delouse’ and in parasynthetic adjectives like desalmado ‘heartless’ or desvergonzado ‘shameless’. In all these cases, the prefx des- lexicalises the very same structure (Source-Goal-Place) and takes a root as its complement (e.g., carril ‘rail’, piojo ‘louse’, alma ‘heart’, vergüenza ‘shame’, etc.). However, things become trickier when the prefx of the parasynthetic word is provided with a less specifc meaning. For example, which semantic components are the Sp. prefxes en- and a- supposed to lexicalise in parasynthetic verbs like ensillar ‘to saddle’, amurallar ‘to wall’, acuchillar ‘to knife’ or engordar ‘to fatten’ and in parasynthetic adjectives like embobado ‘besotted’ or afortunado ‘fortunate’? Even in the case of location verbs like embotellar, it is not clear what meaning the prefx en- ‘in’ can be associated with. As noted previously, some authors have claimed that the prefx en- can be related with the preposition of the PP ‘in bottle(s)’ (see Lüdtke 2011, i.a.). However, as pointed out by Iacobini (2010, 2–3), among others, this claim cannot be maintained synchronically, since in some languages like French, the prefx of location verbs like enfourner ‘to put in the oven’ does not correspond with the relevant locative preposition: cf. mettre dans le four ‘to put in the oven’. As for the structure of locative denominal parasynthetic verbs of the en- . . . -ar and a- . . . -ar types, an important diference between location and locatum verbs is that the former are resultative verbs, whereas the latter are not (see Acedo-Matellán and Real-Puigdollers 2015 for some aspectual tests teasing apart both classes of denominal locative verbs). It can then be claimed that parasynthetic denominal verbs of the location type can be analysed as encoding not only the adpositional relation involved in a Figure-Ground confguration but also the upper Result head. In contrast, parasynthetic denominal verbs of the locatum type and deadjectival verbs can be analysed as involving only the Figure-Ground confguration (see Acedo-Matellán and RealPuigdollers 2015 for some aspectual tests that classify these two classes of verbs into the same aspectual class). Some relevant syntactic analyses of parasynthetic verbs are given in (3), where 34

Main morphological formal means (II)

the root is generated in the most embedded position and is confated into the upper v(erbal) head. Furthermore, as pointed out by Acedo-Matellán (2006), a prefxation operation takes place, which is responsible for the prefx not to be left astray in its original site.7 (3) a. Analysis of Sp. prefxed denominal location verbs (e.g., Sp. enlatar las sardinas ‘to can the sardines’): [vP v [ResultP las sardinasi [Result’ Res [PP las sardinasi [P’ en- √lata]]]]] b. Analysis of Sp. (un)prefxed denominal locatum verbs (e.g., Sp. (em)baldosar el suelo ‘to tile the foor’): [vP v [PP el suelo [P’ en- √baldosa]]] c. Analysis of Sp. prefxed deadjectival verbs (e.g., Sp. engordar al cerdo ‘to fatten the pig’): [vP v [PP el cerdo [P’ en- √gordo]]] Moreover, as shown in (4), parasynthetic adjectives of the desalmado type or the afortunado type are formed by embedding a locatum/possessive structure into a stative adjectival/participial category instead of a verbal one: see (4a) and (4b). Parasynthetic adjectives of the submarino type (see (4c)) are, in turn, formed by embedding a location structure into a stative adjectival category [see Embick 2004 for the claim that stative adjectival participles do not involve the v(erbal) category].8 As in the previous, the formation of parasynthetic adjectives involves the two following steps: frst, confation of the root into the upper adjectival head, giving the unattested participial form (°almado/°fortunado) or the attested adjective (marino), and then afxation of the prefx to the adjective, giving the fnal prefxed form (desalmado/afortunado/submarino). (4) a. Desalmado type (‘the boy deprived of a heart’): [AdjP -d(o) [PP el chico [P’ des- √alma]]] b. Afortunado type (‘the boy provided with a fortune’): [AdjP -d(o) [PP el chico [P’ a- √fortuna]]] c. Submarino type (‘the journey which takes place under (the) sea’): [AdjP -in(o) [PP el viaje [P’ sub- √mar]]] Finally, parasynthetic compounds like salpimentar ‘to season’ are formed by merging two different roots (sal ‘salt’ and pimienta ‘pepper’). The resulting compound is then embedded into a locatum structure selected by a verbal category, which is headed by a zero morpheme: [vP v [PP la carne WITH [√sal √pimienta]] (‘to provide the meat with the complex √root’).

5 Concluding remarks Among the three most important descriptive proposals on parasynthesis, it seems that Scalise’s (1986) representation in (1c) [pref. [XN/Adj suf.]V]V is the most adequate one. According to him, parasynthetic words are formed in two stages: in the frst (i.e., sufxation) stage, a possible but not necessarily attested or actual word is generated (e.g., °gordar ‘to fatten’), whereas in the second (i.e., prefxation) stage, the actual complex word is generated (e.g., Sp. engordar). Syntactically speaking (e.g., see Acedo-Matellán 2006), the formation of the parasynthetic verb has been claimed to involve the two following steps: frst confation of the root into the upper verbal 35

Jaume Mateu

head, giving the unattested verbalised form (e.g., °gordar ‘to fatten’) and then afxation of the prefx to the complex root+verb, giving the fnal attested form (e.g., Sp. engordar). Two important methodological considerations have also been taken into account in the present chapter on parasynthesis: on the one hand, Serrano-Dolader’s (2015) relevant remark that the formal analysis of parasynthetic word formation must be complemented with semantic considerations. For example, among locative verbs, a semantic distinction between location and locatum verbs appears to be relevant: the former involve a syntactically transparent Res(ultative) head, whereas the latter lack it. This syntacticosemantic diference has also been claimed to be related to their diferent morphological make-up: in Romance languages, location verbs are typically prefxed, whereas locatum verbs can be unprefxed (Di Sciullo 1997). On the other, as pointed out by Rainer (2016), the adoption of a diachronic perspective has also been shown to be necessary to surmount some defciencies of purely synchronic accounts of the formation of parasynthetic words.

Notes * I would like to thank the editors for their useful comments and suggestions. The work behind this chapter has been supported by the Spanish grant FFI2017–87140-C4–1-P and the Catalan grant 2017SGR634. 1 It should be noted that the formation of parasynthetic verbs is not a process found only in Romance languages but also in other languages. So, for example, Rainer (2016, 517) points out that in German, a verb like verdeutschen ‘to translate into German’ (cf. deutsch ‘German’) cannot be derived in two steps either: deutsch → *verdeutsch → verdeutschen; deutsch → *deutschen → verdeutschen. Accordingly, this author concludes that what turns out to be special about Romance parasynthesis is its terminology (in Slavic linguistics, similar processes are called ‘prefxal-sufxal formations’). 2 See Batiukova, this volume, for the famous distinction among locative verbs: cf. locatum verbs like to saddle or to four and location verbs like to bottle or to jail. See also the classical proposals put forward by Clark and Clark (1979), Hale and Keyser (1993, 2002) and Kiparsky (1997), among others. 3 Schroten (1997, 196) argues against the typical claim that the prefxes involved in parasynthetic denominal verbs are mere “historical residues” by noting that Spanish verbs like encajetillar ‘to pack’ and emboquillar ‘to provide with a flter tip’ denote industrial processes related to cigarettes, which suggests that they have been formed in recent centuries (nineteenth or twentieth). Todaro (2017) has also shown that parasynthesis is a quite productive process of verb formation in contemporary Italian. 4 As pointed out by Gibert-Sotelo and Pujol-Payet (2015) and Martínez-Vera (2016), among others, a prefxed denominal verb like abotellar is not possible on the locative reading but rather on the property one: that is, ‘to cause X to have the shape of a bottle’. For relevant distinctions between en- and a- prefxation in parasynthetic verbs, see these works and Acedo-Matellán (2006), among others. For example, compare the locative readings of envinagrar (both the location and the locatum interpretations are possible: ‘to put X in vinegar’ and ‘to provide X with vinegar’, respectively) and the property reading of avinagrar ‘to make sour as vinegar’. See Batiukova, this volume, for more discussion. 5 Acedo-Matellán and Mateu (2013) relate this change to a well-known typological shift from a satelliteframed pattern to a verb-framed one. 6 As pointed out by Acedo-Matellán (2006, 13), “some operations must take place in order to derive the overt shape of the predicate: a confation process, represented through angled arrows, taking the phonological content of the root up to the [R] head, and a prefxation operation, represented through curved arrows, responsible for the prefx, a phonologically dependent sequence, not to be left astray in its original site.” See also Montalbetti (1996) and Martínez-Vera (2016) for independent reasons that point to the fact that the prefx attaches to an already verbalised base predicate. The [R] head in (2), which expresses a source/initiation relation in Mateu’s (2002) relational semantic framework, corresponds to the v head. Finally, the FP in (2) is currently understood as VoiceP, that is, the functional projection that introduces the external argument (e.g., see Acedo-Matellán 2016, 31, i.a.). 7 Following Hale and Keyser’s (2002, 16–17) ideas on bipartite phonological matrices, it can be claimed that the phonological matrix associated to the P head in (3) is bipartite: for example, in (3a), the empty one is eliminated through confation of the root √lata ‘can’ in its path to the upper verb, whereas the 36

Main morphological formal means (II)

full one is expressed by the prefx en- ‘in-’. This apparently stipulative complexity can be claimed to be needed if one wants to avoid the direct confation depicted in the syntactic tree in (2), where the P head is surpassed by the root √boir ‘fog’ in its confation route to the upper verbal head. See Hale and Keyser (2002) for more discussion on how the so-called “head-to-head movement” is to be understood in their syntactic theory of verb formation. 8 In (4), the Figure DP arguments el chico ‘the boy’ and el viaje ‘the journey’ are included in the syntactic structure. However, following standard analyses of so-called ‘externalisation’ in adjectival passives (e.g., see Bruening 2014), this argument should be external to the adjectival participial structure, its slot being then occupied by an operator coindexed with it. For the sake of clarity, I omit this further complexity here.

References Acedo-Matellán, V. 2006. “Prefxes in Latin and Romance and the Satellite- vs. Verb-Framed Distinction.” In Actes del VII Congrés de Lingüística General (CD-ROM). Universitat de Barcelona: Barcelona. Acedo Matellán, V. 2010. “Argument Structure and the Syntax-Morphology Interface. A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages.” PhD diss., Universitat de Barcelona. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/21788. Acedo-Matellán, V. 2016. The Morphosyntax of Transitions. A  Case Study in Latin and Other Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Acedo-Matellán, V., and J. Mateu. 2013. “Satellite-Framed Latin vs. Verb-Framed Romance: A Syntactic Approach.” Probus 25: 227–65. Acedo-Matellán, V., and C. Real-Puigdollers. 2015. “Location and Locatum Verbs Revisited: Evidence from Aspect and Quantifcation.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 62 (2): 111–40. Alcoba-Rueda, S. 1987. “Los parasintéticos: Constituyentes y estructura léxica.” Revista Española de Lingüística 17 (2): 245–67. Allen, A. S. 1981. “The Development of Prefxal and Parasynthetic Verbs in Latin and Romance.” Romance Philology 35: 79–87. Batllori-Dillet, M. 2015. “La parasíntesis a la luz de los datos históricos de los verbos en a- y -esçer.” In Actas del IX Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española (Cádiz, 2012), edited by J. M. García Martín, T. Bastardín Candón, and M. Rivas Zancarrón, 617–38. Madrid: Iberoamericana and Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert. Bisetto, A., and C. Melloni. 2008. “Parasynthetic Compounding.” Lingue & Linguaggio 2: 233–59. Bruening, B. 2014. “Word Formation is Syntactic: Adjectival Passives in English.” Natural Language  & Linguistic Theory 32 (2): 363–422. Clark, E. V., and H. H. Clark. 1979. “When Nouns Surface as Verbs.” Language 55: 767–811. Corbin, D. 1980. “Contradictions et inadéquations de l’analyse parasynthétique en morphologie derivationnelle.” In Théories Linguistiques et Traditions Gramaticales, edited by A-M. Dessaux-Berthouneau, 181–224. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille. Corbin, D. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Crocco-Galèas, G., and C. Iacobini. 1992. “The Italian Parasynthetic Verbs: A Particular Kind of Circumfx.” In Natural Morphology. Perspectives for the Nineties, edited by L. Tonelli and W. Dressler, 127–42. Padova: Unipress. Crocco-Galèas, G., and C. Iacobini. 1993. “Lo sviluppo del tipo verbale parasintetico in latino: I prefssi AD-, IN-, EX-.” Quaderni Patavini di Lingüística 12: 31–68. Darmesteter, A. 1875. Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin. Paris: Franck. Darteni, S. 2017. “Italian Parasynthetic Verbs. Argument Structure.” PhD diss., Université Paris 8, Laboratoire Structures Formelles du Langage, Paris. Di Sciullo, A. M. 1997. “Prefxed-Verbs and Adjunct Identifcation.” In Projections and Interface Conditions, edited by A. M. Di Sciullo, 52–73. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Embick, D. 2004. “On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English.” Linguistic Inquiry 35 (3): 355–92. Fábregas, A. 2013. La morfología. El análisis de la palabra compleja. Madrid: Síntesis. 37

Jaume Mateu

Fruyt, M. 2017a. “Les verbes parasynthétiques en latin: les interprétations et le 1er type.” De Lingua Latina. Revue de linguistique latine du Centre Alfred Ernout 13. https://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/ fles/media/2020-05/dll_13._m.fruyt_1.pdf Fruyt, M. 2017b. “Les verbes parasynthétiques en latin: les 2e et 3e types.” De Lingua Latina. Revue de linguistique latine du Centre Alfred Ernout 13. https://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/fles/ media/2020-05/dll_13._m.fruyt_2.pdf Gibert-Sotelo, E. 2018. “Deriving Ablative, Privative, and Reversative Meanings in Catalan and Spanish.” Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 7 (2): 161–85. Gibert-Sotelo, E., and I. Pujol. 2015. “Semantic Approaches to the Study of Denominal Parasynthetic Verbs in Spanish.” Morphology 25 (4): 439–72. Hale, K. L., and S. J. Keyser. 1993. “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by K. L. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hale, K. L., and S. J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Haverling, G. 2000. On Sco-Verbs, Prefxes and Semantic Functions: A Study in the Development of Prefxed and Unprefxed Verbs from Early to Late Latin (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 64). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Haverling, G. 2010. “Actionality, Tense, and Viewpoint.” In Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense. Vol. 2 of Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, edited by P. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin, 277–524. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Iacobini, C. 2004. “La parasintesi.” In La formazione delle parole in italiano, edited by M. Grossmann, 165– 88. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Iacobini, C. 2010. “Les verbes parasynthétiques: de l’expression de l’espace à l’expression de l’action.” De Lingua Latina 3: 1–16. Kiparsky, P. 1997. “Remarks on Denominal Verbs.” In Complex Predicates, edited by À. Alsina, J. Bresnan, and P. Sells, 473–99. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Labelle, M. 2000. “The Semantic Representation of Denominal Verbs.” In Lexical Specifcation and Insertion, edited by P. Coopmans, M. Everaert, and J. Grimshaw, 215–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lüdtke, Jens. 2011. “La ‘parasynthèse’: Une fausse piste?” Romanische Forschungen 123 (3): 312–30. Martínez-Vera, G. 2016. “Syntactic Structure of Spanish Parasynthesis: Towards a Split Little-v via Afectedness.” Isogloss 2 (2): 63–94. Mateu, J. 2002. “Argument Structure. Relational Construal at the Syntax-Semantics Interface.” PhD diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/4828#page=1. Mateu, J. 2019. “Parasynthetic Verbs in Latin and Romance Languages: A Typological Perspective.” Invited talk delivered at Dahlem Lectures in Linguistics, Freie Universität, Berlin, May 21. Montalbetti, M. 1996. “Parasynthesis, Backformation, and Myers’ Efect in Spanish.” In Aspects of Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Symposium on Romance Languages XXIV, edited by C. Parodi, 329–36. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Pujol-Payet, I. 2014. “Abocar, embocar, desbocar: polisemia regular en los verbos parasintéticos.” Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española 9: 127–50. Rainer, Franz. 2016. “Derivational Morphology.” In The Oxford Guide to Romance Languages, edited by A. Ledgeway and M. Maiden, 513–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reinheimer-Rîpeanu, S. 1974. Les dérivés parasynthétiques dans les langues romanes. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Romagno, D. 2003. “Azionalità e transitività: il caso dei preverbi latini.” Archivio Glottologico Italiano 88: 156–70. Scalise, S. 1986. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Schroten, J. 1997. “On Denominal Parasynthetic Verbs in Spanish.” In Linguistics in the Netherlands, edited by J. Coerts and H. de Hoop, 195–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Serbat, G. 1989. “Suggestions pour l’analyse des verbes préfxés ‘parasynthétiques.’” L’Information Grammaticale 42: 13–14. www.persee.fr/doc/igram_0222-9838_1989_num_42_1_3490. 38

Main morphological formal means (II)

Serrano-Dolader, D. 1995. Las formaciones parasintéticas en español. Madrid: Arco Libros. Serrano-Dolader, D. 1999. “La derivación verbal y la parasíntesis.” In Entre la Oración y el Discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4683–755. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Serrano-Dolader, D. 2012a. “Sobre los compuestos (para)sintéticos ¿en español?” In Los límites de la morfología. Estudios ofrecidos a Soledad Varela Ortega, edited by A. Fábregas, E. Felíu, J. Martín, and J. Pazó, 427–42. Madrid: UAM Ediciones. Serrano-Dolader, D. 2012b. “Sobre los adjetivos ¿parasintéticos? locativos (submarino, intramuscular, interdigital).” In Tiempo y espacio en la formación de palabras del español, edited by E. Bernal, C. Sinner, and M. Emsel, 65–78. München: Peniope. Serrano-Dolader, D. 2015. “Parasynthesis in Romance.” In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, edited by P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, and F. Rainer, 524–36. Berlin: De Gruyter. Serrano-Dolader, D. 2016. “Viejas y nuevas aproximaciones al concepto de parasíntesis.” In Cuestiones de morfología léxica, edited by C. Buenafuentes de la Mata, G. Clavería Nadal, and I. Pujol, 9–34. Madrid and Frankfurt: Iberoamericana Vervuert. Todaro, G. 2017. “Nomi (e aggettivi) che diventano verbi tramite prefssazione: quel che resta della parasintesi.” PhD diss., Universitè Toulouse 2/Università degli Studi di Roma Tre. https://tel.archivesouvertes.fr/tel-02054274/document.

39

4 Main morphological formal means (III) Salvador ValeraMain morphological formal means (III)

Approaches to conversion (Principales procedimientos formales en morfología 3: aproximaciones a la conversión)

Salvador Valera

1 Introduction Conversion is described in word formation as a process whereby word-class change takes place without any accompanying variation in the form, so one and the same phonological and orthographic representation of the word displays morphological, syntactic and semantic properties of two word-classes (cf. Bauer [2003, 38]; for an overview of theoretical positions on the process and of alternative analyses, cf. Valera [2015]). In Spanish word formation, conversion is defned in line with this characterisation (cf. Pena [1991, 103]), except that the formal identity may hold between word-classes and also between word-subclasses.1 The concept of conversion thus relies on two conditions: formal identity and word-(sub)class change. Both conditions have been applied dissimilarly to a range of profles in the literature, considering how conversion has been described across languages: from cases without word-class change to cases without formal identity accompanying word-class change (for a review of conversion and how these interpretations relate to a sample of Indo-European languages, cf. Valera [2015]). This chapter takes the conditions of formal identity and word-class change as a reference for the delineation of the main types of conversion that have been considered in Spanish (section 2), for alternative approaches (section 3) and for some of the open questions regarding conversion in Spanish (section 4). The chapter closes with a conclusion (section 5). Keywords: conversion; zero; word-class; semantic categories; afxation; derivation; substitution; subtraction En formación de palabras, se entiende por ‘conversión’ el proceso por el que un cambio de clase de palabra tiene lugar sin refejo formal, de modo que la misma representación fonológica y ortográfca exhibe propiedades morfológicas, sintácticas y semánticas de dos clases de palabras (cf. Bauer [2003, 38]; para un resumen de las posiciones teóricas sobre este proceso y sus posibles análisis, cf. Valera [2015]). La formación de palabras del español describe la conversión de este modo (cf. Pena [1991, 103]), con la particularidad de que la identidad formal se puede dar entre cambios tanto de clase como de subclase de palabra. 40

Main morphological formal means (III)

Por tanto, el concepto de conversión descansa sobre dos condiciones: identidad formal y cambio de (sub)clase de palabra. Los términos en los que se aplica estas dos condiciones a diversos tipos de formaciones en la bibliografía especializada diferen considerablemente entre sí, y comprenden desde casos donde no cambia la clase de palabra hasta casos donde no hay identidad formal (para una revisión del concepto de conversión y de su interpretación en una muestra de lenguas indoeuropeas, cf. Valera [2015]). Este capítulo parte de las condiciones de identidad formal y cambio de clase de palabra para describir los principales tipos de conversión descritos en español (sección 2), otras posibles descripciones de dichos tipos (sección 3) y algunas de las cuestiones objeto de estudio sobre la conversión en español (sección 4). El capítulo concluye con una recapitulación (sección 5). Palabras clave: conversión; cero; clase de palabra; categorías semánticas; afjación; derivación; substitución; substracción

2 Types of conversion The main cases that have been described as conversion are presented in this section by wordclass for easier reading but also for the substantial diferences between them (cf. their specifc approaches and controversies in sections 3 and 4). Thus, a case of conversion has been posited for the following, by contrast with noun or verb formation by derivation (see Resnik [this volume] and Batiukova [this volume], for such processes): i) a.

Noun/verb: Noun-to-verb, as in Rainer (1993, 237–38, 2016, 2634–36):2

(1) almacén3 ‘storehaus’ (2) piloto ‘pilot’ b.

> >

almacenar ‘to store’ pilotar ‘to pilot’

Verb-to-noun, as in Rainer (1993, 212, 2016, 2636):4

(3) controlar ‘to control’ (4) pescar ‘to fsh’

> >

control ‘control’ pesca ‘fshing’

Conversion displays considerable polysemanticity in both directions (see Gutiérrez Rubio [this volume]). For denominal verbs, the literature has described semantic categories such as causative, effective,5 instrumental, locative, ornative, performative, privative, resultative, among others, as noted at least as early as in Alemany Bolufer (1920, 138–39; cf. also Rainer [1993, 237–39]). For deverbal nouns, a number of semantic categories have been listed, too, for example, action, agent, space location, time location, etc. (cf., among others, Alemany Bolufer [1920, 3–4], or Alvar Ezquerra [2015, 55–57]). Their semantic range may be widened under the infuence of the context for specifcation of a basic general meaning (cf. Rainer [1993, 237–39]) and of several types of extension of the meaning of the base verb and its arguments (cf. Rainer [1993, 213–15]). In denominal verbs and deverbal nouns, conversion is in competition with other processes for the expression of the same semantic category, especially with afxation (cf. 41

Salvador Valera

Santiago Lacuesta and Bustos Gisbert [1999]; Serrano-Dolader [1999]; Fábregas [2016]). Thus, in noun-to-verb derivation, the category ornative or the category instrumental can also be expressed by afxation of -ear and by circumfxation of a-[noun]-(e)ar, among others (cf. Rainer [1993, 238], [2016, 2634]; cf. also Lázaro Carreter [1980b, 75 et passim]; Varela Ortega [1990, 12]). In verb-to-noun derivation, the categories event or result can be expressed by conversion6 but also by afxation of -ción, -zón, -m(i)ento or -dura, among others (cf. Alemany Bolufer [1920, 3–5]; Varela Ortega [1990, 12]; Santiago Lacuesta and Bustos Gisbert [1999, 4516–17]; or Alvar Ezquerra [2015, 57]). The choice of one or the other resource for the expression of a given semantic category is heavily infuenced by domain, by register and by dialectal variation. The latter stands out for the sharp contrast that may obtain between American and European Spanish regarding not just the frequency but also the acceptability of formations in each variety (in this regard cf. Santiago Lacuesta and Bustos Gisbert [1999, 4514, 4517–18, 4550]). ii) a.

Adjective/noun: Adjective-to-noun, as in Rainer (1993, 221–22, 2016, 2635):

(5) ancho ‘broad’ (6) exterior ‘outer’ b.

> >

(el) ancho ‘(the) breadth’ (el) exterior ‘(the) outside’

Noun-to-adjective, as in Rainer (2016, 2636):7

(7) violeta > ‘violet’ (8) matemática > ‘mathematics’

violeta ‘purple’ matemático ‘mathematical’

As in noun/verb conversion, a case for polysemanticity and a long list of affixes in competition with conversion have been cited in the literature (cf. Rainer [1993, 221–22, 225, 228]; cf. also Rainer [1999]; Santiago Lacuesta and Bustos Gisbert [1999]; Fábregas [2016]). iii) a.

Adjective/verb: Adjective-to-verb, as in Rainer (1993, 235, 237) and (2016, 2636):

enfermo ‘sick’ (10) mejor ‘better’ (9)

b.

> >

Verb-to-adjective (cf. section 4):

(11) consistente (en) ‘consisting (in/of)’ (12) mirado ‘looked’ 42

enfermar ‘to become sick’ mejorar ‘to become or make better’

> >

consistente ‘consistent’ mirado ‘considerate’

Main morphological formal means (III)

Again, polysemanticity has been recorded in the literature, as well as competition with other processes, like various types of afxation for the expression of the same semantic category, for example, en-[adjective]-ecer for the expression of the semantic category inchoative (cf. Alemany Bolufer [1920, 4, 136, 139]; Rainer [1993, 237]; cf. also Rainer [1999]; Serrano-Dolader [1999]). iv) a.

Adjective/adverb: Adjective-to-adverb, as in Rainer (2016, 2635):

(13) alto ‘high; loud’ (14) feo ‘ugly’ b.

> >

(hablar) alto ‘(to speak) loud’ feo (e.g. . . . la gata . . . lo arañaba bien feo . . .)8 ‘badly’ ‘ . . . the cat . . . scratched him quite badly . . .’

Adverb-to-adjective, as in Rainer (2016, 2636):

(15) después ‘afterwards’ (16) entonces ‘then’

> >

después (e.g. Yo . . . sé lo difícil que es el día después.) ‘following’ ‘I . . . know how difcult the following day is’ (el) entonces (presidente) ‘(the) then (president)’

Conversion has also been described in less productive cases, for example: i) Adverb-to-verb (Alemany Bolufer 1920, 140; Serrano-Dolader 1999, 4686): (17) atrás > atrasar (e.g. . . . atrasar la edad de jubilación no es buena medida.) ‘back’ ‘to delay’ ‘ . . . it is not a good decision to delay retirement age’ ii) Adverb-to-noun (cf. Menéndez Pidal [1977, 224]): (18) mal > mal (e.g. Pero mi padre no tenía aquel mal . . .) ‘wrongly; not well’ ‘disease’ ‘But my father didn’t have that disease . . .’ iii) Conjunction-to-noun (cf. Menéndez Pidal [1977, 224]): (19) pero > pero (e.g. Pero, y hay muchos peros en este mundo, ¿no le parece a usted que . . .?) ‘But, and there are many buts in this world, don’t you ‘but’ ‘cavil’ think that . . .’ iv) Locution-to-noun: (20) sin embargo > sin embargo ‘however’ ‘objection’

(e.g. . . . su vida estaba llena de sin embargos, . . .) ‘ . . . her life was full of howevers, . . .’

v) Interjection-to-noun (cf. Menéndez Pidal [1977, 224]): (21) oh > oh (e.g.  .  .  .  el confnado  .  .  .  recoge los ¡ohs! y ¡ahs! de admiración . . .) ‘oh!’ (interjection) ‘oh!’ ‘ . . . the prisoner . . . receives the ohs! and ahs! of praise . . .’

3 Analytical approaches 3.1 Nouns and adjectives and verbs Conversion is dissimilarly acknowledged in Spanish word formation. Word-class changing word formation in the major word-classes, as in the types reviewed in section 2, has been interpreted 43

Salvador Valera

according to two major standpoints: in one of them, afxation (and additional processes, like substitution and subtraction, cf. Pena [1999, 4336–38]) is maximised to the detriment of conversion; in the other, conversion is maximised to the detriment of afxation. These opposite standpoints result in part from the infuence of diferent descriptive traditions, as can be seen from the contrast of a number of references and as is also noted in the literature (cf. Pena [1991, 103]). The descriptive tradition of Romance languages usually views the cases that are discussed in this chapter as the result of other processes than conversion, notably sufxation, whereas the tradition that is in line with the description of Germanic languages views most of the same cases as conversion, as in Rainer (1993) and (2016) (cf. also Pena [1991, 103–4], [1999, 4336–37]; for various views of conversion and derivational zeroes in the most widespread Romance languages, cf. Floricic [2016] for French, Thornton [2004]9 for Italian, Rio-Torto et al. [2016] for Portuguese and Grossmann [2016] for Romanian). This is as a consequence of a conceptual position, too: if conversion is viewed as word-class change with strict formal identity, that is, as in word-based conversion, as is frequent in English, then conversion occurs rather marginally in Spanish. This view can be found, for example, in Varela Ortega (2009, 41) (cf. similarly Zacarías Ponce de León [2016], to cite one of the many possible sources about American Spanish): en sal [‘salt’] >sal-ar [‘to add salt’] . . . lo que se ha añadido a la base nominal para convertirla en verbo son solo los morfemas propios de la nueva categoría: la vocal del tema (-a-) y la desinencia verbal (-r del infnitivo. . .). Nos encontramos aquí . . . con formaciones que comprenden la adjunción de cierto material morfológico por lo que no pueden considerarse casos de simple conversión. This approach diverts the description to a range of theoretical positions that may certainly use the term and the concept conversion for certain profles10 but not, or not always, for the type of examples shown in section 2, that is, not for, for example, noun/verb derivation, where the bulk of this type of formations occurs (cf. Pena [1991, 105]). The most widespread approach to the types described in section 2 in other terms than conversion is thus guided by the lack of formal identity between the related words: the word-class change with associated formal contrast is typically interpreted as addition by sufxation and, therefore, afxation is maximised at the cost of conversion (cf. Alemany Bolufer [1920, 4, 136, 139]; Alvar Ezquerra [2015, 66]; Pena [1991, 103–4] and [1999, 4332, 4336–38]), for example: i) In denominal verbs: (22) almidón > almidonar (cf. (1) and Pena [1991, 103]) ‘starch’ ‘to starch’ ii) In deverbal nouns: (23) abonar > ‘to fertilise’

abono ‘fertiliser’

iii) In deverbal adjectives: (24) desnudar > desnudo ‘to undress’ ‘naked’ iv) In deadjectival verbs: (25) igual > igualar ‘equal’ ‘to equalise’ 44

Main morphological formal means (III)

These derivatives are thus said to consist of two components: uno que expresa una idea general y abstracta, y otro que precisa y concreta dicha idea, denotando a la vez, no solo la categoría gramatical de la palabra nueva, sino también la signifcación que ha de tener dentro de dicha categoría. (Alemany Bolufer [1920, 1]) These two components are termed ‘root’ (radical) and sufx. In this view, unlike in the interpretation as conversion, endings like infnitival -ar for alfombra ‘carpet’ > alfombrar ‘to ft with a carpet’, or like nominal -a for cazar ‘to hunt’ > caza ‘hunting’ qualify as sufxation (cf. also Alemany Bolufer [1920, 137–41]). This position is reminiscent of Whorf ’s (1945) approach to word-classes as a surface feature that substantiates or actualises one of the possible cognitive categories that can be related to a given lexeme, thus preempting the very notion of conversion as a dynamic process. The type of sufxation used in the denominal and deadjectival verbs previously has been called ‘sufjación simple’, ‘inmediata’ or ‘impropia’ (cf. Alemany Bolufer [1920, 147]; Menéndez Pidal [1977, 324–25]; Serrano-Dolader [1999, 4685–89]; Alvar Ezquerra [2015, 66]): it afxes the verbal ending to a base and its only efect is the grammatical change (Pena [1993, 233], quoted in Serrano-Dolader [1999, 4688]). By contrast, in ‘sufjación . . . mediata’, an afx with additional attributes to word-class change is appended, like -ear in campear ‘come out to graze; come out to fght; stand out’ (Serrano-Dolader 1999, 4685–89; Alvar Ezquerra 2015, 66). In the case of deverbal nouns, the sufxes -a, -e, -o are added (Alvar Ezquerra 2015, 66; cf. also Santiago Lacuesta and Bustos Gisbert [1999, 4515–18, 4549–50, 4584–88]). Afxation can also be viewed in these cases as by a zero sufx (for a review, cf. Pena [1991, 107–9], [2012]; cf. also Thornton [2004]; Dahl and Fábregas [2017]). This is a much less frequent approach in Spanish word formation, where the zero sufx should follow the thematic vowel, as in planta ‘plant’ > planta-Ø-r ‘to plant’ or as in dudar ‘to doubt’ > duda-Ø ‘doubt’ (Pena 1991, 108). The existence of zero morphs has been accepted in a number of references (e.g. in Varela Ortega [1990, 95]) and has been used as a descriptive device both in infectional and in derivational morphology but not without difculties, especially in the latter (for a review, cf. Pena [1991, 106–8], [1999, 4355–56]). The derivation between nouns or adjectives and verbs has also been described as ‘formas temáticas’ or ‘formaciones temáticas’, that is, non-afxal derivation11 that operates on the root plus the thematic vowel (see Zacarías Ponce de León [this volume] and Camus [this volume]), as in marcha ‘march’ vs. marchar ‘to march’ (cf. Varela Ortega [2009, 31–32], cf. also [1990, 59] for denominal agua ‘water’ > agu-a-r ‘to add water’ and for deadjectival verbs, like mejor ‘better’ > mejor-a-r ‘to improve’, and [1990, 81] for ‘postverbal derivatives’, as in costar ‘to cost’ > costa, coste, costo ‘cost’; cf. also Menéndez Pidal [1977, 232–33]). In these formations, Varela Ortega (2009, 32) disregards the (dis)similarity between the thematic vowels of the base and the derivative, in that the formal variation does not entail separate processes, as evidenced in the latter example with three diferent vowels (-a, -e, -o): all are considered thematic formations. In other approaches, such as in Pena (1991, 1999), the alteration in the thematic vowels entails substantial diferences. Against the traditional view of these formations in Romance languages, based on the word-class of the derivative (i.e. noun or verb, cf. Pena [1991, 104]), Pena (1991) arranges these formations by process according to the variation that the theme vowel may undergo, such that sufxation is supplemented with three additional processes. This is based on the relevance of the theme as ‘una unidad necesaria en el análisis morfológico del español’ (Pena 1999, 4308), and as ‘la unidad básica en la descripción de la fexión y de la formación 45

Salvador Valera

de palabras en español’ (Pena 1999, 4317). Thus, the formation of the word-classes noun, verb and adjective can be interpreted as afxation but also as the following (cf. Pena [1991, 103–4], [1999, 4331–32, 4336–38]), according to the change operated on the base, especially regarding the thematic vowel: i) Substitution of an element of the base (‘sustitución’): a. In deverbal nouns: (26) cesar > cese ‘to fre’ ‘fring’ b. In denominal verbs: (27) alambre > alambrar ‘to fence or ft with (barb)wire’ ‘wire’ c. In deadjectival verbs: (28) aparente > aparentar ‘apparent; seeming’ ‘to pretend’ ii) Subtraction of an element of the base (‘sustracción’): a. In deverbal nouns: (29) controlar > control ‘to control’ ‘control’ b. In denominal verbs (cf. Serrano-Dolader [1999, 4689]): (30) difcultad > difcultar ‘difculty’ ‘to make difcult’ c. In deverbal adjectives: (31) cansar > canso ‘to tire out’ ‘tired out’ This approach considers conversion the fourth additional process alongside afxation, subtraction and substitution, but conversion is here limited to where no formal change occurs in the base, specifcally in the thematic vowel (Pena 1999, 4338): iii) Conversion of the base (‘conversión’): a. In deverbal nouns: (32) ayudar > ayuda ‘to help’ ‘help’ b. In denominal verbs: (33) lija > lijar ‘sandpaper’ ‘to sand’ It is worth noting that the condition of formal identity is applied diferently in the previous and in the standard description of conversion, for example, in English: the cases of substitution presented here are listed alongside cases that are typically described as conversion with formal change in English, either by voicing or by stress shift (cf. Pena [1991, 98–100]). In other 46

Main morphological formal means (III)

languages, conversion is described in this line, too, even if more systematic variation is involved than just voicing and stress shift as in English: if some formal contrast between the source and the derivative obtains in the process that operates word-class change, but the formal contrast relies on the infectional potential of the new word-class, then this has also been viewed as conversion, as in root-based conversion. The principle is that the process is the same, except that the morphological model of some languages allows conversion to manifest as complete formal identity, that is, word-based conversion, whereas the morphological model of other languages imposes some formal contrast by incorporation of infectional12 matter of the new word-class (for a review, cf. Valera [2014]). Thus, not only do pairs like alfombra ‘carpet’ > alfombrar ‘to ft with a carpet’ qualify as conversion (cf. Rainer [1993, 238]) but also cesar ‘to fre’ > cese ‘fring’ (cf. Rainer [2016, 2636]). This approach maximises conversion at the cost of afxation and reportedly occurs productively in Spanish (cf. Rainer [2016, 2635]). This view of conversion does not change the fact that afxation remains ‘by far the most important technique of wordformation in Spanish’ (Rainer [2016, 2625]; cf. similarly Pena [1999, 4338]; Varela Ortega [2009, 41], despite the diferent interpretation of conversion of each author), conversion following compounding in importance too. A number of other approaches have been put forward in word-formation theory to circumvent the difculties inherent in the description of conversion (cf. Pena [1993, 109–10] for a review). However, to the best of our knowledge, they have not been applied to Spanish to a degree where they can be said to have developed a theory with obvious advantages over the ones reviewed previously.

3.2 Nouns and adjectives The separate categorisation of such closely connected word-classes as noun and adjective leads to questions that could be presented in section 4 but which are outlined here for convenience. Whether the examples of this type cited in section 2 actually involve conversion or not is partly a matter of interpretation and partly a matter of the case at issue (cf. section 4). Although the literature records instances of ‘sustantivos . . . convertidos en adjetivos’ (cf. Menéndez Pidal [1977, 225]), the most relevant cases are with regard to the opposite direction, that is, adjective to noun. There are other cases where the same afx is considered to be added to bases to form one word-class, for example, -ista to form nouns, -ivo to form adjectives or -izo to form adjectives (cf. Alemany Bolufer [1920, 91–100], to cite the earliest reference). However, the respective lists of formations of these sufxes also contain adjectives like optimista ‘optimist’ or nouns like ejecutivo ‘executive’ and paliza ‘beating’ within the respective lists, that is, adjectives that have become nominalised (‘substantivado’). Other times, the same sufx is considered to form two diferent word-classes, for example, -(t)orio/a to form adjectives and substantives, like respiratorio ‘respiratory’ from respirar ‘breathe’ and recordatorio ‘reminder’ from recordar ‘remind’, respectively (Alemany Bolufer 1920, 119–20; cf. Santiago Lacuesta and Bustos Gisbert [1999, 4570–73]). As Luján (1980, 117) notes, some of these cases have been described as ‘adjetivos sustantivados’ (cf. Lenz [1952], quoted in Luján [1980, 117]; for a review, cf. also Lázaro Carreter [1980a, 33 et passim]). This wording is not entirely clear regarding word-class identity and word-class change, but it is taken here as implying transfer from the word-class adjective to the word-class noun. This is the case where nominalised adjectives that result from ellipsis of the nominal head (Gutiérrez Ordóñez 1994, 486) become lexicalised so they no longer allow retrieval of a head noun, as in (un) roto ‘(a) hole, tear’, now recategorised as an entity rather than as a quality, as evidenced by a number of tests (cf. Briz Gómez [1989], quoted in Gutiérrez Ordóñez 47

Salvador Valera

[1994, 486–88]; cf. also Briz Gómez [1990], [1992]). This entails formal identity and word-class change and therefore qualifes as conversion, even if it is as the result of a syntactic process (i.e. what is usually described in other languages as syntactic conversion; cf. Plag [2003, 115–16]; Gaeta [2013, 154]). The position that examples like (el) exterior ‘(the) outside’ have become nouns is countered in a number of approaches. For Pena (1991, 105), most of these formations can be interpreted as the result of syntactic processes or are actually the result of word-class indeterminacy or fuzzy boundaries, and Pena proposes not to consider them conversions but recategorisation (‘recategorización’). Based on a number of tests, Luján (1980, 117–20) argues that they remain adjectives, even if combined with a pronoun; that is, they are adjectives that come from reduced, restrictive relative clauses such that, for example, (el) exterior comes from el que es exterior ‘the one that is outside’ (Luján 1980, 117–27; cf. also 141–51 and 210 et passim; for a discussion also leading to the word-class of other words, specifcally el/los, la/las or lo ‘the’, cf. also Bello [1847]; Alarcos Llorach [1972]; Lázaro Carreter [1980a]; Garrido Medina [1986]; Trujillo [1987]; Molina Redondo [1991]). The view held by Luján has also been reassessed with a thorough review of classical references and contested, among others, by Gutiérrez Ordóñez (1994), specifcally in favour of a third approach: what Luján considers adjectives are redimensioned by Gutiérrez Ordóñez (1994, 491–92; cf. also Iglesias Bango [1986] and Bosque [1989], quoted therein) so what forms the noun is the exocentric phrase consisting of both the article and the adjective, as in Gutiérrez Ordóñez’s (1994, 485) ‘transposition’: ‘construcciones exocéntricas en las que ninguno de los dos elementos asume la función de núcleo’ (emphasis as in the original). Thus, neither the article nor the adjective becomes converted, and it is the entire group that results in a nominal item (cf. the examples by Briz Gómez [1989] described by Bosque [1989], both quoted in Gutiérrez Ordóñez [1994, 495]; for a detailed review of the concept of transposition, cf. Gutiérrez Ordóñez [1991]; cf. also Lapesa [2000c]).

3.3 Adjectives and adverbs Two cases are discussed in relation with these word-classes. The former consists of conversion of adjectives into adverbs as signalled by the lack of gender or number infection, as in hablar alto ‘to speak loud’, where alto does not infect regardless of the gender and number of the subject, but no counterpart with the sufx -mente is possible (Luján 1980, 154–55; Rainer 2016, 2636). The latter case and, in general, the alternation of forms with and without -mente, often under the heavy infuence of register and/or mode (informal register and spoken language favour the forms that are formally identical to the potential adjectival bases), has been discussed in extenso, among others, by Luján (1980) and especially by Hummel (2000, 2012, 2014), with special attention to the contrast between American and European Spanish and to forms outside clause level, like modifers of adjectives or adverbs and discourse markers. It is, however, unclear whether the underlying process is conversion. Luján (1980, 156) refers to the group of adverbs that are formally identical with adjectives as ‘homónimos’ (in other passages as ‘homófonos’, Luján [1980, 154–56]) in their unmarked form, that is, ending in -o (e.g. alto, despacio) or -e (e.g. horrible ‘badly’, fuerte ‘badly; strongly’) and without access to number infection and, where applicable (i.e. for the ending in -o), gender infection. It is also unclear whether this is meant as literal homonymy or just as formal identity in this source. More importantly, it is undecided, in general, whether the interpretation of homonymy entails the assumption of a given word-formation process: while a case for grammatical homonymy has 48

Main morphological formal means (III)

been raised for conversion in Spanish (Pena 1991, 110–11), it is not widely accepted whether the members of the word-pairs that can be described as conversion hold a relation of homonymy (cf. Valera and Ruz [2020], on the relationship resulting between lexemes derived by conversion). Regardless of the relationship, Hummel (2012, 3) explicitly rejects an analysis as conversion for La mujer rápida ‘The fast-moving woman’ compared with La mujer corre rápido ‘The woman runs fast’. Hummel’s approach is a monocategorial system that retains the two items, rápida ‘fast-moving’ and rápido ‘fast’, within the same category: ‘la distinción de adjetivo y adverbio no se hace al nivel de la categoria formal, sino en la sintaxis’ (Hummel 2012, 2). For other cases, where adverbs may perform functions typically associated with diferent word-classes, Hummel has also appealed to concepts like polyfunctionality within one category, for example, regarding words like solamente ‘only’ or realmente ‘really’ (Hummel 2012, 275), where both conversion and word-class change are rejected, or regarding words like demasiado ‘too (many/much)’ in demasiado bonito ‘too nice’, demasiado bien ‘too well’, demasiadas casas ‘too many houses’ and hablar demasiado ‘speak too much’ (Hummel 2012, 91, 365–69), where a type of grammaticalisation (actually ‘paradigmatización’) is proposed, such that several functions fall within the scope of one category or functional group, in this case the category quantifer.

4 Controversies As in other languages, the defnition, types and approaches to conversion raise a number of questions that have been debated for decades and still are. Leaving aside the adequacy of each approach to specifc cases, this section reviews some of the difcult areas related to conversion in Spanish. The frst of these areas concerns the very defnition, in fact the actual reach, of conversion and arises from the applicability of conversion in the change of word-subclass: ‘cambia alguno de los rasgos inherentes dentro de una misma clase de palabra’ (Pena 1991, 104–5; cf. also [1999, 4336–37]). This position leads to a description as conversion of pairs where the contrast is with regard to gender (e.g. líder-fem ‘female leader’ vs. lider-masc ‘male leader’) or entails a diferent (albeit still related) meaning than in the base (e.g. castaño ‘chestnut tree’ vs. castaña ‘chestnut’, as in Rainer [1993, 197]; cf. also Rainer [2016, 2635]). This point, also acknowledged in conversion in other languages (e.g. in English as secondary word-class conversion), has hardly been echoed in the literature for a number of reasons: for what it entails regarding conversion as a word-formation process or not, for what it entails as potentially extensible (i.e. a variety of rather heterogeneous cases, like gender or countability in nouns, adjectives with a relational vs. a descriptive content or with a gradable vs. a non-gradable meaning, etc.) and for the availability of alternative descriptions in terms of, for example, type coercion or syntactic alternations (for a review, cf. Valera [2015]). Another point arisen from the defnition of conversion insofar as a dynamic process is the difculty in establishing the directionality of the process. The references establish directionality on semantic dependency, so the direction is noun-to-verb in lija ‘sandpaper’ vs. lijar ‘to sand’, because the verb means usar la lija ‘to use sandpaper’, and therefore its meaning relies on the existence of the related noun. By contrast, the direction is verb-to-noun in gobierno ‘(action of) ruling; governing; government’ vs. gobernar ‘to rule; to govern’, because the former means acción o efecto de gobernar ‘action or efect of governing’, as is mainly the case in this type (cf. Varela Ortega [2009, 43]; cf. Pena [1991, 105–7] for a review of the criterion of semantic dependency; cf. also Rainer [1993, 212], [2016, 2636] on action nouns; cf. Serrano-Dolader [1999, 4686] for the use of strictly synchronic criteria for the assessment of directionality). Directionality is, 49

Salvador Valera

however, not always so evident, especially if the members of the pair do not adjust themselves to this or other semantic patterns described in the literature or when other word-classes are involved. Other criteria that have been proposed, like the frequency of use, the distribution, and the number of senses of the members of the conversion pair, are not discussed to the same degree of detail in the literature on conversion in Spanish. The next question is the contrast between morphological conversion13 (meaning a morphological process of word formation) vs. syntactic conversion (meaning a syntactic process that may result in the lexicalisation of a given usage of a word as a new word[-class] and, therefore, in the existence of two formally identical words that are semantically related and that belong to two diferent word-classes). Syntactic conversion is usually separated from morphological conversion, for example, in nominalisation of infnitives, as noted by Rainer (2016, 2636), even if they may also become lexicalised (e.g. deberes ‘duties’ from deber ‘must’; cf. also Menéndez Pidal [1977, 224]); in the interface between adjectives and nouns, where the noun (el) ancho ‘[the] breadth’ from the adjective ancho ‘broad’ is taken as an instance of real conversion by contrast with zoológico ‘zoo’ from parque zoológico ‘zoological park’, a case of ellipsis of a superordinate noun (Rainer 2016, 2635–66) or when the adverb takes prenominal position, as in el entonces president ‘the then president’ (because the word in question retains the adverbial function in the basic structure and does not become lexicalised as an adjective; Rainer [2016, 2636]). To take a much-discussed issue, the contrast between conversion (e.g. pesca ‘fshing’ vs. pescar ‘to fsh’) and nominalisation of verbal infnitives (el haber bebido Juan tanta cerveza ‘John’s drinking so much beer’) is also based on the grounds that the latter retain verbal dependents. Some cases can be referred back to syntactic processes where the words in question are not lexicalised as a new word-class. In other cases, it may be difcult to draw the line between morphological and lexicalised syntactic conversion, especially considering the difculty in establishing degrees of lexicalisation. Degrees of nominalisation have been described for the so-called ‘infnitivos sustantivados’, according to the verbal properties the form in question retains, ranging from the most verbal-like type ‘infnitivo factivo’ through the ‘infnitivo modal’ and the ‘nombrador derivado’ (Varela Ortega 1990, 139–41; for a thorough review, cf. Lapesa [2000a], [2000b]). Thus, conversion in Spanish fnds difculties for the description of infnitives and participles as in other languages. Varela Ortega (1990, 71) refers to these as ‘formaciones híbridas’, ‘incluidas en el paradigma verbal pero cercanas a otras clases léxicas como el nombre en el caso del infnitivo, el adjetivo en el del participio, y el adverbio en el del gerundio’.14 Regarding participles, the formations in -ante and its allomorphs, originally forms of the present participle, are recorded as afxes for formation of deverbal nouns, as in the noun descendiente ‘descendant’ from the verb descender ‘to descend’ (Rainer 2016, 2629–30), but also as afxes for deverbal derivation of active adjectives, as in deprimente ‘dispiriting’ from deprimir ‘to dispirit’, that are glossed as ‘that Vs’ and therefore form the so-called pure active adjectives (Rainer 2016, 2633). Little remains of the original verbal meaning: en castellano son muy pocos los nombres con este sufjo [-ante, -(i)ente] que conservan la signifcación participial, por haber tomado los demás, la de adjetivo o la de substantivo. . . . Los adjetivos . . . denotan a la vez que la idea del verbo se ha convertido en cualidad más o menos permanente en el nombre a quien se refere el adjetivo. (Alemany Bolufer 1920, 23, my emphasis) Also, the formations with the sufx -ando/a have been recorded as ‘adjetivos verbales’ since Alemany Bolufer (1920, 19): ‘[h]emos convertido [algunos] en substantivos’ for example, examinando ‘exam candidate’. The use of the term convert in quotations like the previous, most 50

Main morphological formal means (III)

probably not meant as the derivational process at issue here, recalls that a need has been felt for the description of a process whereby word-class change takes place without formal change also with regard to participles. Besides the cases of adjectives and nouns in -ante and its allomorphs and in -ando/a, where syntactic processes may lead to usages that become lexicalised, there is the case of the so-called passive adjectives15: ‘usados como adjetivos y luego como substantivos’ (Alemany Bolufer 1920, 10; cf. similarly Menéndez Pidal [1977, 225]). Various positions can be attested in this regard, where probably the strongest claim for conversion is by Rainer (2016, 2633: ‘[p]assive adjectives are past participles and should probably be considered cases of conversion (asfaltado [covered with asphalt])’. Other positions consider these formations with a polysemous afx (e.g. they can also have a dispositional meaning, as in atrevido ‘daring’; Rainer [2016, 2633]) or are interpretations according to thematic or grammatical criteria. Some of these do not clear out completely whether these passive adjectives have undergone conversion (cf. the overview in Varela Ortega [1990, 151–52]).

5 Conclusions Two properties stand out in the description of conversion in Spanish word formation regarding the defning conditions for conversion to apply, namely formal identity and word-class change. The frst trait is that, unlike in other languages, the two defning conditions are applied with substantial diferences: formal identity is taken as a strict requirement, and this to the extent that what in other languages is described as root-based conversion in Spanish is described traditionally as sufxation plus other additional processes, because the form changes as the word-class changes. By contrast, word-class change is not a strict requirement, and word-subclass or secondary word-class change may qualify as conversion. The second trait is that, despite the various theoretical approaches, the cases that can be described as conversion in Spanish pose very similar descriptive difculties as other languages do, from the identifcation of directionality to the separation between morphological and syntactic conversion or the position of participial units in the process of conversion.

Notes 1 I would like to thank Ana Díaz-Negrillo, Antonio Fábregas and Jesús Pena for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this chapter and Cristina Fernández-Alcaina, Cristina Lara-Clares and Alba E. Ruz for suggestions emerging from related project research. The usual disclaimers apply. This chapter was supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (SRA, Ministry of Economy and Enterprise) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Ref. FFI2017–89665-P). 2 For verbalisation, cf. Chapter 17 of this volume. 3 Unless otherwise specifed, examples are from the sources cited, and glosses are according to the University of Granada English/Spanish Online Dictionary (A. Lozano 2000, https://lexis.ugr.es, last accessed 31/01/2020). 4 For nominalisation, cf. Chapter 15 of this volume. 5 Meaning the production of the base noun, that is, ‘produce N’ or, as in the source reference, ‘x hervorbringen’ (Rainer 1993, 239). 6 Under the term ‘sufxation’ in the original source (Alemany Bolufer 1920, 4), as explained subsequently. 7 For adjectivalisation, cf. Chapter 16 of this volume. 8 Example taken from the CREA Corpus (Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual), Real Academia Española, (last accessed 23/01/2020). 9 This reference kindly pointed out to me by Jesús Pena. 10 Thus, for example, Alvar Ezquerra (2015, 66, emphasis as in the original): ‘Los cambios de categoría que no necesitan de sufjos (lo hizo rápido, habla fatal, la cervecera [fábrica cervecera] produce millones 51

Salvador Valera

11 12 13 14 15

de litros, etc.) no son objeto del análisis que venimos realizando)’; that is, these examples do not belong in a description of word formation by compounding (including prefxation and shortening), derivation (sufxation and interfxation) or parasynthesis (prefxation and sufxation). The afxal nature of thematic formations is unclear and has been revised over time (cf. Varela Ortega [1990] vs. [2009]). For a review of the infectional or derivational nature of, for example, infnitive or participial endings, that is relevant for the description of Spanish too, cf. Fleischer (1982) and Haspelmath (1996). ‘[R]eal [cases of] conversion’ in Rainer (2016, 2635–36). For infnitives and participles, cf. Chapter 40 of this volume. These are diferent from afxation with -ado/a, described as a sufx to form nouns and adjectives (Alemany Bolufer 1920, 8–9) in that passive participles denote ‘la acción y efecto del verbo’ (Alemany Bolufer 1920, 10).

References Alarcos Llorach, E. 1972. “¡Lo fuertes que eran!” In Estudios de gramática funcional del español, edited by Emilio Alarcos Llorach, 166–177. Madrid: Gredos. Alemany Bolufer, J. 1920. Tratado de la formación de palabras en la lengua castellana. Madrid: Victoriano Suárez. Alvar Ezquerra, M. 2015 [1994]. La formación de palabras en español. 8th ed. Madrid: Arco. Bauer, L. 2003 [1988]. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bello, A. 1847. Gramática de la lengua castellana destinada al uso de los americanos. Edited by Ramón Trujillo. Madrid: Arcos. Bosque, I. 1989. Las categorías gramaticales. Madrid: Síntesis. Briz Gómez, A. 1989. “Sustantivación y Lexicalización en Español. (La Incidencia del Artículo).” Cuadernos de Filología Anejo 4. Briz Gómez, A. 1990. “El proceso de Sustantivación y Lexicalización de los Adjetivos con Artículo en Español.” Cuadernos de Filología 7: 231–39. Briz Gómez, A. 1992. “El Sintagma Artículo + Adjetivo en Español.” In Actes du XVIIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes: Université de Trèves (Trier), edited by Dieter Kremer, 81–90. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Dahl, E., and A. Fábregas. 2017. Zero Morphemes. The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.592. Fábregas, A. 2016. Las nominalizaciones. Madrid: Visor. Fleischer, W. 1982. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Floricic, F. 2016. “French.” In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, edited by Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer, vol. IV, 2661–82. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110379082-014. Gaeta, L. 2013. “Afx Ordering and Conversion: Looking for the Place of Zero.” Lingue e Linguaggio XII (2): 145–70. https://doi.org/10.1418/75039. Garrido Medina, J. 1986. “Pronombre y Artículo. El en Construcciones con Adjetivo o Relativo.” Revista de Filología Románica IV: 51–71. Grossmann, M. 2016. “Romanian.” In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, edited by Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer, vol. IV, 2731–51. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110379082-018. Gutiérrez Ordóñez, S. 1991. “La Transposición Sintáctica. (Problemas).” Cuadernos de Lingüística y Didáctica del Español 10. Gutiérrez Ordóñez, S. 1994. “El artículo sí sustantiva.” In II encuentro de lingüistas y flólogos de España y México, Salamanca, 25–30 de noviembre de 1991, edited by Alonso Alegría, Beatriz Garza Cuarón, and José Antonio Pascual, 483–507. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Haspelmath, M. 1996. “Word-Class-Changing Infection and Morphological Theory.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, edited by Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 43–66. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-017-3716-6_3. 52

Main morphological formal means (III)

Hummel, M. 2000. Adverbale und adverbialisierte Adjektive im Spanischen. Konstruktionen des Typs Los niños duermen tranquilos und María corre rápido. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Hummel, M. 2012. Polifuncionalidad, polisemia y estrategia retórica. Los signos discursivos con base atributiva entre oralidad y escritura. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110281248. Hummel, M. 2014. “The Adjective-Adverb Interface in Romance and English.” In Adjectives in Germanic and Romance, edited by Petra Sleeman, Freek Van de Velde, and Harry Perridon, 35–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.212.02hum. Iglesias Bango, M. 1986. “El Artículo en Español: Aportaciones a un Viejo Debate.” Contextos 7: 103–46. Lapesa, R. 2000a. “El infnitivo con actualizador en español: condicionamiento sintáctico de su forzosidad o rechazo.” In Estudios de morfosintaxis histórica del español, edited by Rafael Cano Aguilar and Mª Teresa Echenique Elizondo, vol. II, 557–667. Madrid: Gredos. Lapesa, R. 2000b. “El uso de actualizadores con el infnitivo y la suboración sustantiva en español: diacronía y sentido.” In Estudios de morfosintaxis histórica del español, edited by Rafael Cano Aguilar and Mª Teresa Echenique Elizondo, vol. II, 514–56. Madrid: Gredos. Lapesa, R. 2000c. “El neutro en califcativos y determinantes castellanos.” In Estudios de morfosintaxis histórica del español, edited by Rafael Cano Aguilar and Mª Teresa Echenique Elizondo, vol. II, 165–209. Madrid: Gredos. Lázaro Carreter, F. 1980a. “El problema del artículo en español.” In Estudios de Lingüística, edited by Fernando Lázaro Carreter, 27–59. Barcelona: Crítica. Lázaro Carreter, F. 1980b. “Transformaciones nominales y diccionario.” In Estudios de Lingüística, edited by Fernando Lázaro Carreter, 73–81. Barcelona: Crítica. Lenz, R. 1952. La oración y sus partes. Madrid: Revista de Filología Española. Lozano, A. 2000. University of Granada English/Spanish Online Dictionary. Granada: University of Granada. Accessed January 01, 2020. https://lexis.ugr.es. Luján, M. 1980. Sintaxis y semántica del adjetivo. Madrid: Cátedra. Menéndez Pidal, R. 1977 [1904]. Manual de gramática histórica española. 15th ed. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Molina Redondo, J. A. de. 1991. “De la ‘Sustantivación’ mediante el Artículo y de algunos Usos de la Forma ‘lo’.” Glosa 2: 429–44. Pena, J. 1991. “La Palabra: Estructura y Procesos Morfológicos.” Verba 18: 69–128. Pena, J. 1993. “La formación de verbos en español: la sufjación verbal.” In La formación de palabras, edited by Soledad Varela Ortega, 217–81. Madrid: Taurus. Pena, J. 1999. “Partes de la morfología. Las unidades del análisis morfológico.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, directed by Ignacio Bosque Muñoz and Violeta Demonte Barreto, vol. III, 4305–66. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Pena, J. 2012. “El elemento cero como recurso morfológico en el modelo Item and Arrangement.” In La sabiduría de Mnemósine. Ensayos de historia de la lingüística ofrecidos a José Francisco Val Álvaro, edited by José Luis Mendívil Giró and Mª del Carmen Horno Chéliz, 145–56. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza. Plag, I. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511841323. Rainer, F. 1993. Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Rainer, F. 1999. “La derivación adjetival.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, directed by Ignacio Bosque Muñoz and Violeta Demonte Barreto, vol. III, 4595–643. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Rainer, F. 2016. “Spanish.” In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, edited by Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer, vol. IV, 2620–40. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110379082-012. Rio-Torto, G., A. Soares Rodrigues, I. Pereira, R. Pereira, and S. Ribeiro. 2016 [2013]. Gramática derivacional do Português. 2nd ed. Coimbra: Coimbra University Press. http://dx.doi. org/10.14195/978-989-26-0864-8. Santiago Lacuesta, R., and E. Bustos Gisbert. 1999. “La derivación nominal.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, directed by Ignacio Bosque Muñoz and Violeta Demonte Barreto, vol. III, 4505–94. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. 53

Salvador Valera

Serrano-Dolader, D. 1999. “La derivación verbal y la parasíntesis.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, directed by Ignacio Bosque Muñoz and Violeta Demonte Barreto, vol. III, 4683–755. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Thornton, A. M. 2004. “Conversione.” In La formazione delle parole in italiano, edited by Maria Grossman and Franz Rainer, 501–33. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Trujillo, R. 1987. “La Cuestión del Artículo en Español.” Verba 14: 347–65. Valera, S. 2014. “Conversion.” In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, edited by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 164–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxf ordhb/9780199641642.013.0010. Valera, S. 2015. “Conversion.” In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, edited by Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer, vol. I, 322–39. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110246254-019. Valera, S., and A. E. Ruz. 2020. “Conversion in English: Homonymy, Polysemy and Paronymy.” English Language and Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674319000546. Varela Ortega, S. 1990. Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis. Varela Ortega, S. 2009. Morfología léxica: la formación de palabras. Madrid: Gredos. https://doi.org/10.14198/ ELUA2009.23.24. Whorf, B. Lee. 1945. “Grammatical Categories.” Language 21: 1–11. Zacarías Ponce de León, R. F. 2016. “Morfología Léxica en el Español Actual de México: Neología y Productividad.” Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 34: 11–31. https://doi.org/10.22201/enallt.018526 47p.2016.64.687.

54

5 Infection, derivation and compounding José-Luis Mendívil-GiróInfection, derivation and compounding

Issues of delimitation (Flexión, derivación y composición: cuestiones de delimitación)

José-Luis Mendívil-Giró

1 Introduction First, I propose a non-gradual criterion of distinction between derivation and infection based on a model of the position of morphology in the architecture of the language faculty. According to this model, derivational morphology refects aspects of the syntactic structure of words (and implies the creation of diferent words), while infectional morphology refects aspects of the syntactic structure of sentences (and implies the creation of diferent forms of the same word). Next, I propose defnitions of the three traditional morphological processes (infection, derivation and compounding), then show that the problems of delimitation between them do not reveal inconsistencies in the defnition of the processes but rather problems in the application of the defnitions to specifc cases, these being grouped as follows: (i) processes that seem infectional but are derivational, (ii) processes that seem derivational but are infectional and (iii) problems of delimitation between derivation and compounding, which have to do with the problems of delimitation between roots and afxes. Keywords: infection; derivation; compounding; lexeme; word form En primer lugar se propone un criterio no gradual de distinción entre morfología derivativa y morfología fexiva basado en un modelo de la posición de la morfología en la arquitectura de la facultad del lenguaje. Según dicho modelo, la morfología derivativa refeja aspectos de la estructura sintáctica de las palabras (e implica la creación de palabras distintas), mientras que la morfología fexiva refeja aspectos de la estructura sintáctica de las oraciones (e implica la creación de formas distintas de la misma palabra). A continuación, propongo defniciones de los tres procesos morfológicos tradicionales (fexión, derivación y composición) y después muestro que los problemas de delimitación entre ellos no refejan inconsistencia en la defnición de los procesos en sí, sino problemas de aplicación de las defniciones a casos concretos, que agrupamos de la siguiente manera: (i) procesos que parecen fexivos, pero son derivativos, (ii) procesos que parecen derivativos, pero son fexivos, y (iii) problemas de delimitación entre derivación y composición, que tienen que ver con los problemas de delimitación entre raíces y afjos. Palabras clave: fexión; derivación; composición, lexema, forma de palabra 55

José-Luis Mendívil-Giró

2 Defnitions of infection, derivation and compounding Before addressing the defnition of the three essential morphological processes, a terminological clarifcation is required. Since morphology is central to the structure of words, we must distinguish two uses of the term word: (i) the word as an abstract unit (which to avoid confusion I will call lexeme), and (ii) “the notion ‘word’ in the sense of ‘concrete word as used in a sentence’” (Booij 2005, 3), which I will call word form. Thus, a lexeme such as the Spanish adjective claro ‘clear’ has at least four diferent word forms, depending on the syntactic context in which it appears: claro, clara, claros, claras. In this case, then, there are four word forms of the same word (= lexeme).1 The derivational or compounding processes that afect the adjective claro (e.g. aclarar ‘clarify’, clarividente ‘clever’) do not produce diferent forms of that word but diferent words (lexemes). The relation between lexemes and word forms is analogous to that between phonemes and allophones or between morphemes and allomorphs (see Carstairs-McCarthy 2000).

2.1 The main criterion of distinction between infection and derivation The distinction I am going to propose between infectional morphology and derivational morphology has a crucial relation to the distinction between lexemes and word forms. In fact, it is often said that derivational morphology has the creation of lexemes as a function, while infectional morphology has as a function the creation of the diferent word forms of each lexeme (e.g. Pena 1999, 4308; Booij 2000, 360–61). This view coincides with part of the grammatical tradition, according to which “infection . . . dealt with the systematic variation in the forms that words took in context” while derivation and compounding (word formation) “dealt with the systematic means by which new words were formed and added to the lexicon” (Aronof 2000b, 343). This criterion, based on the diference in the output of the processes, is the criterion that I will consider decisive in the present contribution. However, it is common in discussions of the diference between infection and derivation, both in general (Booij 2000) and in the feld of Spanish (Varela Ortega 1990; Fábregas 2013a), to propose a list of diferent criteria for their distinction. Thus, along with the criterion already mentioned, others are added, as refected in Table 5.1 (following Booij 2000): Table 5.1 Criteria for the distinction between infection and derivation Criterion

Infection

Derivation

1. Output

Word forms

Lexemes

2. Change of word class

–

+

3. Generality and productivity

+

–

4. Obligatoriness

+

–

5. Paradigmaticity

+

–

6. Peripherality

+

–

7. Recursivity

–

+

8. Semantic transparency

+

–

9. Storing in the mental lexicon

–

+

10. Syntactic relevance

+

–

The gradual or difuse diference between infection and derivation that many authors argue for (see Bybee 1985; Dressler 1989; Haspelmath 1996) is based on the fact that the + and – signs in Table 5.1 associated with criteria 2–10 very often need to be interpreted as ‘high (+) or low 56

Infection, derivation and compounding

(–) degree’ and not as a strictly privative opposition. But this is not so with criterion 1, which I have privileged here as being the only one that is necessary and sufcient for the distinction. The central idea is that the behaviour of morphological processes with respect to criteria 2–10 (which are arranged alphabetically) is a consequence of criterion 1 and that the feeling of uncertainty produced by the gradualness of some of these properties should not afect the structural distinction between the two types of morphology. On the contrary, the use of various criteria (and not just one) suggests the possibility of a prototypical characterization of morphological processes, so that those that fulfl certain properties to a high degree (productivity, regularity, paradigmaticity, compositionality, etc.) are considered prototypical infectional processes in contrast to those at the other end of the scale, in which the prototypical derivational processes would be located, with a whole range of intermediate options. Yet this attitude, although apparently more descriptively appropriate, does not allow us an adequate understanding of the place of morphology in the language faculty, nor does it really explain why there would be two types of morphology, nor why certain tendencies are more or less prominent in some morphological processes than in others.

2.2 Morphology in the architecture of the language faculty Unlike the formulation of the criterion of distinction between infection and derivation in functional terms (“derivation . . . is that kind of morphology that serves to create new lexemes, whereas infection serves to create diferent forms of the same lexeme” Booij 2000, 360), I suggest here a model in which the diference in output of the two morphological processes (criterion 1) is a consequence of the architecture of the language faculty. This approach has the advantage that it does not require a lexicalist conception of morphology to recognize a qualitative diference between infection and derivation, so the proposal is compatible with non-lexicalist models (see Fabregas 2013a, chap. 6 for a discussion of this issue with other conclusions). The essential key of my current proposal is the conception of morphology as a mechanism for the externalization of syntactic derivations, according to the scheme in Figure 5.1.

Morphology (Externalization)

Syntax (Computation)

Morphemes

Syntactic atoms Lexical syntax

Derivative morphology

˜

Lexemes Phrasal syntax

Inflectional morphology

˜

Phrases, sentences

Figure 5.1 The place of morphology in the faculty of language 57

José-Luis Mendívil-Giró

As the scheme shows, the language faculty (the internal language of each person) is formed centrally by a computational system (the syntax) that produces syntactic derivations from basic units (according to Chomsky 1995 et seq., through the single operation Merge). At a given moment of the syntactic derivation (which in the scheme is indicated by the operation of syntactic categorization that produces lexemes), a frst phase of externalization is established, which is what we call derivational morphology (or lexical morphology in some traditions) and which produces stems (traditionally the result of eliminating infectional morphology from one word). Lexemes are not, then, morphological entities but syntactic entities (syntactic words, in fact). Derivational morphology refects, with greater or lesser transparency (depending on historical and other factors), the internal syntactic structure of the word. In the model developed in Mendívil-Giró (2019), it is argued that this is the frst point at which an internal syntactic derivation is associated with the sensory-motor system. At that point, the association (memorization) between syntactic structures and morpho-phonological representations that we normally call mental lexicon is established. Once the syntax exceeds the level of the lexemes, it continues its computation and produces more complex entities (phrases and sentences). Note that, although the model refects a descriptive distinction between so-called ‘lexical syntax’ and ‘phrasal syntax’ (separated by the creation of lexemes), it is compatible with the non-lexicalist interpretation according to which ‘everything is syntax all the way down’, since the model does not imply qualitative changes in the computational mechanisms of both ‘types’ of syntax but rather, if at all, in the properties of the units with which Merge operates. Aronof, normally considered a lexicalist author, suggests that morphology “in the very restricted sense of ‘the realization of forms’ is an entirely diferent enterprise from what the syntactician is engaged in, which is the arrangement of abstract categories”, but that syntax, hence, “accounts for the syntactic side of both word formation . . . and infection” (2000a, 199–200). And this is precisely what is refected in the scheme in Figure 5.1. As Aronof also pointed out, what was called weak lexicalism “merely draws a line in this abstract syntax at the lexeme, which is the traditional line between syntax and derivation” (2000a, 200). In my interpretation, this dividing line at the level of the lexeme is not a consequence of two distinct generative systems but of the relevance of syntactic categorization for the language faculty (see Mendívil-Giró 2019). As suggested in the scheme, infectional morphology is a totally post-syntactic process, in the sense that it produces the appropriate word forms for the syntactic confguration in which each lexeme is at the end of the syntactic derivation. In this sense, if derivational morphology refects part of the internal syntactic structure of words, infectional morphology refects part of the structure of sentences. In both cases, morphology has to do with the ‘realization of forms’, and hence it is not surprising that there is a formal continuity between infection and derivation (in the sense that both processes can employ similar mechanisms of prefxation or sufxation, for example). Compounding does not appear in the scheme as a specifc type of morphology. The essential reason (apart from the fact that compounding is itself a complex and heterogeneous phenomenon) is that it seems more reasonable to understand it as a special case of derivational morphology, in the crucial sense that it also implies the creation of new lexemes and not diferent word forms of the same lexeme. For this reason, some traditions group derivation and compounding under the label lexical morphology.

2.3 Defnitions Starting from the model presented in the previous section, it is possible to formulate the following informal defnitions of each of the three morphological processes for Spanish grammar, in which no mention is made of criteria 2–10: 58

Infection, derivation and compounding

Derivation: Formation of a lexeme from another lexeme. It is typically expressed through a derivational afx and may involve recategorization (libro ‘book’ > libresco ‘bookish’), although it is not mandatory (libro > librería ‘bookshop’). Compounding: Formation of a lexeme including at least two lexical roots (limpia-(r) ‘to clean’ + botas ‘boots’ > limpiabotas ‘shoeshine’). Infection: Modifcation of a lexeme to obtain other forms of the same word. In Spanish, such modifcation is carried out by means of infectional afxes (libro ‘book’ > libros ‘books’) or irregularly by suppletion (ten-e-r ‘have’ > *tení > tuve ‘I had’). Compounding has an asymmetrical position, since it is assimilated into derivation according to the relevant criterion. Some types of compounds (camión cisterna ‘tank truck’ or pez globo ‘pufer fsh’) have problems of delimitation with syntactic constructions and idioms, not with derivations (see Val 1999; Mendívil-Giró 2009; Marqueta 2019, and Sanromán this volume). In fact, controversies in Spanish morphology (as in other languages) mainly focus on two kinds of problems: those of delimitation between derivation and infection and those of delimitation between compounding and syntactic construction. The reason for this is that derivation and compounding do not resemble each other much formally, but they are similar in terms of function (the creation of new lexemes); in turn, derivation and infection do not resemble each other much functionally but do so formally (typical and exclusive use of afxation). From the proposed model of distinction, we can use the following algorithm to distinguish between derivational morphological processes and infectional ones: (1) Algorithm of distinction between derivation and infection If A → B is a morphological process and (i) B is a diferent word than A then A → B is a derivational process (ii) B is a diferent form of the same word then A → B is an infectional process The relevant conclusion now is that the apparent uncertainty of some morphological processes does not imply that infection and derivation are extremes of a continuum but simply that it is not always easy to distinguish when A and B are two diferent words or two diferent forms of the same word.

2.4 On the multiplicity of criteria Although a greater or lesser degree of compliance with any of the criteria 2–10 in Table 5.1 is usually an indication of whether a given process is infectional or derivational, no particular criteria by itself is a necessary and sufcient condition to determine this. Only criterion 1 meets that condition. I have said that derivational morphology refects (part of) the internal syntactic structure of words, while infectional morphology refects (part of) the syntactic structure of sentences. Just as this diference does not imply that there are two diferent ‘syntaxes’, it does not imply that there are two diferent ‘morphologies’, since the formal processes that derivation and infection employ in the world’s languages are common to both types of processes (see Mel’čuk 2000). However, the fact that the products of these processes are diferent (lexemes in one case, word forms in the other) is certainly relevant in explaining diferences in behaviour with respect to the other criteria. A crucial consequence of this is the paradigmaticity of infectional morphology (criterion 5), a central property which determines other properties attributed to infection in Table 5.1. 59

José-Luis Mendívil-Giró

Consider, for example, the present tense, indicative mood paradigm of the verb cantar ‘sing’ in Spanish: Table 5.2 Present indicative paradigm of cantar ‘sing’ Present, indicative

Singular

Plural

1st person

canto

cantamos

2nd person

cantas

cantáis

3rd person

canta

cantan

A (partial) infectional paradigm such as the one in Table  5.2 can be understood as a set of cells resulting from combining diferent morphosyntactic features (in this case, person and number features). Each cell combines a set of features and provides a specifc word form for each possible syntactic context. With the exception of certain syncretisms and occasional gaps, a Spanish verb normally has 61 possible synthetic forms (in addition to 56 analytic or periphrastic forms). Any verb of the same conjugation class as cantar (with the exception of a few irregular ones) is conjugated in exactly the same way, so that in principle, it cannot be assumed that all word forms of a lexeme are stored in the lexicon (criterion 9) but are calculated or inferred from a more limited number of the so-called “principal parts” and certain rules (see Stump and Finkel 2013). Note that the verbs whose 61 forms are conjugated in Spanish according to the paradigm in Table 5.2 are not counted by tens or hundreds but by thousands or tens of thousands (in fact, any invented verb ending in -ar will be conjugated in the same way). The greater tendency for generality and productivity (criterion 3) and for semantic transparency (criterion 8) also follows from the essentially analogical nature of the organization of infectional morphology. Obligatoriness (criterion 4) also follows from this trait, in the sense that it is not possible to use the lexeme cantar without choosing any of the cells of its infectional paradigm, precisely because word forms refect the syntactic structure in which the lexemes are used (criterion 10), something that does not happen with derived or compound words. However, I have already noted that most of the properties in Table 5.1 (with the exception of the frst one) are gradual and not privative, which implies that, just as there is sometimes irregularity, defectivity and opacity in infectional morphology, there is also regularity, productivity and compositionality in derivational morphology, a fact that in itself does not threaten the neat diference between both types of morphology. Traditionally, the notion of derivational paradigm is not common (although see Bonami and Strnadová 2019), but the notion of word families is. Consider, for example, the following (partial) word family based on the adjective claro ‘clear’ in Spanish: Table 5.3 (Partial) word family of the adjective claro ‘clear’ claro ‘clear’

aclarar ‘clarify’ esclarecer ‘clear up’

claridad ‘clarity’

clarividente ‘clever’ claroscuro ‘chiaroscuro’

clarifcar ‘clarify’ clarecer ‘dawn’

claramente ‘clearly’

What we have in Table 5.3 is not a paradigm in the strict sense, because, unlike what happens with the paradigm in Table 5.2, which can be applied to literally thousands of Spanish lexemes, the ‘paradigm’ of Table 5.3 is exclusive to the lexeme claro. If we take an adjective of the same 60

Infection, derivation and compounding

type and which is semantically related, such as oscuro ‘dark’, we see that a direct application here is inadequate: Table 5.4 (Partial) word family of the adjective oscuro ‘dark’ oscuro ‘dark’

*aoscurar *esoscurecer

oscuridad ‘darkness’

*oscurividente *oscuroclaro

*oscurifcar oscurecer ‘darken’

oscuramente ‘obscurely’

In fact, each lexeme has its own ‘derivational paradigm’, revealing that word families, even though they are crucial for the knowledge of the lexicon, are of a diferent formal nature than infectional paradigms. Each of the members of the paradigms in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 is not a distinct form of the word claro or oscuro but a diferent word. Comparing the families of words in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 shows that there are derivational processes that are more productive than others. Thus, we observe from this very limited corpus that there are at least three analogical pairs (oscurecer/clarecer, oscuridad/claridad, claramente/oscuramente). However, it can be observed that the frst pair does not present property 8: clarecer does not mean ‘make something clearer’ but is used only with the meaning of ‘dawn’, ‘began to clear’. Oscurecer, on the other hand, carries both meanings (‘make something darker’ and the impersonal meaning ‘get dark’). This type of semantic idiosyncrasy is typical of derivations precisely because of their lexical nature: derivations are diferent lexemes from their bases and, as independent lexical units, they are very susceptible to losing part of compositionality or specializing their meaning in a peculiar way. Nominalization with -idad ‘-ity’ is much more productive and transparent (normal ‘normal’ > normalidad ‘normality’, peculiar ‘peculiar’ > peculiaridad ‘peculiarity’, vital ‘vital’> vitalidad ‘vitality’), although it is not difcult to fnd adjectives that do not admit it (alto ‘high’ > *altidad vs. altura ‘height’; bello ‘beautiful’ > *bellidad, vs. belleza ‘beauty’) or that show synchronically anomalous bases (fdelidad ‘fdelity’). More difcult (although not impossible, see Kovacci 1999, 710 et seq.) is to fnd adjectives of quality that cannot be converted into adverbs by means of -mente (as *gordamente ‘fatly’). And because of its high productivity, some authors have suggested that this is an infectional process: “the attachment of -mente to adjective bases is sufciently predictable and productive to be considered a case of infection” (Lang 1992, 162). Note, though, that this conclusion is an example of considering productivity (and predictability) the criterion of distinction between both types of morphology (as Haspelmath 1996 does). However, if it is indeed true, as indicated in the scheme in Figure 5.1, that derivational processes are the refection of the operation of syntax in the creation of words, it might be expected that some of them will be very productive and very semantically transparent and will not require dictionaries to collect their outputs but that this does not make them infectional processes. Likewise, the fact that irregular infectional forms (such as tuve ‘I had’) have to be acquired through memorization does not mean that they are derived words. Adverbs derived with -mente (see De Benito Moreno, this volume) are in fact one of the typical problems of delimitation in the morphology of Spanish, although, according to the criterion proposed here, it is not possible to consider this process infectional, but, rather, the problem is in determining whether these formations are derivations or compounds (see 3.3 subsequently). One of the reasons for considering claramente ‘clearly’ a diferent lexeme from claro is that, in terms of traditional grammar, the former is an adverb and the latter is an adjective. Advocates of the gradual vision might argue that criterion 2 (change of word class) seems 61

José-Luis Mendívil-Giró

contradictory with respect to criterion 1, since there are many derivational processes that do not change the category (zapato ‘shoe’ > zapatero ‘shoemaker’), and some authors consider that there are infectional processes that do this (Haspelmath 1996) and which thus could be considered derivational. A recurrent example here involves the so-called non-personal forms of verbs, also known as hybrid forms (see Marín, this volume, for a detailed analysis). But it is inaccurate to say that the infection of hybrid forms implies a change of category. In Spanish, infnitives, gerunds and participles have fully verbal productive uses, and their special syntactic behaviour can be explained by the absence of person, time and mood features. Every verb has infnitive, gerund and participle forms, and this fts the notion of infection, no matter how much these forms are prone to nominal, adjectival or prepositional uses. That the creation of new lexemes may involve the change of category (although this is not mandatory) is natural, whilst it is not expected that the creation of a word form of a lexeme would imply the change of category without producing a new lexeme. Regarding criterion 6 (peripherality), it cannot be a criterion of diferentiation between derivation and infection but presupposes it, given that it is a generalization about the tendency of infectional afxes to be peripheral with respect to derivational ones. This generalization was established as a universal (number 28) by Greenberg: “If both the derivation and the infection follow the root, or they both precede the root, the derivation is always between the root and the infection” (Booij 2000, 366). Possible objections to this universal have been pointed out (e.g. Rainer 1996), but the general interlinguistic tendency is very robust, and it is clearly consistent with the structural criterion of distinction proposed here, in the sense that infectional morphology operates with already made lexemes to determine its fnal form according to the syntactic context.2 Finally, regarding criterion 7 (recursivity), Booij points out that the diference between derivation and infection is a consequence of their functional diference: “whereas an infectional process is applied only once to a word in order to create a word form that flls a cell of the paradigm, derivational morphology may apply recursively because each derivational step may add some additional meaning” (Booij 2000, 365). A possible example in Spanish would be the repetition of the diminutive -it-: chico ‘little’ > chiquito > chiquitito, although, as we will see in section 3.2, the case of diminutives is one of the main problems of delimitation between derivation and infection in the Spanish grammatical tradition.

3 Some problems of delimitation in Spanish morphology In light of the algorithm in (1), let us now briefy consider some problems of delimitation in the morphology of Spanish, which are discussed in greater detail in other chapters of this volume.

3.1 Derivational processes that seem infectional The most common cases are those in which infectional morphemes produce changes in meaning that go beyond the strict compositionality of infectional processes. Such is the case of the relatively frequent ‘derivational plurals’ (the term used by Lliteras 2019, 258) such as amistades ‘friends’, botones ‘bellboy’, existencias ‘stock’ and celos ‘jealousy’, which denote something diferent than a plural of their respective singular forms (amistad ‘friendship’, botón ‘button’, existencia ‘existence’ or celo ‘zeal’). Thus, these plural nouns are not merely plural word forms but diferent lexemes that are added to the word family of the original base (see RAE and ASALE 2009 §3.8p). The case of nominal gender (see Camacho this volume) is analogous, although more controversial, partly because of the confation in much of the literature of the inherent gender of 62

Infection, derivation and compounding

Spanish nouns with the genuinely infectional gender of Spanish adjectives, determinants and other adnominal elements that show gender agreement with nouns. Nouns denoting things that show gender opposition (such as suelo ‘soil’/suela ‘sole’ or manzana ‘apple’/manzano ‘apple tree’) are not especially problematic, since it is easy to see in each pair that their members are not two forms of the same word but two words (lexemes) with diferent denotations. Although there are certain trends in such pairs (size, fruit/tree, etc.; see Ambadiang 1999) they are highly idiosyncratic and very limited in productivity, so pairs like these are clearly derivational processes (and seem infectional because they use the same morphology as the truly infectional gender variation of adjectives). RAE and ASALE (2009, §2.3c) admits that in these cases it makes no sense to consider the terminations -o/-a gender morphemes but rather word marks (see Harris 1991 on this concept). The old feminine nouns used to refer to the wives of men holding high ofces (catedrática as ‘wife of the professor’ and regenta as ‘wife of the regent’) can also be considered derivational, since new lexical content is thus also added. However, things get complicated with other person nouns, especially those that designate trades or positions, such as ciudadano ‘citizen-M’/ciudadana ‘citizen-F’), or the classic example in the literature of niño ‘kid-M’/niña ‘kid-F’ (see Ambadiang 1999; Serrano-Dolader 2010 for reviews of this controversy). In such cases, the problem is that grammatical gender seems to be systematically correlated with a denotative diference (basically sex information: ‘male’/‘female’). To complicate matters further, the Spanish reference grammar, RAE and ASALE 2009, does consider the terminations -o/-a in these cases gender morphemes (see RAE and ASALE 2009, §2.3b). We should recall here that the issue to be resolved is whether niño and niña are two diferent words (lexemes) or two diferent forms of the same word. It seems to me that, since these endings -o/-a are not gender morphemes in the strict sense (nominal gender in Spanish is inherent, not determined by endings, both in inanimate and in animate nouns), it can be said that the relation between niño and niña is derivational and not infectional, regardless of whether it is a very productive phenomenon in current Spanish and regardless of whether it has the appearance of infectional morphology, especially with variable adjectives. Indeed, adjectives claro and clara are two forms of the same word and not two diferent words, since they denote exactly the same thing and vary depending on the gender of the noun with which they agree. But this is not the case with niño and niña, whose variation is not the result of agreement. In fact, a girl (niña) is not a female version of a boy (niño), just as a woman (mujer) is not a female version of a man (hombre), but instead are distinct denotative realities (because information about sex is lexical, not grammatical). We might add that obtaining feminine person nouns, although very productive in Spanish in recent decades, is not as productive or automatic as obtaining feminine adjectives (in the paradigm of variable adjectives). Consider the sequence in (2): (2) el médico the-m doctor-m

>

la médico the-f doctor-f

>

la médica the-f doctor-f

According to the model of nominal gender in Spanish developed in Mendívil-Giró (2020) (based on Roca 2005), the masculine noun médico does not include in its denotation semantic information of sex (it means, roughly, ‘person who is a doctor’), and thus it has inclusive value and can refer to both men and women (El médico, sea hombre o mujer, debe tener compasión ‘the doctor, whether male or female, should have compassion’). Médico has masculine gender because that is the default gender in Spanish (and is marked with -o because this is the default word mark for masculine gender), but it is not masculine because it denotes men. In fact, it does not. The frst derivational step to create a term that specifcally designates female medics (as a 63

José-Luis Mendívil-Giró

result of their relatively recent access to the profession) is to duplicate the inclusive masculine lexeme and coin one with inherent feminine gender: la médico.3 This process produces one of the countless person nouns that traditional Spanish grammar calls ‘common in terms of gender’ (el pianista/la pianista ‘the pianist’ el regente/la regente ‘the regent’, etc.). Since in Spanish the default word mark for masculine nouns is -o, and the default word mark for feminine nouns is -a, it is not uncommon that in some varieties the word mark is regularized, producing la médica, which is not universally accepted in current Spanish and coexists with la médico. As can be seen in the following example pairs, diferences in acceptability in formally analogous processes suggest that we are seeing here a (very productive) derivational process and not the automatic use of an infectional paradigm: (3) el médico > la médico > la médica ‘the doctor’ el miembro > la miembro > *la miembra ‘the member’ (4) el juez > la juez > la jueza ‘the judge’ el fscal > la fscal > *la fscala ‘the prosecutor’ (5) el presidente > la presidente > la presidenta ‘the president’ el agente > la agente > *la agenta ‘the agent’

3.2 Infectional processes that seem derivational The mirror case to the one described previously, and probably the most controversial in the Spanish grammatical tradition, is that of the so-called appreciative afxation and, most notably, the productive diminutive -it-: libro > librito ‘book’ (see Kornfeld this volume). Although the Spanish morphological tradition treats these processes as derivational (for example Pena 1999; RAE and ASALE 2009, §9.1), it is very common that, when authors classify them as derivation, they also indicate typically infectional (or atypical in derivation) characteristics of diminutives, such as (following Varela Ortega 1990, 87 et seq.), (i) the fact that they never change the category of the base (casa > casita ‘house’; claro > clarito ‘clear’); (ii) that they only add connotative, not denotative, changes in meaning; (iii) that they tend to be ordered after unequivocal derivation (bab-os-o > bab-os-it-o ‘slimy’) and even “within” derivational sufxes (anarqu-ista > anarquist-it-a ‘anarchist’); (iv) that diminutives can behave like infxes (Carlos > Carl-it-os ‘Charles’; azúcar > azuqu-ít-ar ‘sugar’; lejos > lej-it-os ‘far’); (v) that, contrary to other derivational suffxes, the diminutive always maintains the gender of the base, including contradictory marking (la moto > la mot-it-o ‘bike’, la mano > la man-it-o ‘hand’, which coexists with the regularized form man-it-a) and (vi) that it is insensitive to the internal structure of compounds: tocadisquitos (< tocadiscos ‘turntable’) does not refer to small discs (disquitos) but to a small turntable, and for paraguas ‘umbrella’, we have paragü-it-as and not paraguas-it-o. All these properties of diminutive morphology (see also RAE and ASALE 2009, §9.1) show that it is, at the very least, a strange type of derivation, although they do not demonstrate in themselves that it is infection. Infection is the result of a process of agreement (or government) in a given syntactic confguration (gender, number, case, etc. are features that are explained in this way in current literature), but what remains unclear is the category or syntactic confguration with which these appreciative afxes ‘agree’. Despite this, the algorithm in (1) indicates that we are looking at an infectional process, that is, a process of creating word forms of a lexeme, and not a derivational process of creating a new lexeme (excluding the frequent cases of lexicalization, such as bombilla ‘light bulb’ or cerilla ‘match’). The fact that, with few exceptions (see Lázaro Mora 1999), every Spanish noun and adjective of quality may have a form with the

64

Infection, derivation and compounding

sufx -it- (including bombillita and cerillita) identifes diminutivization with infection rather than with derivation. For its part, the formal behaviour of diminutive -it- also points to a greater afnity with infectional morphology, in the sense that, as Varela Ortega (1990, 91) points out, it seems that -it- is inserted ‘when the word is already formed’, with a more phonological than strictly morphological conditioning. In fact, although this controversial issue cannot be developed further here, the diminutive -it- seems to behave like an infx that stands just in front of the word mark: niñ-o > niñ-it-o ‘kid’ and art-ista > artist-it-a ‘artist’ are analogous in this regard, compared to analyses that suggest (see Lázaro Mora 1999, 4659–60) that in the frst case it is a sufx and in the latter an infx. Examples of the type of Carl-it-os also support this idea, assuming with Pazó (1989) that the sequence -o-s of the proper name is reanalysed as the set of the slots for gender (word mark) and number (see also Bermúdez-Otero 2006). When the word mark does not exist or is irregular (it is not -a or -o), then the afx is placed after the stem and it replenishes the regular word mark based on the gender of the base (árbol > arbolito ‘tree’, nariz > naricita ‘nose’), using the -c- increment in bases ending in -e (hombre > hombrecito ‘man’; cf. hombro > hombrito ‘shoulder’) or in consonants ending in -n and -r (camión > camioncito ‘truck’, tambor > tamborcito ‘drum’).4 In fact, in adverbial elements without gender, the formants -o and -a are treated in the same way: pronto > prontito ‘soon’, cerca > cerquita ‘near’. All this seems more consistent with obtaining word forms appropriate to a certain context of use than with the creation of new lexemes. Fábregas (2017, 142), based on Dressler, suggests that by adding an appreciative morpheme to a base, “the most that can be said is that we are talking about a non-prototypical value of the meaning of the base”, an interpretation that suggests that diminutives of the -ittype reveal in the form of the word a certain pragmatic type of non-canonical use of a term (based on a diminutive quantifcation), which would be consistent with its classifcation as part of infectional morphology.

3.3 Problems in the distinction between afxes and roots The boundaries between derivation and compounding (see ten Hacken 2000) become blurred when the diference between a root and a derivational afx itself becomes blurred. The most recalcitrant cases in the Spanish tradition, without any intention of completeness, are (i) the status of adverbs in -mente (in the sense of whether it is an adverbializing sufx or a compound element) (see Carriscondo Esquivel 2018 for a defence of the compounding option, in line with the arguments of RAE and ASALE 2009, §7.14d), (ii) the status of the initial element of words as contranatural ‘unnatural’ or contrapuerta ‘inner door’ (see Marqueta 2018 for arguments that in the frst case it is a prefx, and in the second a preposition included in a compound) and (iii) so-called neoclassical stems (as in flántropo ‘philanthropist’ and antropología ‘anthropology’) and their doubtful status somewhere between roots and afxes, which some authors have signifcantly called afxoids (see Varela Ortega 2005; Fábregas 2013a for arguments that these elements are lexical stems and not afxes).

4 Conclusions I have tried to show that the distinction between derivation and infection is a consequence of the architecture of grammar itself, so it is not expected to be gradual. The sense of gradualness, and the problems of delimitation that we have found, have to do with the formal continuity between both types of morphology, with the gradual way in which both processes behave with

65

José-Luis Mendívil-Giró

respect to some of the criteria commonly used in the literature to its characterization and, above all, with the difculty in deciding, once the algorithm in (1) has been applied, whether A and B are two diferent words or two diferent forms of the same word.

Notes 1 This notion of lexeme should not be confused with the sense of ‘lexical morpheme’ or ‘lexical root’, with which it is also used in the tradition of Spanish morphology as a means to distinguish roots from afxes (see Felíu this volume). 2 As Rainer (1996) points out, potential counterexamples are not such if we consider that “enclosed” infectional morphemes are not part of the infection of the derived word, as in the case of -mente adverbs. The case of soplandito ‘blowing’ does not constitute an objection to Anderson’s (1992) model, as Rainer (1996, 86) suggests, since the diminutive -it- is inserted “inside” the infectional sufx (-ndo), not after it (but see 3.2 on this issue). 3 Note that Busco un médico varón ‘I’m looking for a male doctor’ is not redundant, and that we can say Busco un médico mujer ‘I’m looking for a female doctor’ but not *Busco una médico mujer. 4 See Fábregas (2013b) for an analysis in terms of the prosodic integrity of the bases and in which the diminutives of Spanish are treated as specifers, not heads.

References Ambadiang, T. 1999. “La Flexión Nominal. Género y número.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4843–913. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aronof, M. 2000a. “Generative Grammar.” In Mophologie/Morphology, edited by G. Booij, C. Lehmann, and J. Mugdan, 194–209. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Aronof, M. 2000b. “Morphology between Lexicon and Grammar.” In Mophologie/Morphology, edited by G. Booij, C. Lehmann, and J. Mugdan, 344–49. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2006. “Morphological Structure and Phonological Domains in Spanish Denominal Derivation.” In Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology, edited by F. Martínez-Gil and S. Colina, 278–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bonami, O. and J. Strnadová. 2019. “Paradigm Structure and Predictability in Derivational Morphology.” Morphology 29 (2): 167–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-018-9322-6. Booij, G. E. 2000. “Infection and Derivation.” In Mophologie/Morphology, edited by G. Booij, C. Lehmann, and J. Mugdan, 360–69. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Booij, G. E. 2005. The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A  Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carriscondo Esquivel, F. M. 2018. “Con la mente puesta en los adverbios en -mente.” In Problemas de demarcación en morfología y sintaxis del español, edited by E. Felíu Arquiola, 25–42. Bern: Peter Lang. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 2000. “Lexeme, Word-Form, Paradigm.” In Mophologie/Morphology, edited by G. Booij, C. Lehmann, and J. Mugdan, 595–607. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dressler, W. U. 1989. “Prototypical Diferences between Infection and Derivation.” Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 3–10. Fábregas, A. 2013a. La morfología: el análisis de la palabra compleja. Madrid: Síntesis. Fábregas, A. 2013b. “Diminutives as Heads or Speciers: The Mapping between Syntax and Phonology.” Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 5 (1): 1–44. Fábregas, A. 2017. “¿Son algunos interfjos morfemas apreciativos?” Estudios de Lingüística de la Universidad de Alicante 31: 135–50. doi:10.14198/ELUA2017.31.07. Harris, J. S. 1991. “The Exponence of Gender in Spanish.” Linguistic Inquiry 2: 27–62.

66

Infection, derivation and compounding

Haspelmath, M. 1996. “Word-Class Changing Infection and Morphological Theory.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, edited by G. Booij and J. van Marle, 43–66. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kovacci, O. 1999. “El adverbio.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 705–86. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Lang, M. F. 1992. Spanish Word Formation. Productive Derivational Morphology in the Modern Lexis. London: Routledge. Lázaro Mora, F. A. 1999. “La derivación apreciativa.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4665–82. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Lliteras, M. 2019. “Morfología fexiva del español.” In Manual de lingüística española, edited by E. Ridruejo, 241–75. Berlin: De Gruyter. Marqueta, B. 2018. “Prefjos preposicionales y compuestos con preposiciones: dos fenómenos independientes.” Lingüística en la Red 16. www.linred.es/articulos_pdf/LR-articulo-30092018.pdf. Marqueta, B. 2019. “La composición, la arquitectura del léxico y la sintaxis de las palabras con estructura interna en español.” PhD diss., Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza. Mel’čuk, I. 2000. “Morphological Processes.” In Mophologie/Morphology, edited by. G. Booij, C. Lehmann, and J. Mugdan, 523–35. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Mendívil-Giró, J. L. 2009. “Palabras con estructura externa.” In Panorama de la lexicología, edited by E. de Miguel, 83–113. Barcelona: Ariel. Mendívil-Giró, J. L. 2019. “If Everything Is Syntax, Why Are Words so Important? An A-Morphous but Non-Lexicalist Approach.” Linguistics 57 (5): 1161–215. doi:10.1515/ling-2019-0025. Mendívil-Giró, J. L. 2020. “El masculino inclusivo en español.” Revista Española de Lingüística 50: 35–64. Pazó Espinosa, J. 1989. “Morfología léxica del español: la estructura de la palabra en nombres y adjetivos.” PhD diss., Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid. Pena, J. 1999. “Partes de la morfología. Las unidades del análisis morfológico.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4305–66. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. RAE and ASALE (Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española). 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Rainer, F. 1996. “Infection Inside Derivation: Evidence from Spanish and Portuguese.” In Yearbook of morphology 1995, edited by G. Booij and J. van Marle, 83–91. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roca, I. M. 2005. “La gramática y la biología en el género del español.” Revista Española de Lingüística 35: 17–44, 397–492. Serrano-Dolader, D. 2010. “El género en los sustantivos ¿fexión y/o derivación?” In La gramática del sentido: léxico y sintaxis en la encrucijada, edited by J. F. Val and M. C. Horno, 249–70. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias. Stump, G. and R. A. Finkel. 2013. Morphological Typology. From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ten Hacken, P.  2000. “Derivation and Compounding.” In Mophologie/Morphology, edited by G. Booij, C. Lehmann, and J. Mugdan, 349–60. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Val Álvaro, J. F. 1999. “La composición.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4757–841. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Varela Ortega, S. 1990. Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis. Varela Ortega, S. 2005. Morfología léxica: la formación de palabras. Madrid: Gredos.

67

6 Morphological variation in the Spanish-speaking world Enrique Pato and Elena Felíu ArquiolaVariation in the Spanish-speaking world

(Variación morfológica en el mundo hispanohablante)

Enrique Pato and Elena Felíu Arquiola

1 Introduction This work presents a selection of the most characteristic morphological variation phenomena of current Spanish. In section 2, we review some relevant concepts and data related to the Spanishspeaking world, as well as to geographical and morphological variation. Section 3 focuses on variation related to infectional morphology. The phenomena are presented according to the diferent word classes involved: nouns, pronouns, verbs, and, fnally, adverbs and quantifers. As for variation in word formation, it is dealt with in section 4. Keywords: American Spanish; European Spanish; infectional morphology; word formation; variation Este trabajo presenta una selección de los fenómenos de variación morfológica más característicos del español actual. En la sección 2 se revisan algunos conceptos y datos relevantes relacionados con el mundo hispanohablante, así como con la variación geográfca y morfológica. La sección 3 se centra en la variación en morfología fexiva. Los fenómenos se presentan atendiendo a la clase de palabras implicada: nombres, pronombres, verbos y, fnalmente, adverbios y cuantifcadores. Por lo que respecta a la variación en formación de palabras, esta se aborda en la sección 4. Palabras clave: español de América; español de Europa; morfología fexiva; formación de palabras; variación

2 Presentation In this chapter, we are interested in morphological variation in Spanish, whereas we will not deal with what is considered simply ‘lexical’ variation, in the sense that diferent roots are used (Felíu Arquiola 2017). Before presenting a selection of the most characteristic morphological variation phenomena of current Spanish, we will review some concepts in relation to the Spanish-speaking world, geographical variation, and morphological variation. As we know, the Spanish-speaking world is formed by Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, South America, and Spain. There are also nations that have ‘minority’ populations of 68

Variation in the Spanish-speaking world

Spanish-speaking residents (e.g. United States, Belize, Philippines, and Equatorial Guinea). For the purposes of this chapter, we will distinguish American Spanish varieties (AS) from European Spanish varieties (ES), even if we are aware of this terminological reduction. In the study of phonetic variation, the semantic equivalence is usually evident, but in the feld of morphology (and syntax), it seems risky to afrm that two diferent options say ‘the same thing’ (à la Labov). Therefore, grammatical variation is more complex to study than phonetic or lexical variation; hence, sociolinguistic, semantic, pragmatic, and discursive factors must be considered. From a formalist approach, Fábregas and Gallego (2014) pointed out for the frst time that there are three kinds of variation relevant to Spanish morphology: 1 2

3

The formal features might be diferent or might be distributed diferently among the syntactic heads. Even if the features and the exponents are identical, the operations that relate those features to exponents might be diferent in nature or be specifed in diferent ways, or a system might have an extra operation that other systems lack. The exponents themselves might be diferent, either because their morphophonological properties are distinct or because—even when they are identical in their morphophonology— they are associated with minimally distinct sets of features.

Following Fábregas and Gallego (2014), the main phenomena of morphological variation in Spanish are related to: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Verbal interpretable features: aspect, tense, and mood features like cantó ~ ha cantado (‘s/he sang ~ s/he has sung’) and subjunctive forms> indicative forms. Nominal interpretable features: number and gender distinctions: bebe ~ beba ‘baby’, testigo ~ testiga ‘witness’; compounds (unos caras duras ‘some cads’); pro-drop (Ø ~ strong pronouns). Agreement: verbal (number: hayn ‘there are’, habían ‘there were’; person: habemos ‘we have’); nominal (camisa blanco ‘white shirt’); clitic doubling (Lo quiero a Juan ‘I like Juan’). Case marking: diferential object marking (DOM, with a); leísmo; con tú ~ contigo, con yo ~ conmigo (‘with you, with me’). Ordering of exponents: enclitic and proclitic pronouns; clitic pronouns agreement (véndanlo ~ véndalon ‘sell it’). Diferent roles of the same exponent: afxes in word formation (e.g. -dero); special derivational exponents (e.g. -eco); productivity of an afx (e.g. -ito).

In what follows, we will focus on some of those phenomena, and we will present other cases of morphological variation in the Spanish-speaking world. Variation in infectional morphology will be discussed in section 3, whereas variation in word formation will be addressed in section 4.

3 Variation in infectional morphology 3.1 Nouns 3.1.1 Gender variation In AS varieties (especially in the region of Rio de la Plata, but also in Colombia and Bolivia), there is a tendency to use the feminine form of nouns that express professions traditionally performed by men. This occurs almost generally when the shape of the noun easily allows the 69

Enrique Pato and Elena Felíu Arquiola

creation of feminine forms with exponent -a (1a), but it is also attested with nouns that have been traditionally considered invariable due to formal reasons (1b) (see Camacho, this volume): (1) a. el ministro ~ la ministra ‘the minister’, el médico ~ la médica ‘the doctor’, el arquitecto ~ la arquitecta ‘the architect’, el ingeniero ~ la ingeniera ‘the engineer’. b. el juez ~ la jueza ‘the judge’, el concejal ~ la concejala ‘the councillor’, el fscal ~ la fscala ‘the prosecutor’, el general ~ la generala ‘the (army) general’. As for nouns that designate inanimate beings, in some Spanish-speaking countries, we can fnd gender hesitation, like el dinamo ~ la dinamo (‘the dynamo’), el radio ~ la radio (‘the radio’), as apocope of radiorreceptor (‘receiver’) and radiodifusión (‘broadcasting’). Cases of gender hesitation are also recorded in some names ending in -e or in a consonant: (2)

el mugre ~ la mugre ‘the grime’, el calor ~ la calor ‘the heat’, el azúcar ~ la azúcar ‘the sugar’, el sartén ~ la sartén ‘the pan’, el pus ~ la pus ‘the pus’, el maíz ~ la maíz ‘the corn’.

The masculine noun el sartén (‘the pan.m’) is documented not only in American speakers but also in some speakers of the varieties of Spain (RAE/ASALE 2009, 117), specifcally among those from the Canary Islands and Cádiz. On the other hand, even if the speakers assign the use of the masculine variant (el sartén) to rural areas and to the speech of people of low schooling (Moskowitz 2010), this use does not seem to be restricted only to speakers with a lower level of education (Bouzouita, Castillo, and Pato 2018). RAE and ASALE (2009, 97) indicate, for example, that the two gender variants of the noun azúcar (‘sugar’) are conditioned by geographical criteria. As for animate nouns, AS use of el bebé ~ la bebé (‘the baby’) has extended even to ES.

3.1.2 Number variation In ES nouns like those in (3a), which designate double objects (or multiple ones in the case of víveres), are more frequently used in the plural form. However, in some regions of AS (Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, Mexico, and others), they are also used in singular (3b). Both the plural and the singular forms have, in principle, the same meaning (RAE/ASALE 2018): (3) a. paraguas ‘umbrella’, tijeras ‘scissors’, pinzas ‘tweezers’, pantalones ‘pants’, calzones ‘breeches/ drawers’, tenazas ‘tongs’, víveres ‘supplies’. b. paragua, tijera, pinza, pantalón, calzón, tijera, tenaza, vívere.

3.2 Pronouns 3.2.1 Leísmo (using le) In most parts of AS, the pronouns la/las and lo/los are used as a direct object and le/les as an indirect object1. However, there is leísmo in the speech of several regions such as Paraguay, parts of Ecuador, and northwestern Argentina (4a, in contrast to 4b), basically due to language contact. That is, le/les are used for direct objects that designate male and female persons: (4) a. ¿Y Ana? Recién le vi tomando un colectivo al trabajo. And Ana? Just her saw.1sg taking a bus to work ‘And Ana? I just saw her taking a bus to work’ 70

Variation in the Spanish-speaking world

b. ¿Y Ana? Acabo de ver-la cogiendo el autobús para ir a trabajar. And Ana? fnish.1sg of see her taking the bus to go to work ‘And Ana? I just saw her taking the bus to go to work’

3.2.2 Case agreement in object pronouns As we know, normative Spanish shows little tolerance towards grammatical variation, even if some dialect phenomena are subjected to sociolinguistic filtering. This is the case of leísmo, laísmo, and loísmo. As Fernández-Ordóñez (1994, 1999) has shown, the deflected uses of unstressed pronouns (le, la, lo) are actually alternative pronominal paradigms where pronoun selection is carried out according to linguistic principles other than those that apply in standard Spanish (see Cuervo, this volume). She has also shown the connection between leísmo (using le), laísmo (using la), and loísmo (using lo) (Fernández-Ordóñez and Pato 2020). Fernández-Ordóñez (1994, 1999) highlights the problems raised by traditional works that tried to explain leísmo, laísmo, and loísmo. On the one hand, the tendency to distinguish personal DO (with le and personal leísmo) from non-personal ones (with lo/la and without leísmo) explained personal leísmo but not why this confusion afects masculine objects, nor the reasons it can be accompanied by non-personal leísmo, laísmo, and loísmo. On the other hand, assigning pronouns by resorting to the gender of their antecedent, without considering their syntactic function, explained masculine leísmo and laísmo, but not why leísmo had not just been established for all types of masculine objects, being more frequent with personal antecedent ones. Nor did it explain that leísmo would not generalize in the plural, where it also alternates with loísmo. Fernández-Ordóñez (2012) has also geographically delimited the areas that present leísmo, laísmo, and loísmo in ES. The multiple uses correspond to the existence of three major dialectal pronominal paradigms, alternatives to standard Spanish: (5) a. Spanish in contact with the Basque language: le is used for [+animated] masculine and feminine (A Jon/Itziar le veo ‘I see Jon/Itziar’), and null pronouns for [-animate] (El libro Ø tengo ahí ‘The book I have it there’). b. Cantabrian: le is used for [+countable] masculine (A Antonio le veo ‘I see Antonio’; El bolso le tengo en casa ‘The bag I have it at home’) and lo for [-countable] masculine and feminine (El vino lo bebemos ‘The wine we drink it’; La leche lo bebemos ‘The milk we drink it’). c. Castilian: case distinctions between DO and IO have been eliminated. Pronouns are assigned according to their gender, number, and [± countable] interpretation. Le is used for [+countable] masculine (A Antonio le veo ‘I see Antonio’; El bolso le tengo en casa ‘The bag I have it at home’). The northern peninsular area uses le also in plural (Los libros les tengo ‘The books I have them’), lo for [-countable] masculine and feminine (El vino lo bebemos ‘The wine we drink it’; La leche lo bebemos ‘The milk we drink it’); also with IO (A la leche lo echan cuajo ‘They add rennet to the milk’). La/las is used for feminine IO (La doy un beso ‘I give her a kiss’; No las gusta coser ‘They do not like to sew’); and los for IO in some areas (A los niños los gusta mucho el chocolate ‘Children like chocolate a lot’). In sum, the ‘Basque’ paradigm (5a) represents an extension of the dative (le) to personal objects, both masculine and feminine. In Cantabrian (5b) and Castilian (5c) paradigms, the pronominal selection is based on the [±countable] categorization of the antecedent. This explains why leísmo is universal with masculine personal antecedents (always [+countable]) 71

Enrique Pato and Elena Felíu Arquiola

but not with non-personal ones, since they can be [+countable] (referred by le) or [-countable] (referred by lo). The Castilian paradigm is distinguished from the Cantabrian one by having eliminated the case category, generalizing la(s) and lo as IO pronouns. In addition, with masculine plurals, it presents two diferent solutions: 1) the les form in the north (northwest of Burgos, Palencia, and Valladolid); and 2) the los form in the south (east of Cáceres and Salamanca, Ávila, west of Toledo, and north of Madrid).

3.3 Verbs 3.3.1 -ra/-se forms The duplicity of these imperfect subjunctive forms is something exceptional in Spanish grammar (Zacarías Ponce, this volume, on verbal inflection generally). The most common hypothesis is that this variation should be resolved by means of the specialization of each form for a single value or through the disappearance of one of them (Rojo 1996, 677). Several studies have shown the percentage distribution of these forms. The form in -ra is used in greater proportion than the form in -se (RAE/ASALE 2009, 1803). In this regard, it is interesting to contrast what happens, for example, in the speech of Caracas (Asratián 2007, 20), where -ra form obtains 94% and -se form 6%, compared to what is documented in ES (Kempas 2011, 259), where -ra reaches 77.1% and -se 22.9% (data from Madrid, Zaragoza, Granada, Santander, Tolosa, Barcelona, Castellón, Lugo, and Vigo). The comparison has also been made between ES and AS (De Sterck 2000, 97). This author shows the diferences in use in written language (51.32% in ES and 73.49% in AS for -ra vs. 48.68% in ES and 26.52% in AS for -se) and in spoken language (84.11% in ES and 94.05% in AS for -ra vs. 15.89% in ES and 5.95% in AS for -se), where the diferences are bigger. As we can see, these data are conclusive and show that in AS the use of the form in -se is simplifed and reduced much more than in ES. In fact, “the variants in -se are considered too high, or even afected, in the oral language of some American countries” (RAE/ASALE 2009, 1803, our translation). This means that the ‘register’ variable is more important than the geographical one. The aforementioned studies assign the form in -se to written modalities and to more formal communicative situations. Previous work has also shown the diferences between these forms in relation to other aspects, as can be seen in (6b): greater or lesser assertiveness (-ra, and -se), greater or lesser distance (-se and -ra), greater or lesser formality (-se and -ra). The general process of semantic weakening of the forms used to transmit modality ultimately triggers their loss (Silva Corvalán 1985, 548). On the other hand, the indicative origin of -ra (amaveram), compared to the subjunctive -se (amavissem), has consequences for synchrony. (6) a. Es probable que él le contara ~ contase todo ayer. Is likely that he him/her.dat told.3sg/told.3sg everything yesterday ‘It is likely that he told him/her everything yesterday’ b. Perdone, quisiera ~*quisiese preguntar-le algo. Excuse.3sg, would like.1sg ask-you.dat something ‘Excuse me, I would like to ask you something’

72

Variation in the Spanish-speaking world

3.3.2 Ustedeo and voseo in infection Voseo is the option chosen by Argentinian and Venezuelan (mostly Zulianos) speakers but also by Costa Ricans, Chileans, and Colombians (caleños) (RAE/ASALE 2009, 201–11). From a sociolinguistic point of view, it has been shown that voseo can be maintained among speakers from voseante areas when they settle in tuteante spaces (due to linguistic loyalty to the norm of origin), but in situations of high mobility, a tendency toward leveling by dialectal contact is imposed (Bouzouita, Castillo, and Pato 2018). Usted ‘you.sg’ ( se clitic refexive > verb (restricted) (8a-c) (Lara Bermejo 2016, Fernández-Ordóñez pc). In the Canary Islands and AS, on the other hand, verbal infection and concordant clitics are always expressed in 3pl (8d–e). (8) a. Ustedes, ¿coméis en casa? [± formal] You.pl eat.2pl at home ‘Do you eat at home?’ b. Se vais a caer. (‘Os vais a caer’) Se.pl go.2pl to fall ‘You are going to fall’ c. Decir lo que quieran. (‘Decid lo que queráis’) Say what want.3pl ‘Say what you want’ d. Ustedes, ¿comen en casa? [± formal] You.pl eat.3pl at home ‘Do you eat at home?’ e. Se van a caer. Se.pl go.3pl to fall ‘You are going to fall’ In sum, in ES, the extension of the 3pl concordance referred to ustedes has four major areas: 1) west of Huelva, center of Córdoba, and east of Malaga (ustedes se.2pl V.2pl); 2) east of Huelva, Seville, south of Córdoba, and west of Malaga (ustedes se.3pl V.2pl); 3) Cádiz and south of Seville (ustedes se.3pl V.2pl/3pl); and 4) Canary Islands (ustedes se.3pl V.3pl).

73

Enrique Pato and Elena Felíu Arquiola

3.3.3 Plural subject refexive -sen Another example of variable expression of number agreement is provided by the infnitives (9, irsen) and gerunds (9, metiéndosen) of pronominal verbs or refexive constructions with 3pl subjects (Harris and Halle 2005; Heap and Pato 2012; Mare 2018; Fernández-Ordóñez and Pato 2020, Cuervo, this volume). (9)

Tenían que irsen para que no estuvieran las chicas por los pisos metiéndosen Have.3pl to go.pl so that not were.3pl the girls in the apartments messing.pl con hombres. with men ‘They had to go to, so that the girls were not on the apartments messing with men’

This agreement in the non-personal forms of pronominal verbs and of verbs in refexive construction is a characteristic of the eastern zone of Spain (Navarrese-Aragonese and Castilian), but it is also attested in AS. Although currently forms in se predominate (irse), agreement afects all types of verbs and refexive constructions: direct refexives (10a), reciprocals (10b), indirect refexives (hacersen ‘to make.pl’), anti-causatives (para secarsen ‘to dry.pl’), convertives (preocuparsen un poco ‘to worry.pl a little’), and even intransitive (salirsen ‘to go out.pl’) and transitive (comprarsen cosas ‘to by.pl things’) verbs without valency change, in addition to non-reversible (pitorrearsen de nosotros ‘to make fun.pl of us’). The concordance extends to the passive refex, although the argument is not specifc (10c) (FernándezOrdóñez and Pato 2020). (10) a. No quieren abrigarsen. Not want.3pl to shelter.pl ‘They do not want to shelter’ b. Casarsen no se casaron. Get married.pl not get married.3pl ‘Get married they didn’t get married’ c. Después de la guerra ya echaron a formarsen sindicatos. After the war already start.3pl to make.3pl trade unions ‘After the war trade unions have already started’

[direct refexive]

[reciprocal]

[passive refex]

Mare (2018) has also described the diferent linguistic contexts for the occurrence of enclitic -n: infnitive and gerund periphrasis, control and causatives constructions, infnitives as preposition complements, and adverbial constructions. This author has also shown all the main possibilities of occurrence of -n and a clitic pronoun in the imperative form: displacement and copy: (11) a. venda-me-n-lo sell-me.dat-pl.n-it.acc ‘sell it to me’ b. venda-me-lo-n sell-me.dat-it.acc-pl.n c. venda-n-me-n-lo sell-n-me.dat-pl.n-it.acc

74

[displacement]

[displacement, displacement] [copy]

Variation in the Spanish-speaking world

3.3.4 Indicative imperfect (second and third conjugations) in -ba The imperfect of the second and third conjugation maintains or extends analogically -ba- in its formation (12a queriba, 12b traiba) (Pato 2018). The presence of -ba- is more frequent with verbs whose root ends in a vowel, both in the Peninsula (eastern Castilian area) and the Canary Islands and in AS. Therefore, it can be understood as an analogical strategy, based on the morpheme -ba of the frst conjugation and supported by the imperfect of the verb ir (iba, ‘I/he/she/it was going’), with which it is sought to undo the original hiatus. (12) a. Yo queriba ser la chica de tus sueños. I wanted.1sg to be the girl of your dreams ‘I wanted to be the girl of your dreams’ b. Había un barco que te llevaba todos los días a Mahón y te traíba. There was.3sg a ship that you took.3sg every day to Mahon and you brought ‘There was a ship that took you every day to Mahon and brought you back’

3.3.5 Analogical strong preterites Another phenomenon of variation is the use of -n (instead of -eron) as the 3pl desinence in the perfect strong preterites (see Camus, this volume): dijon (decir, ‘they said’), puson (poner, ‘they put’), estuvon (estar, ‘they were’) (Pato 2010b). This is an (historical) analogical use in some ES varieties: the east-central Leonese, the western Castilian, and the Extremaduran. (13) Después estuvon en Kuwait, allí estuvon tres años; cuando empezó Afterwards were.3pl in Kuwait, there were.3pl three years; when began.3sg la guerra del Golfo se vinieron. the war of Gulf came back.3pl ‘Afterwards they were in Kuwait, they were there for three years; when the Gulf War began they came back’

3.4 Adverbs and quantifers 3.4.1 Agreeing adverbial quantifers There is a general tendency to make the quantifer medio (‘half ’) (14a) and other quantifers like bastante (‘enough’), poco (‘little/few’), or demasiado (‘too much’) (14b) agree with the adjective they modifes (Pato 2010a; Felíu Arquiola 2012; Felíu Arquiola and Pato 2015a, 2015b, 2020). This agreeing use of adverbial quantifers is considered non-normative in descriptive grammars. (14) a. Esa mujer está media loca. That woman is.3sg half.f.sg crazy.fsg ‘That woman is half crazy’ b. Mis hijas están demasiadas cansadas. My.pl daughters are.3pl too.f.pl tired.f.pl ‘My daughters are too tired’

75

Enrique Pato and Elena Felíu Arquiola

3.4.2 Recién In ES, recién behaves as an aspectual modifer (‘just, newly’) which combines with adjectival participles (fores recién cortadas ‘fowers freshly cut’). It always precedes the adjectival participle, with which it can form a nominalized expression (el recién nacido ‘the newborn’). It has been considered a prefx from a morphological point of view (Martín García and Varela Ortega 2007). However, in AS varieties, especially in Rio de la Plata, the use of recién before the conjugated verb is frequently attested, with the temporary value of ahora mismo (‘right now’), apenas (‘barely’), or the periphrasis acabar de + infnitivo (‘to fnish + infnitive’) (Pato 2001) (15a). In these varieties, recién can also appear in postverbal position (15b), like other adverbs. (15) a. Recién me entero de la noticia. Just hear.1sg of the news ‘I just heard the news’ b. Alguien llamó recién. Someone called.3sg just ‘Someone just called’

3.4.3 From adjectives to adverbs The tendency to ‘transform’ adjectives into adverbs is widespread in AS (Di Tullio 2001; Hummel 2014). (16) a. El profesor nos habló lindo. The professor us.dat spoke.3sg cute ‘The professor spoke to us cute’ b. Carmen canta bonito. Carmen sing.3sg pretty ‘Carmen sings pretty’ Many of those adverb adjectives allow scalarity, with diminutives (volar bajito ‘fy low’), and admit elements that express gradation (hablar muy despacio ‘to speak very slowly’), synthetic -ísimo (apestaba feísimo ‘It sucked ugly’), and quantifers (pisar bien frme ‘stomp’), as well as adverbs in -mente (trabaja increíblemente duro ‘s/he works incredibly hard’). They also admit expansion (hilar todo lo fno que se pueda ‘spinning as fne as possible’) and may coordinate with each other (hablar alto y claro ‘to speak loud and clear’). They usually only modify verbs, not adjectives or participles (*fuerte golpeado, but fuertemente golpeado ‘hit *hard/hardly’), or other adverbs (*claro lejos ‘clear away’). However, with certain participles of transitive and unaccusative verbs, they are admitted (atado frme ‘frm tied’, but *frme atado ‘tied frm’). From a semantic point of view, they deal with various concepts: intensive (hablar lento/fuerte ‘to talk slow/strong’), frequent (hablar seguido ‘to talk often’), durative (hablar largo ‘to talk long’), positive (hablar bonito ‘to talk pretty’), and space (hablar profundo ‘to talk deep’).

4 Variation in word formation As Fábregas and Gallego (2014) and Felíu Arquiola (2017) have discussed, word formation, like any other linguistic level, is also subject to variation (see also Carriscondo, Cremades, and Guerrero 2017), although it has been less studied than infectional morphology. The reason 76

Variation in the Spanish-speaking world

word formation has been relegated to the background in variation studies in favor of infectional morphology may be the fact that infectional morphology fts better with the defnition of variation as “diferent ways of saying the same thing”. Variation in word formation manifests itself in diferent ways. For example, afx rivalry can be considered an instance of strict variation, as in aburrimiento ~ aburrición (‘boredom’) or in alineamiento ~ alineación (‘alignment’) (Zacarías Ponce de León 2010). In this section, we will focus on two word-formation processes. On the one hand, we will deal with diminutive suffxation. On the other hand, we will focus on eventive noun formation with the sufx -da, in which variation in the subcategorial selection of the base is involved.

4.1 Diminutive sufx -ito The Spanish language is well known for its rich inventory and frequent use of evaluative afxes, including diminutive, augmentative, and pejorative sufxes. These afxes do not change the category of the corresponding word but lend particular nuances to their meaning in context (smallness, afection, pejoration, intensifcation, euphemism, emphasis, approximation, irony) (for some accounts, see Fortin 2011; Tuten, Pato, and Schwarzwald 2016, and Kornfeld, this volume). The most commonly used diminutive in AS is -ito (ahorita y todito ‘right now and all’) (Bouzouita, Castillo, and Pato 2018), which may have the value of greater expressiveness repeating itself as in the cases of ahoritita (‘right now’) and toditito (‘all’). The diminutive -ico is also used very frequently in Central America and in some areas of Colombia when the word ends in /t/ + vowel (zapat+o> zapatico ‘shoe’). There is a diference between ES and AS varieties related to the form of the diminutive suffx. As is well known, in Spanish -ito can generally appear in three diferent forms: -itV (casita ‘little house’), -citV (cancioncita ‘little song’), and -ecitV (forecita ‘little fower’).2 The main differences between varieties arise in: 1) bisyllabic bases ending in vowel /o, a/ with a diphthong in the frst syllable (viejo> viejecito (ES) ~ viejito (AS) ‘little old man’), and 2) monosyllabic bases ending in a consonant (bar> barecito (ES) ~ barcito (AS) ‘little bar’). Finally, in ES, there is wide variation in the use of diminutive sufxes: -ete is especially used in Valencia, Murcia, Albacete, and Cuenca; -illo in Andalusia; -ico in Navarra, Aragon, Murcia, and Granada; -ín in Asturias and León; -ino in Extremadura; and -uco in Cantabria (RAE/ ASALE 2009; Bouzouita, Castillo, and Pato 2018).

4.2 Eventive noun formation with sufx -da Generally, the suffix -da forms eventive nouns from verbal bases: entrada (‘entrance’), caída (‘fall’) (Beniers 1977; Bordelois 1993, Resnik, this volume on nominalization more generally). However, there is geographical variation related to the subtype of verbal base that this suffix selects (Mondoñedo 2012): -da combines with transitive verbs (17a) as well as with unaccusative verbs (17b) both in AS and in ES. However, suffix -da also forms eventive nouns from unergative verbs in some AS varieties (17c) (Fábregas and Gallego 2014; Felíu Arquiola 2017): (17) a. acampar ‘to camp’> acampada ‘camping’; acoger ‘to welcome> acogida ‘welcome’. b. partir ‘to leave’> partida ‘leaving, departure’; llegar ‘to arrive’> llegada ‘arrival’. c. conversar ‘to talk’> conversada ‘talking’; bostezar ‘to yawn’> bostezada ‘yawn’. 77

Enrique Pato and Elena Felíu Arquiola

5 Conclusions and some theoretical implications This chapter has shown some of the morphological variation phenomena in the Spanish-speaking world. We have seen that variation afects both infectional morphology and word formation. In the case of infectional morphology, variation phenomena involve diferent word-classes and diferent features: nouns (gender and number variation), pronouns (leísmo and case agreement in object pronouns), verbs (-ra/-se forms, ustedeo and voseo in infection, plural subjective refexive -sen, indicative imperfect in -ba with verbs from the second and third conjugation, analogical strong preterites), and adverbs and quantifers (agreeing adverbial quantifers, the case of recién, the transformation of adjectives into adverbs). As for variation in word formation, although less studied, we have mentioned the case of diminutive sufxes and eventive noun formation with the sufx -da. As Starke (2011, 1) refects, “three decades after the ‘Principles and Parameters’ revolution in language variation, we still have no theory of variation”. From a formalist approach to linguistic variation, there are two kinds of variation: macro-parametric and micro-parametric. In the frst one, variation has its locus in UG operations. In the second one, variation is founded in the lexicon. Nonetheless, as Fábregas and Gallego (2014) pointed out, the macro and micro positions can be seen as complementary. Following these authors, the lexicalist version has a presyntactic lexicon, while the non-lexicalist version has two independent lists whose members (abstract features and exponents or phon features) are arbitrarily associated. One of the new theoretical approaches to cross-linguistic variation proposes that it “can be expressed in terms of lexical elements spelling out bigger or smaller subconstituents of the syntactic structure being built by the computational system” (Starke 2011, 13). In sum, this author defends the idea that variation is lexical: “since lexical items are made out of grammatical ‘features’, saying that variation is lexical amounts to saying that variation will be variation in features” (Starke 2011, 2). That solution builds on the idea of phrasal spell out, where a string of terminal nodes like [a [b [c]]] can be spelled out by a single exponent, or lexical item. Additionally, from a methodological point of view, explanatory hypotheses cannot be created solely on the data ofered by the formal written language. On the other hand, some of the features we have presented are considered universal vernacular (examples in 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 17) (Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann 2009). In short, the concept of universal vernacular helps us to better understand how the apparent dichotomy between ‘conservation’ and ‘innovation’ can be overcome, since vernacular forms are the result of universal cognitive processes that are activated according to the input of each dialect or variety and can be at the same time ancient and modern forms.

Notes 1 Standard Spanish uses lo(s) for masculine and neuter DO, la(s) for feminine DO, and le(s) for IO. 2 We will not discuss here if these variants are allomorphs (-ito, -cito-, -ecito) or if we are dealing with sufx -ito preceded by an interfx (-c-, -ec-).

References Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2010. Diccionario de americanismos. Lima: Santillana. Asratián, A. 2007. “Variación -ra/-se en el español hablado en Caracas.” Boletín de Lingüística XIX (27): 5–41. Beniers, E. 1977. “La derivación de sustantivos a partir de participios.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 26: 316–31. 78

Variation in the Spanish-speaking world

Bordelois, I. 1993. “Afjación y estructura temática: -da en español.” In La formación de palabras, edited by S. Varela, 162–79. Madrid: Taurus. Bouzouita, M., M. Castillo, and E. Pato. 2018. “Dialectos del español. Una nueva aplicación para conocer la variación actual y el cambio en las variedades del español.” Dialectologia 20: 61–83. Carriscondo, F., R. Cremades, and S. Guerrero, eds. 2017. “Formación de palabras y variación.” Hispania 100 (4): 504–79. De Sterck, G. 2000. Registros y áreas geográfcas en lingüística. Usos y valores de las formas en -ra, -se, -ría y -re. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad Salamanca. Di Tullio, A. 2001. “Adverbios con forma adjetival o adjetivos sin fexión.” In Homenaje a Ofelia Kovacci, edited by E. N. de Arnoux and A. Di Tullio, 171–88. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA. Fábregas, A., and Á. Gallego, eds. 2014. “Morphological Variation in Spanish.” Lingua 151: 97–240. Felíu Arquiola, E. 2012. “Algunas notas sobre medio + adjetivo.” In Assí como es de suso dicho: estudios de morfología y léxico en homenaje a Jesús Pena, edited by M. Campos Souto et al., 213–24. San Millán de la Cogolla: Cilengua. Felíu Arquiola, E. 2015. “Morfología.” In Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica, edited by J. Gutiérrez Rexach, 234–46. London: Routledge. Felíu Arquiola, E. 2017. “Formación de palabras y variación: Algunas refexiones a partir de ejemplos del español.” Hispania 100 (4): 509–21. Felíu Arquiola, E., and E. Pato. 2015a. “De modifcador aspectual a atenuador oracional. Nuevos datos sobre la evolución de medio.” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 131 (1): 119–56. Felíu Arquiola, E., and E. Pato. 2015b. “Medio adverbio, medio prefjo: La evolución de medio como modifcador de verbos en español.” Boletín de la Real Academia Española CCCXI: 61–83. Felíu Arquiola, E., and E. Pato. 2020. En torno a la denominada “concordancia adverbial” en español: tres casos de variación. Madrid: CSIC. Fernández-Ordóñez, I. 1994. “Isoglosas internas del castellano. El sistema referencial del pronombre átono de tercera persona.” Revista de Filología Española LXXIV: 71–125. Fernández-Ordóñez, I. 1999. “Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, vol. 1, 1317–97. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Fernández-Ordóñez, I. 2012. “Dialect Areas and Linguistic Change: Pronominal Paradigms in IberoRomance Dialects from a Cross-Linguistic and Social Typology Perspective.” In The Dialect Laboratory. Dialects as a Testing Ground for Theories of Language Change, edited by G. de Vogelaer and G. Seiler, 73–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fernández-Ordóñez, I., and E. Pato. 2020. “El COSER (Corpus oral y sonoro del español rural) y su contribución al estudio de la variación gramatical del español.” In Dialectología digital del español, edited by Á. Gallego and F. Roca Urgell, 71–100. Santiago de Compostela: Anexos de Verba 80. Fortin, A. 2011. The Morphology and Semantics of Expressive Afxes. Oxford: University of Oxford. Harris, J., and M. Halle. 2005. “Unexpected Plural Infections in Spanish: Reduplication and Metathesis.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (2): 195–222. Heap, D., and E. Pato. 2012. “Plurales anómalos en los dialectos y en la historia del español.” In Actas del VIII Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española, edited by E. Montero Cartelle and C. Manzano Rovira, vol. 1, 829–40. Santiago de Compostela: AHLE/Meubook. Hummel, M. 2014. “Los adjetivos adverbiales.” In Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Tercera parte: Adverbios, preposiciones y conjunciones. Relaciones interoracionales, edited by C. Company, 613–731. Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Fondo de Cultura Económica. Kempas, I. 2011. “Sobre la variación en el marco de la libre elección entre cantara y cantase en el español peninsular.” Moenia 17: 243–64. Lara Bermejo, V. 2016. “When Agreement Is for Covert and not for Overt: The Case of Ustedes plus Second Person Plural Infections in Peninsular Spanish.” Isogloss 2 (2): 95–111. Mare, M. 2018. “Una nueva mirada sobre la concordancia inesperada en español.” Revista de Filología Española XCVIII: 397–422. Martín García, J., and S. Varela Ortega. 2007. “Naturaleza gramatical y valor semántico-aspectual de recién.” In Actas del VI Congreso de Lingüística General, coord. P. Cano López, vol. 1–2, 1733–42. Madrid: Arco Libros. 79

Enrique Pato and Elena Felíu Arquiola

Mondoñedo, A. 2012. “Todos vimos tu bostezada.” In Los límites de la morfología. Estudios ofrecidos a Soledad Varela Ortega, edited by A. Fábregas et al., 269–87. Madrid: UAM. Moskowitz, A. 2010. “Manual de dialectología hispánica: géneros y grafías.” In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, edited by D. Racette, 1–120. Denver: American Translators Association. Pato, E. 2001. “El adverbio recién en España y América.” Boletín de Lingüística 16: 66–85. Pato, E. 2010a. “La recategorización del adverbio medio en español.” Boletín de Filología XLV (2): 91–110. Pato, E. 2010b. “Linguistic Levelling in Spanish: The Analogical Strong Preterits.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 55 (2): 209–25. Pato, E. 2018. “Queriba una cosa y traíba otra. Los pretéritos imperfectos ‘analógicos’ en español.” Philologica Jassyensia XIV (2): 83–100. Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (RAE/ASALE). 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa/RAE. Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (RAE/ASALE). 2018. Diccionario de la lengua española. Edición del Tricentenario. Madrid: RAE. Rojo, G. 1996. “Sobre la distribución de las formas ‘llegara’ y ‘llegase’ en español actual.” In Scripta Philologica in memoriam Manuel Taboada Cid, edited by M. Casado Velarde et al., vol. 2, 677–92. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña, Servizo de Publicacións. Silva Corvalán, C. 1985. “Modality and Semantic Change.” In Historical Semantics. Historical Word-Formation, edited by J. Fisiak, 547–72. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Starke, M. 2014[2011]. “Towards an Elegant Solution to Language Variation: Variation Reduces to the Size of Lexically Stored Trees.” In Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, edited by M. C. Picallo, 140–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Szmrecsanyi, B., and B. Kortmann. 2009. “Vernacular Universals and Angloversals in a Typological Perspective.” In Vernacular Universals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond, edited by M. Filppula, J. Klemola, and H. Paulasto, 33–53. London: Routledge. Tuten, D. N., E. Pato, and O. R. Schwarzwald. 2016. “Spanish, Astur-Leonese, Navarro-Aragonese, Judaeo-Spanish.” In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, edited by A. Ledgeway and M. Maiden, 382–410. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zacarías Ponce de León, R. F. 2010. “Esquemas rivales en la formación de palabras en español.” Onomázein 22 (2): 59–82.

80

7 Synchronic vs diachronic morphology Ignacio BosqueSynchronic vs diachronic morphology

Convergences and divergences (Morfología sincrónica versus morfología diacrónica. Convergencias y divergencias)

Ignacio Bosque

1 Introduction Synchronic morphology deals with word structures and their presence in the linguistic consciousness of speakers, whereas diachronic morphology analyzes the historical changes undergone by infectional and derivational afxes, as well as their respective paradigms. The main objective of this chapter is to recall that the division is not as crystal clear as this simple characterization suggests. A large number of morphophonological alternations may be described synchronically but must be explained diachronically. Even so, speakers make correct deductions by choosing lexical and infectional afxes corresponding to segments that only historical analyses would recognize as morphemes. In some cases, synchronic and diachronic criteria may lead to diferent morphological segmentations of derived words. These options are compatible with each other, given that their respective goals do not coincide. Finally, some morphophonological processes are shared by synchronic and diachronic analyses, together with general morphological patterns, such as the formation of cyclic derivational chains. Keywords: synchrony; diachrony; morphophonology; alternations; blocking; derivation La morfología sincrónica se ocupa de la estructura de las palabras y de su presencia en la conciencia lingüística de los hablantes, mientras que la morfología diacrónica analiza los cambios históricos experimentados por los afjos fexivos y derivativos, así como por sus respectivos paradigmas. El objetivo principal de este capítulo es recordar que la división no es tan evidente como sugiere esta sencilla caracterización. Un gran número de alternancias morfofonológicas pueden ser descritas sincrónicamente, pero deben ser explicadas diacrónicamente. Aun así, los hablantes hacen deducciones correctas en la elección de los afjos derivativos y fexivos a partir de segmentos que solo un análisis histórico reconocería como morfemas. En algunos casos, los criterios sincrónicos y diacrónicos pueden dar lugar a diferentes segmentaciones morfológicas de las palabras derivadas. Se muestra aquí que estos análisis son compatibles entre sí, ya que sus

81

Ignacio Bosque

objetivos no coinciden. Finalmente, algunos procesos morfofonológicos son compartidos por las perspectivas sincrónica y diacrónica, al igual que lo son algunas pautas morfológicas generales, tales como la formación de cadenas derivativas cíclicas. Palabras clave: sincronía; diacronía; morfofonología; alternancias; bloqueo; derivación

2 On the partial transparency of derived words and their lexical associations Diachronic morphology relates each word to its etymon. It is not exactly equivalent to etymology, since it also analyzes the historical changes undergone by infectional and derivational afxes, as well as their respective paradigms. Synchronic morphology, in turn, deals with morphological structures, not historical processes. It therefore relates infected, derived, or composite words to the more elementary lexical items that speakers are supposed to connect them with, according to the systematic patterns provided by their linguistic competence. Diachronic morphological processes are historically based, while synchronic ones must have some presence in the linguistic consciousness of speakers, who do not have access to the history of the words they use. While other chapters of this book are entirely devoted to historical morphology (namely Bouzouita, this volume; Rifón, this volume; Pujol, this volume; Moyna, this volume), and the rest focus almost exclusively on synchronic morphology, this chapter will schematically draw some connections between the two of them, as well as point out some of their fundamental diferences. In order to focus on the most relevant issues in the short space available, I will not deal with compounds (see Buenafuentes, this volume; Moyna, this volume) nor infectional patterns (Camacho, this volume; Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume; Camus, this volume; Pastor, this volume; Bouzouita, this volume) here. Readers interested in existing comparisons or overviews on connections and divergences between diachronic and synchronic approaches to morphology may consult Pilch (1985), Joseph and Janda (1988), Joseph (1992, 1995), Ruszkiewicz (1997), Fuss and Trips (2004), Rainer (2008), Anderson (2005, 2016), Bauer (2011), Sornicola (2011), and Hüning (2018). Comparisons specifcally dealing with Spanish morphology include Pena (1999, 2003, 2013), Pensado (1999), Santiago and Bustos Gisbert (1999), and Moyna (2011). See also Mateu (this volume) for a comparison between synchronic and diachronic approaches to parasynthesis. While syntax and infectional morphology are entirely compositional areas of grammar, lexical morphology is only partially compositional. If it were fully compositional, dictionaries would not contain derived words and compounds, just as they do not contain phrases or infected forms. The absence of compositionality in a large part of lexical morphology—Pena (1999, 4365) estimates that up to a 80% of it, perhaps somewhat exaggeratedly—is responsible for the simple fact that speakers cannot deduce the meaning of many derived words directly from segmentation. These items probably had a compositional structure when they were created, but they lost it at some point. Speakers have learned them as inherited forms ever since, even if they are able to intuitively establish a certain relationship with their bases in some cases. In addition to this, speakers often do not know—or cannot know by simply referring to their linguistic competence—whether the associations they establish between words are morphological or lexical. Paradoxically, the semi-compositional nature of lexical morphology was not addressed in the generative tradition before Chomsky (1970), and it is still problematic how exactly it should ft in modern synchronic morphological theories. The degree of pessimism or optimism among linguists regarding the options available in order to accommodate these factors is also variable. The case of Marc Aronof, the main exponent of generative morphology for a long period (see 82

Synchronic vs diachronic morphology

Aronof 1976, 1994, 2007), is illustrative in this respect, since he has evolved from a morphology based on morphemes to one that is fundamentally based on lexical associations (“my own academic journey from morphemes to lexemes”, Aronof 2018, 3). For this author, who portrays himself as “antidecompositionalist by temperament” (Aronof 2007, 804), “word formation rules . . . are incompatible with generative grammar or with any grammar-based linguistic framework, because, like the tradition they encode, these rules cross the synchronic-diachronic boundary that is central to all post-Saussurean structural linguistics” (Aronof 2018, 11). Other authors are somewhat more optimistic, but they do not hesitate to point out that “things are as we fnd them . . . because that is the outcome of the shaping efects of history, not because the nature of the Language Faculty requires it” (Anderson 2016, 18). A large part of the disagreements that one can currently detect on these issues lies in how exactly we should measure the weight that the “shaping efects of history” has on the morphological system. I will very schematically show various ways of addressing these efects in the pages to follow. The simple fact that the lexical culture of speakers has an efect on their morphological competence clearly diferentiates morphology from syntax. In fact, variation in the speakers’ access to word structure is as remarkable as are the diferences in their lexical knowledge. The degree of transparency that speakers recognize in derived words depends on their education, their culture, or their professional experiences, among other factors. While all Spanish speakers associate bebida ‘drink [noun]’ with beber ‘drink [verb]’, a number of them, but not all, also associate peaje ‘toll’ with pagar ‘pay’, two words which hold no lexical or morphological connection. On the contrary, very few would connect the historically linked items angosto ‘narrow’ and angustia ‘anguish’ or will recognize the noun zaranda ‘sieve’ as the root of the verb zarandear ‘shake’. Depending on their education or their culture, some will or will not link amilanarse ‘be daunted’ to milano ‘kite, hawk’; profesor ‘teacher’ to profesar ‘profess’; or ileso ‘unharmed’ to leso ‘lese’. Needless to say, none of these problems arise for diachronic linguists, since the ways in which speakers link words to each other are mostly irrelevant to their work. As Pensado (1999) observes, it is difcult to decide whether identical lexical bases should be assigned in synchronic morphology to semantically connected items, such as juez ‘judge [noun]’, juzgar ‘judge [verb]’, and juicio ‘trial’, or to pairs such as Dinamarca ‘Denmark’/danés ‘danish’. In fact, suppletive roots may constitute morphological variants of bases but also lexical alternatives to them (Dressler 1985; Bobaljik 2015; Veselinova 2017). This means that, strictly speaking, there is no “morphological relationship” between castigar ‘punish’ and punitivo ‘punitive’. To make room for these relationships in morphology, we have to allow this discipline to go beyond the structure of words and penetrate into the realm of lexical relationships. In fact, this change is expressly accepted by both Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982; Mohanan 1986; Prieto 2014) and Distributed Morphology (Embick and Noyer 2007; Bobaljik 2019). The signifcance of opaque lexical roots for the connections which concern us here has been pointed out many times. Among many others, see Aronof (1976, 1994) and CarstairsMcCarthy (1992). Regarding Spanish, see Pena (1980, 1999), Pensado (1983, 1999), and Gutiérrez Rubio (this volume), among others. The extensive paradigm of morphological segments that do not constitute Spanish words includes -cibir, -ducir, -ferir, -mitir, -petir, or -vocar. Each one of these opaque lexical roots participates in the formation of a good number of derivatives: (1) recibir ‘receive’, percibir ‘perceive’, apercibir ‘warn, caution’; aducir ‘adduce’, conducir ‘lead’, reducir ‘reduce’; referir ‘refer’, conferir ‘confer’; inferir ‘infer’; omitir ‘omit’, permitir ‘permit’, remitir ‘forward’, etc. 83

Ignacio Bosque

A second paradigm may be constructed with verbs whose meaning as prefxable lexical roots cannot be derived from the one they encode as free items. Examples include -meter, -mover, -pulsar, -poner, -tener, -tender, and -sumir, which are both lexical roots (as in cometer ‘commit’ or prometer ‘promise’) and independent verbs (as in meter dinero en el banco ‘put money in the bank’). As is well known, most opaque lexical roots correspond to Latin verbs: -ducir is the continuation of ducĕre ‘lead’, -mitir is that of mittĕre ‘send’, -ferir is that of ferre ‘take, produce’, solver is that of solvĕre ‘release’, and so on. It is usually assumed that verbs derived from these roots were partially transparent in Latin, approximately as verbs with separable prefxes are in present-day German. The natural question is whether these units should be recognized as segments in synchronic morphological analyses. The answer was negative in the structuralist tradition, in which morphemes ought to be meaningful units. On the contrary, the current majority position recognizes opaque lexical roots as morphemes, since the speaker is able to deduce, to a great extent, their expected nominalizations and a large part of its infectional properties. Thus, if the verb contains the morpheme -ducir, the nominal derivatives will be formed in -ción (reducción ‘reduction’, conducción ‘conduction’, inducción ‘induction’). If the verb contains the segment -mitir, their nominalizations will be formed in -sión (admisión ‘admission’, remisión ‘remission’, omisión ‘omission’). If the base verb is -ferir, derivatives will be formed with the sufx -encia (inferencia ‘inference’, referencia ‘reference’, preferencia ‘preference’). The same reasoning applies to many other similar series. The historical explanation for these choices is not disputed. For example, the forms in -sión regularly inherit nouns derived in Latin from participial themes: from the participle of admittĕre ‘admit’ (admissum), Latin formed admissio, whose Spanish continuation is admisión ‘admission’. But, as we see, speakers may regularize paradigms from roots that do not exist in their language as exempt bases. This constitutes a strong argument in favor of granting access, in the synchronic analysis, to segments only historically justifed. Even so, it would not be fair to overlook the relevant exceptions that one meets in these paradigms. For example, nominalizations on verbs in -tender are formed in -sión (extensión ‘extension’, pretensión ‘pretension’, distensión ‘distension’), but we obtain atención ‘attention’ (not *atensión) from atender ‘attend’, since this noun is the natural continuation of Lat. attentio (not *attensio). On the other hand, so-called vocalic nominalizations do not quite ft in these paradigms: repulsa ‘revulsion’ (not *repulso) and repulsión are more common than repulsar ‘repulse’, but we do not get *impulsa, but impulso ‘impulse’, from impulsar ‘boost’. From consumir ‘consume’, we obtain consumo ‘consumption’, but from asumir ‘assume’, one does not derive *asumo nor *asumición but asunción ‘assumption’, a learned noun corresponding to Latin assumptio, derived from assumĕre ‘assume’. On the verb resumir ‘summarize’, neither *resumo, *resuma, *resumición, nor *resunción is created but rather resumen ‘summary’, arguably the semilearned continuation of Lat. resumens (present participle of resūmere ‘resume’). The lexical base -solver is particularly interesting, since the verb solver is in disuse (as opposed to Eng. solve), while absolver ‘absolve’, resolver ‘resolve’, or disolver ‘dissolve’ are standard. If we assume that -solv- displays the suppletive base -solu- (tracing it back to a Latin supine theme), we could predict nominalizations such as absolución ‘absolution’, disolución ‘dissolution’, or resolución ‘resolution’. But these nouns are derived from prefxed verbs, which implies that, in synchronic morphology, the noun solución ‘solution’ should (i) be derived from the non-existent *solver; (ii) be considered a non-derived word; (iii) be considered a regressive derivative of solucionar ‘solve’; or (iv) be derived from resolver ‘solve’, together with resolución ‘resolution’. The diachronic morphologist would choose none of these four options (given that solución is a learned noun which inherits Lat. solutio), but the synchronic morphologist would probably have to pick up one of them. Option (iii) is isolated in the morphological system. Moreover, it is doubtful 84

Synchronic vs diachronic morphology

that regressive derivation plays any role in synchronic morphology. In diachronic analyses, it allows one to go from legislador ‘legislator’ to legislar ‘legislate’ or from borrico ‘donkey’ (Lat. borricus ‘nag’) to burro ‘donkey’ (see Prat 2011 on several aspects of this phenomenon). Each of the remaining options has pros and cons, but option (i) is the only one that properly relates this problem to the one raised by opaque bases. Synchronic morphology is forced to deal with other problems of directionality, such as the one of choosing between “N > V” (as in azote ‘whip’ [noun] > azotar ‘whip’ [verb]) and “V > N” (as in azotar ‘whip’ [verb] > azote ‘whip [noun]’). Such problems do not arise in diachronic morphology, unless the dates of appearance of the related items in texts are very close. For a discussion of the factors involved in choosing between these options, I refer to Pena (1980) and RAE and ASALE (2009, §5.7, 8.2k and f.).

3 On the historical explanation of morphophonological irregularity The morphophonological irregularities of Spanish have been described with some detail in the literature. Overviews include those by Saporta (1959), Cressey (1978), Pensado (1983, 1999), RAE and ASALE (2009, Chapters 5–11), and Prieto (2014). See also Armstrong, this volume. To these titles one may add a large number of works on particular alternations, whether vocalic or consonantal, including Castro (2006), Colina (2015), and references therein. The central question is to what extent it is possible to postulate generalizations on the current Spanish morphophonological system regardless of the historical factors lying behind. Since the potential illustrations of this dilemma go all the way through the morphological system, I will have to confne myself to very few examples. We may briefy compare the derivational process in Eng. govern > governor with its Spanish counterpart gobernar > gobernador (not *gobernor). It is known that most agent and instrument Spanish deverbal nouns ft in the “V-dor/-dora” pattern, but Spanish speakers know that they must choose -or/-ora in a number of cases: editor ‘editor’ (not *editador), confesor ‘confessor’ (not *confesador), relatora ‘rapporteur’, supervisor ‘supervisor’, ejecutora ‘executor’, and so on. Speakers cannot simply look at the verb ending in order to pick up the right sufx: verbs ending in /sar/ may choose -or/-ora (confesor ‘confessor’, supervisora ‘supervisor’) or -dor/-dora (avisador ‘annunciator’; malversador ‘embezzler’; dispensadora ‘dispenser’). Interestingly, the role of the opaque Latin base is, again, essential: speakers choose -or/-ora if the verb ends in -mitir (emisor ‘sender’, transmisor ‘transmitter’), in -pulsar (impulsor ‘impeller’, propulsora ‘propellant’), in -primir (impresora ‘printer’, compresor ‘compressor’), or in -der, -dir, -tir, or -ter, all displaying suppletive roots ending in /s/, already present in the correspondent Latin participles. These nouns include divisor ‘divisor’, intercesora ‘intercessor’, persuasor ‘persuader’, disuasora ‘deterrent’, invasor ‘invader’, sucesora ‘successor’, difusor ‘difuser’, and many others. But, as in the cases analyzed in the previous section, we also fnd a number of irregularities in these processes. The verb preceder ‘precede’ is particularly interesting, since it does not give rise to *precesor, *precededor, or *precedesor but rather to predecesor ‘predecessor’. One might think of a suppletive base preces-, analogous to the one necessary in suceder ‘succeed’ > sucesor ‘successor’. But since this is not the root we need, we would have to postulate (i) a strange epenthetic process on it: preces- > pre[de]ces- or (ii) a no less strange metathesis in the obtained nominal derivative (*precedesor > predecesor). Obviously, these solutions are absolutely stipulative, since they are not based on recurrent morphological patterns. If we examine the problem from the historical angle, we will see that the predecessor is irregular in Spanish, but it is completely regular in Latin: the agent noun derived from the Latin verb 85

Ignacio Bosque

decedĕre ‘leave, die’ is decessor, formed on the same participle theme that gives rise to decessus (Sp. deceso ‘natural death’). By adding the Latin prefx prae- ‘before’, the regular noun prae-decessor ‘he who leaves earlier’ was created. This is the learned form inherited by Spanish (predecesor), English (predecessor), French, (prédécesseur), or Italian (predecessore). The interference of an external form in a morphological paradigm constitutes a type of blocking, a phenomenon repeatedly attested in both synchronic and diachronic morphology (on the varieties of blocking and their efects, see Kiparsky 2005; Embick and Marantz 2008; Rainer 2019; and references therein). Notice that recognizing the interference of a cultism in a derivational process requires that both synchronic and diachronic factors be taken into account. The risk of ignoring the latter inevitably leads one to postulate stipulative morphological changes in order to relate predictable forms to those efectively attested. This is a fairly general problem. By applying the pattern “V > Aoso”, as in empalagar ‘cloy’> empalagoso ‘cloying’ or apestar ‘stink’ > apestoso ‘stinky’, we should perhaps expect presumir ‘boast’ > *presumoso, an adjective which never existed. The now scarcely used presuncioso ‘presumptuous’ reproduces Lat. praesumptiōsus, which may be synchronically related to the suppletive root presun-, present in presunción ‘presumption’ (paralleling asumir ‘assume’ > asunción ‘assumption’). But the interfering cultism is the standard adjective presuntuoso ‘presumptuous’. Latin created praesumptuosus (prae + sumptuosus) on the adjective sumptuosus, regularly formed on sumptus, participle of sumĕre ‘take up’. The uses of praesumptiosus and those of praesumptuosus were then crossed, and the latter eventually triumphed, another straightforward case of blocking. Let me focus on the theoretical issues behind all these idiosyncrasies. Diachronic morphologists will argue that there is no irregularity in the transmission of a cultism which was derived in Latin in a totally regular and predictable way. They will surely point out that any attempt by synchronic morphologists to go from preceder to predecesor or from presumir to presuntuoso will lead us to cheerfully jump from one radical to another, as well as to introduce as many artifcial and ad hoc adjustments as we might need at every step. This line of reasoning is not entirely misguided, but it only refects a part of the truth. Notice that the historical grammarian will not relate the English noun governor to the verb govern, since governor does not historically come from govern but from Old French governeor, similar to the current French gouverneur. Plainly said: the natural relationship that any English speaker establishes between govern and governor is irrelevant to the diachronic morphologist, as it is to the etymologist, since the connection in which both are interested does not occur in the heads of speakers but in the history of words. Some diachronic morphologists go further and even criticize linguists who attempt to associate words not related historically: [B]oth decide and decision are loanwords from French. They are not members of any productive English paradigm. Consequently, all those deep structure rules which derive decision from decide (and so on for the other members of the alleged paradigm) are simply superfuous. Similar diachronic analysis applies to exist : existente, neglect : negligible, Arab : Arabic, etc. All those spurious derivational paradigms and the complicated deep structure rules which they conjure up stem from the simple failure to adequately distinguish between synchrony and diachrony. (Pilch 1985, 427) Paradoxically, it is statements like these that reveal a “failure to adequately distinguish between synchrony and diachrony”, since the relations that synchronic morphology establishes between words are not intended to question their etymology, let alone replace it.

86

Synchronic vs diachronic morphology

What to do, then? Synchronic morphology may certainly avoid the tortuous and convoluted changes required by non-generalizable anomalous morphophonological processes. There are, at least, two ways to do this. A “Word and Paradigm” solution is to argue that the regular expected form (*precedesor) is preempted by a learned word (predecesor), which displays an opaque morphological structure (see Camus, this volume, and Felíu, this volume). The other option is to postulate a suppletive root (predeces-) and ignore its internal structure. Admittedly, there is something stipulative in both solutions, but they are forced by the simple fact that speakers relate agent nouns to the verbs to which they correspond semantically, even if they ignore the historical reasons for that association. The difculty in obtaining generalizations on morphophonological changes extends to many other cases. If we want to derive amistad ‘friendship’ from amigo ‘friend’, ignoring that the former is a lexical semi-cultism (Lat. *amicĭtas, a regular output of amīcus ‘friend’), we will have to postulate a strange morphophonological process in order to avoid *amig-tad (or perhaps *amictad, for phonotactic reasons, since the group -gt- does not exist in Spanish). Many more examples oriented in the same direction could be added. The recognized artifciality of a number of processes postulated in both synchronic morphology and phonology has led some authors to characterize them as crazy rules (as in Bach and Harms 1972; see also Scheer 2015) or—somewhat more politely said—hand-wiring processes (MacWhinney 1994). The same problem has been raised in natural morphology (Dressler 2005; Dressler and Kilani-Schoch 2016) and other morphological models. It should be stressed that it is not the ultimate efectiveness of these operations that is questioned but rather their (un)naturalness. The formation of parasynthetic verbs on adjectival bases by the “en-A-ar” pattern is particularly illustrative in this regard, as in ensuciar ‘dirty’, endulzar ‘sweeten’, engordar ‘fatten’, enturbiar ‘cloud’, or engrosar ‘thicken’, among others (see Mateu, this volume). If we apply this pattern to the adjective ancho ‘broad’, we get *enanchar (anomalous for most speakers), instead of the standard form ensanchar ‘widen’. There is no possible phonetic explanation for the epenthesis of -s- after the prefx (en- > ens-), since there is nothing in the articulation of enanchar that makes it difcult to pronounce. The historical perspective will tell us that we are dealing with a regular form (enanchar) widely documented until the 18th century and only occasionally attested ever since. This regular verb was progressively preempted in general Spanish by the semilearned continuation of the Latin verb exampliare ‘expand out’. The epenthesis of /s/ in enanchar > ensanchar is difcult to understand in synchronic terms. But the passage from ex- to ens-, which requires an epenthetic /n/, is attested in Lat. exemplum > Old Sp. ensiemplo, as well as in Lat. exagium ‘weighing’ > Spa. ensayo ‘essay’, and other similar cases. See Malkiel (1984a), together with the extensions in Pascual (2005), for a typology of nasal consonant epenthesis in the creation of the Romance lexicon and an account of the phenomenon on articulatory terms.

4 Highlighting confuences and divergences In the previous sections, we have seen that a good number of morphophonological irregularities can be described synchronically but must be explained diachronically. We have also seen that, in certain cases, speakers have implicit access to some generalizations on diachronically based phenomena, even if they do not know either Latin or the history of Spanish. In relation to the issues relevant for this chapter, processes in synchronic morphology may be divided in two groups: a) Without a counterpart in diachronic analysis. b) With a counterpart in diachronic analysis.

87

Ignacio Bosque

Many processes in (a) are rather systematic, even if they include some exceptions. Spanish speakers will surely observe that the ending -ción favors haplology (even if they do not know this term) in the creation of derived adjectives, since one would not say *ambicionoso, *supersticionoso, or *pretencionoso but ambicioso ‘ambitious’ (by deleting /on/ in ambici[on]-oso), supersticioso ‘superstitious’, pretencioso ‘pretentious’. These are Latin cultisms (at least, the frst two: ambitiōsus. superstitiōsus), but speakers apply to them a recognizable, and even predictable, morphological pattern: when faced with a new noun in -ción, they will certainly not create an adjective ending in *cionoso. This conclusion is correct, since there are no Spanish words with that ending. Similarly, the speaker will perceive that the elision of /ad/ in volunt[ad] ‘will’ + -ario > voluntario ‘voluntary’ represents a particular case of a more general pattern, since other adjectives derived from nouns ending in /ad/ by means of this sufx follow the same process, even if a /t/~/d/ alternation is attested in most radicals: paridad ‘parity’ > paritario ‘equal, peer’ (not *paridario, nor *paridadario or *paridatario); inmunidad ‘immunity’ > inmunitario ‘immune’; autoridad ‘authority’> autoritario ‘authoritarian’. Even so, speakers will have to memorize the particular exceptions attested, such as igualitario ‘egalitarian’ (not *igualtario, *igualdario, or *igualdadario) or solitario ‘solitary’ (not *soletario nor *soledario), among others. Equally anomalous in diachronic analysis is the process of haplology necessary in religi[on]+oso > religioso ‘religious’ (not *religionoso). The diachronic morphologist will probably consider it artifcial and unnecessary, since Spanish directly adopted Lat. religiōsus. But the derivation religio > religiōsus is not free of problems either, unless one provides a principled explanation for a nominative, rather than accusative, nominal base. In any case, a diachronic morphologist will prefer recognizing the existence of a specifc learned form to introducing irregular morphophonological processes in order to obtain the former. Some synchronic morphologists adopting a “Word and Paradigms” perspective might agree, but others would not, if only because the questions they are interested in (such as “How do the Spanish words religión and religioso relate morphologically?”) are largely irrelevant to the historical grammarian. Let us consider group (b) now. A large number of processes postulated in synchronic morphology reproduce historical changes, or at least echo them. Some of them are rather obvious, such as the loss of fnal vowels in the derivation of substantives or adjectives. This process occurred in Latin but is also reproduced in all the synchronic analyses of Romance languages. Group (b) is also illustrated by diphthongization of stressed vowels /e/, /o/ in /ie/ and /ue/, respectively. The historical aspects of this process are analyzed in detail in Menéndez Pidal (1941), Alarcos (1961), Alonso (1962), or Malkiel (1984b), among many other works. As is obvious, this process has direct consequences for synchronic morphology and specifcally for the analysis of verbal conjugation paradigms. See Acedo-Matellán (this volume), Colina (this volume), Martínez Paricio (this volume), and the titles cited at the beginning of section 3. Unstressed prenominal possessives (mi ‘my’, tu ‘your’), sometimes called contracted possessives in the tradition, are derived from their stressed counterparts (mío ‘mine’, tuyo ‘yours’) in both diachronic and synchronic analyses. As regards the former, I  refer—in addition to classical historical grammars, such as Menández Pidal (1941, §95 and f.) or Hanssen (1913, §176 and f.)—to more recent studies, such as Martínez Alcalde (1996) or Romero Cambrón (2008). As for the synchronic aspect of this very process, I refer to Bernstein (1993, 2005), Roca (1996), and Kim (2014). Many other examples of group (b) exist. An interesting candidate for this group is the formation of cyclic derivational chains, in particular those of the type “V1 > N > V2” in cases in which the meaning of V2 comes close to that of V1. Some of the following series are quoted in RAE and ASALE (2009, §8.6) and correspond to synchronic patterns in Spanish morphology: 88

Synchronic vs diachronic morphology

(2) abrir ‘open’> apertura ‘opening’> aperturar ‘open’; anexar ‘attach’ > anexión ‘attachment’ > anexionar ‘annex’; conmover ‘move’ > conmoción ‘concussion’ > conmocionar ‘shock’; cumplir ‘fulfl’> cumplimiento ‘compliance’ > cumplimentar ‘fll out’; fundir ‘melt’> fusión ‘merge’ > fusionar ‘fuse’; infuir ‘infuence’ > infuencia ‘infuence’ > infuenciar ‘infuence’; ofrecer ‘ofer’ > oferta ‘ofer’ > ofertar ‘bid’; poner(se) ‘put’ > posición ‘position’ > posicionar(se) ‘position’; poseer ‘possess’ > posesión ‘possession’ > posesionar(se) ‘take possession’; recibir ‘receive’ > recepción ‘reception’ > recepcionar ‘accept, receive’; referir ‘refer’ > referencia ‘reference’ > referenciar ‘reference’; revolver ‘stir’ revolución ‘revolution’ > revolucionar; ‘revoluzionize’; tensar ‘strain’ > tensión ‘tension’> tensionar ‘tension, stress’; ver ‘see’ > visión ‘vision’ > visionar ‘envision’. Somewhat less extended are cyclic chains with passive participles (“V1 > PassP > V2”), such as freír ‘fry’ > frito ‘fried’> fritar ‘fry’ (the latter, common in the Caribbean area: RAE and ASALE 2009, §8.6a). In contrast, the pattern “N1 > A > N2” is very productive: (3) intención ‘intention’ > intencional ‘intentional’ > intencionalidad ‘intentionality’; proporción ‘proportion’ > proporcional ‘proportional’ > proporcionalidad ‘proportionality’; peligro ‘danger’ > peligroso ‘dangerous’ > peligrosidad ‘dangerousness’. Similar series existed in Latin, the last step often being attested in Late Latin. The type “V1 > N > V2” (such as canĕre ‘sing’ > cantus ‘song’ > cantāre ‘sing’) coexisted with “V1 > PassP > V2”. Here are some examples of the latter, a very productive pattern: (4) audēre ‘dare’ > ausus ‘dared’ > ausāre ‘dare’; iacēre ‘lie’ > iactus ‘lain’ > iactāre ‘throw’; impēllere ‘push’ > impulsus ‘pushed’ > impulsāre ‘push, boost’; obliviscor ‘forget’> oblītus ‘forgoten’> *oblitāre ‘forget’; premere ‘press, compress’ > pressus ‘pressed’ > pressāre ‘press’; tendĕre ‘deploy’ > tensus ‘deployed’ > *tensāre ‘tense, strain’. To these series one may add those in which V2 was created in Romance out of Latin participle, as in Lat. complēre ‘fnish, fll’ > complētus ‘fnished’ > Sp. completar ‘complete’ or in Lat. aferre ‘bring, carry’ > allatus ‘carried’> Fr. aller ‘go’ (Parker 1934). If the participle is active, other series are obtained, as in sedēre ‘seat’ > sedens ‘sitting’ > sedentare ‘seat (trans.)’. Interestingly, the problems posed by the Spanish series come close to those raised by the Latin ones. If infuir, anexar, tensar already exist, why create infuenciar, anexionar, tensionar? If audēre, obliviscor, premere exist, why should speakers form ausāre, *oblitāre, pressāre? The new Latin verbs sometimes gave rise to frequentative readings (ausāre vs audēre; cantāre vs canĕre; impulsare vs impēllere), but they might may also add an intensifying component to the original verbs (pressāre vs premere). The new verbs might also be causative variants of their bases (iactāre vs iacēre; sedentare vs sedēre), but sometimes it is not absolutely clear what exactly the semantic diference was, as in *oblitare vs obliviscor. As far as present-day Spanish is concerned, RAE and ASALE (2009, §8.6) describe some of the semantic diferences between the initial and the fnal verbs. The new ones may give rise 89

Ignacio Bosque

to special meanings that are generally attested in dictionaries (as in visionar ‘view’ or visualizar ‘visualize’, as opposed to ver ‘see’; or in ofertar ‘bid’ vs ofrecer ‘ofer’). But—apart from register or style diferences—the meaning of culpar ‘blame’ and culpabilizar ‘blame’ are rather close, as is that of infuir ‘infuence’ and infuenciar ‘infuence’ or—in some contexts—tensar ‘strain’ and tensionar ‘strain’. The “intensive” value sometimes identifed in the new Latin-derived verbs comes close to the one that the new Spanish formations are able to encode. On some of these diferences in Latin verb word formation, see García Hernández (1980, 1985), Allen (1981), and Fruyt (2017a, 2017b).

5 Conclusion It is now generally acknowledged that it makes little sense to postulate that some morphological changes take place “in the language”, while others do so “in the head of speakers”. But the actual implementation of this unifying (as well as clarifying) methodological maxim is far from simple. We have seen that numerous parallel processes in synchronic and diachronic morphology exist, including generalizations that speakers arrive at on segments that can only be isolated diachronically. Regarding morphophonological irregularities, more divergences than convergences are attested. Diachronic morphologists will probably try to take advantage of the idea that they have access to a paradigm to which recurrent historical morphological changes may apply (then, a tentative explanation). As is obvious, explaining something implies that particular cases refer to systematic patterns with a certain degree of generalization. From this point of view, it is fair to recognize that at least a part of synchronic morphonology has to renounce the historical patterns underlying the irregularities described. The generalizations behind these patterns are still important, but the speaker cannot possibly have access to them. It should be recalled that the analysis of historical facts—whether linguistic or not—often has to resort to factors as varied as they are unpredictable. Irregularities and idiosyncrasies in lexical morphology may result from loanwords, formations created by analogy, popular etymology, and substrate or adstrate infuences. They may result of the blocking of regular forms by the strength of unexpected lexical competitors; they might also be due to equally contingent lexical associations (cultural or otherwise) or to irregular phonetic alternations that are as easy to identify as they are difcult to foresee (such as metatheses or dissimilations, among others). It is true, as Joseph and Janda (1988, 193) observe, that “[m]orphology and diachrony have exhibited a puzzling complementary distribution within generative linguistics”. It is also true that this incompatibility results from the attempt—probably unwise—to make a long series of external factors forcibly ft into the very design of the grammatical system. The concurrence of all these factors lead us to admit that the degree of predictability of lexical morphology has to remain below the one we recognize in syntax (see Acedo-Matellán, this volume, for similar factors conditioning the status of morphology in grammar). One should not forget that the reason why historical linguistics is only partially compatible with predictive generalizations is the very fact that it is historical (i.e., part of history), not so much the fact of being linguistic. The “shaping efects of history” to which Anderson refers in the quotation reproduced at the outset coexist with the results expected from a regular and compositional lexical morphology. They are not incompatible with this system but rather parallel to it and complementary to its developments. In fact, in a large number of cases, synchronic and diachronic analyses may be both correct and diferent. This includes morphological segmentations: most speakers would segment desagradecido ‘ungrateful’ as [des][agradecido], not as [desagradec][ido]. The historical linguist would surely prefer the latter option, since the now-inexistent verb desagradecer ‘be ungrateful’ was common until the 18th century, and its participle is still alive as an adjective. 90

Synchronic vs diachronic morphology

There is no reason to suppose that one of these two analyses should be dismissed, given that they are not aimed at the same target. We do not know the ultimate cultural and historical reasons which give meaning to some of the instruments we use or the habits we practice. In Haspelmath’s (2016) words, “many . . . cultural patterns that surround us are arbitrary and remnants of the past: the layout of streets on our old cities, the ownership of the land, the way we dress (e.g. men’s ties), the games we play, etc.”. The fact that we do not know how to explain the many aspects of our activity that are remnants of earlier patterns is perfectly compatible with the existence of internalized and highly regular systems that make a large number of correct predictions. In any case, the mere existence of the factors schematically introduced previously constitutes an important call of attention to morphologists who strictly operate in synchrony. As Hüning (2018, 477) puts it, “a good theory should at least be compatible with the facts found in historical linguistics and not ignore them or explain them away as unrelated to the grammar”.

Acknowledgements I am very grateful to Juan Gil, José A. Pascual and Paloma Andrés Ferrer for helping me understand some historical aspects of the lexical items analyzed in this chapter.

References Alarcos, E. 1961. Fonología española. Madrid: Editorial Gredos. Allen, Andrew S. 1981. “The Development of Prefxal and Parasynthetic Verbs in Latin and Romance.” Romance Philology 35: 79–88. Alonso, D. 1962. “Diptongación castellana y diptongación románica.” In Enciclopedia Lingüística Hispánica, edited by M. Alvar, 27–29. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científcas. Anderson, S. R. 2005. “Morphological Universals and Diachrony.” In Yearbook of Morphology 2004, edited by G. Booij and J. van Marle, 1–17. Dordrecht: Springer. Anderson, S. R. 2016. “Synchronic vs Diachronic Explanation and the Nature of the Language Faculty.” Annual Review of Linguistics 2: 11–31. Aronof, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronof, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Infectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronof, M. 2007. “In the Beginning Was the Word.” Language 83 (4): 803–30. Aronof, M. 2018. “Morphology and Words: A Memoir.” In The Lexeme in Descriptive and Theoretical Morphology, edited by O. Bonami, G. Boyé, G. Dal, H. Giraudo, and F. Namer, 3–17. Berlin: Language Science Press. Bach, E., and R. T. Harms. 1972. “How Do Languages Get Crazy Rules?” In Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, edited by R. Stockwell and R. Macaulay, 1–21. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bauer, B. 2011. “Word Formation.” In Structures. Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, edited by M. Maiden, J. C. Smith, and A. Ledgeway, 532−63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bernstein, J. B. 1993. “Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure across Romance.” PhD diss., City University of New York, New York. Bernstein, J. B. 2005. “On the Morpho-Syntax of Possessive Constructions.” Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 34. https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.1364. Bobaljik, J. D. 2015. “Suppletion: Some Theoretical Implications.” Annual Review of Linguistics 1 (1): 1–18. Bobaljik, J. D. 2019. “Distributed Morphology.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited by M. Aronof. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0010. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1992. Current Morphology. London: Routledge. Castro, O. 2006. Issues in Spanish Morphophonology: Implications for Language Acquisition. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 91

Ignacio Bosque

Chomsky, N. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, edited by J. Roderick and P. Rosenbaum, 184–221.Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Colina, S. 2015. “Spanish Morphophonology.” Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 4 (1): 173–92. Cressey, W. 1978. Spanish Phonology and Morphology: A Generative View. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Dressler, W. 1985. “Suppletion in Word Formation.” In Historical Semantics, Historical Word Formation, edited by J. Fisiak, 97–112. Berlin: De Gruyter. Dressler, W. 2005. “Word-Formation in Natural Morphology.” In Handbook of Word-Formation, edited by P. Štekauer and R. Lieber, 267–84. Dordrecht: Springer. Dressler, W., and M. Kilani-Schoch. 2016. “Natural Morphology.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, edited by A. Hippisley and G. Stump, 356–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Embick, D., and A. Marantz. 2008. “Architecture and Blocking.” Linguistic Inquiry 39 (1): 1–53. Embick, D., and R. Noyer. 2007. “Distributed Morphology and Syntax-Morphology Interface.” In Oxford Handbook of Linguistics Interfaces, edited by G. C. Ramchand and C. Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fruyt, M. 2017a. “Les verbes parasynthétiques en latin: les interprétations et le 1er type.” De Lingua Latina (Sorbonne Université) 13. http://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/IMG/pdf/dll_13._m.fruyt_1.pdf. Fruyt, M. 2017b. “Les verbes parasynthétiques en latin: les 2e et 3e types.” De Lingua Latina (Sorbonne Université) 13. http://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/IMG/pdf/dll_13._m.fruyt_2.pdf. Fuss, E., and C. Trips. 2004. “Introduction [to Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar].” In Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar, edited by E. Fuss and C. Trips, 1–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. García Hernández, B. 1980. Semántica estructural y lexemática del verbo. Barcelona/Reus: Avesta. García Hernández, B. 1985. “Los verbos intensivo-frecuentativos latinos: tema y desarrollo sufjal.” In Symbolae Ludovico Mitxelena septuagenario oblatae, edited by J. L. Melena, vol. 1, 227–43. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Universidad del País Vasco. Hanssen, F. 1913. Gramática histórica de la lengua castellana. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Haspelmath, M. 2016. “Stephen Anderson on Diachronic Explanation (of What?).” A  post by Martin Haspelmath, January 7. https://dlc.hypotheses.org/888. Hüning, M. 2018. “Morphological Theory and Diachronic Change.” In The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory, edited by J. Audring and F. Masini, 475–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Joseph, B. 1992. “Diachronic Explanation. Putting Speakers Back into the Picture.” In Explanation in Historical Linguistics, edited by by G. W. Davis and G. Iverson, 123–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Joseph, B. 1995. “Diachronic Morphology: An Overview.” OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 46: 16–37. Joseph, B., and D. R. Janda. 1988. “The How and Why of Diachronic Morphologization and Demorphologization.” In Theoretical Morphology. Approaches in Modern Linguistics, edited by M. Hammond and M. Noonan, 193–210. San Diego: Academic Press. Kim, S. Y. 2014. “Formación de los posesivos del español y su distribución sintáctica.” PhD diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid. https://eprints.ucm.es/29970/. Kiparsky, P. 1982. “Lexical Morphology and Phonology.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, edited by I.-S. Yang, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin. Kiparsky, P.  2005. “Blocking and Periphrasis in Infectional Paradigms.” Yearbook of Morphology 2004: 113–35. MacWhinney, B. 1994. “The Dinosaurs and the Ring.” In The Reality of Linguistic Rules, edited by S. D. Lima, R. Corrigan, and G. Iverson, 283–320. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Malkiel, Y. 1984a. “Six Categories of Nasal Epenthesis: Their Place in the Evolution from Latin into Romance.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, edited by C. Brugman and M. Macaulay, 27–46. Berkeley: University of California. Malkiel, Y. 1984b. “Old Spanish Resistance to Diphtongization?” Language 60: 70–114. Martínez Alcalde, M. J. 1996. Morfología histórica de los posesivos españoles. Valencia: Universitat de València. Menéndez Pidal, R. 1941. Manual de gramática histórica. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel. Moyna, M. I. 2011. Compound Words in Spanish: Theory and History. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 92

Synchronic vs diachronic morphology

Parker, E. F. 1934. “A Defense of the Etymology allatus, allare, aller.” PMLA 49 (4): 1025–31. Pascual, J. A. 2005. “De los munchos tipos de n adventicia en español.” In Filología y Lingüística. Estudios ofrecidos a Antonio Quilis, edited by C. Hernández, vol. 2, 1359–82. Madrid: CSIC. Pena, J. 1980. La derivación en español. Verbos derivados y sustantivos verbales. Santiago: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Pena, J. 1999. “Partes de la morfología. Las unidades del análisis morfológico.” In Entre la Oración y el Discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4645–82. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Pena, J. 2003. “Los estudios de morfología del español en España durante los últimos 25 años (1979– 2003).” Lingüística Española Actual 24 (1–2): 7–38. Pena, J. 2013. “Sobre formación de palabras y familias léxicas: relaciones entre sincronía y diacronía.” In Formación de palabras y diacronía, edited by I. Pujol, 91–108. Anexos de Revista de Lexicografía 19. A Coruña: Servicio de Publicacións da UDC. Pensado, C. 1983. El orden histórico de los procesos fonológicos. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Pensado, C. 1999. “Morfología y fonología. Fenómenos morfológicos.” In Entre la Oración y el Discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4423–504. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Pilch, H. 1985. “The Synchrony-Diachrony Division in Word-Formation.” In Historical Semantics— Historical Word-Formation, edited by J. Fisiak, 407–33. The Hague: Mouton. Prat, M. 2011. “Estudio diacrónico sobre la derivación regresiva en español.” In Diachronic Linguistics, edited by J. Rafel, 239–74. Girona: Documenta Universitaria. Prieto, P. 2014. “La fonología léxica.” In Fonología generativa contemporánea de la lengua española, edited by R. A. Núñez Cedeño, S. Colina, and T. G. Bradley, 217–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Rainer, F. 2008. “Formation des mots: le point de vue diachronique.” In Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française—CMLF’08, edited by J. Durand, B. Habert, and B. Laks. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française. www.linguistiquefrancaise.org/articles/cmlf/abs/2008/01/contents/contents.html. Rainer, F. 2019. “Blocking.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited by M. Aronof. Online Publication. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.33. Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Morfología y sintaxis. 2 vols. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Roca, F. 1996. “La determinación y la modifcación nominal en español.” PhD diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. http://flcat.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/pdf/Roca-1997.pdf. Romero Cambrón, A. 2008. “Los posesivos en la historia del español: estimaciones críticas.” Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación (Clac) 35: 62–83. Ruszkiewicz, P. 1997. “On the Diachrony-in-Synchrony Analysis in Morphology.” Folia Linguistica Historica 18 (1–2): 81–117. Santiago, R., and E. Bustos Gisbert. 1999. “La derivación nominal.” In Entre la Oración y el Discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4505–94. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Saporta, S. 1959. “Morpheme Alternants in Spanish.” In Structural Studies on Spanish Themes, edited by H. R. Kahane and A. Pietrangeli, 15–162. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Scheer, T. 2015. “How Diachronic Is Synchronic Grammar? Crazy Rules, Regularity and Naturalness.” In The Handbook of Historical Phonology, edited by P. Honeybone and J. C. Salmons, 313–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sornicola, R. 2011. “Romance Linguistics and Historical Linguistics: Refections on Synchrony and Diachrony.” In Structures. Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, edited by M. Maiden, J. C. Smith, and A. Ledgeway, 1–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Veselinova, L. N. 2017. “Suppletion.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited by M. Aronof. Online Publication. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.50.

93

Part II

Infection and word formation in Spanish

8 The infection of nouns José CamachoThe infection of nouns

Gender and number (La infexión nominal: género y número)

José Camacho

1 Introduction This chapter presents the basic properties of the two infectional categories in Spanish nominal phrases: gender and number. Gender in Spanish classifes nouns in two or three classes, and number relates nouns to a singular or plural quantity. Both categories are expressed through morphological endings and trigger agreement with determiners and adjectives in the nominal domain. From an analytical point of view, the chapter presents two possible ways of representing gender: as symmetric or asymmetric. In the frst representation, nouns may have two separate but equal genders, whereas in the second one, one of the gender features is marked and the other one is unmarked or default. Finally, we present the diferent possible mappings of abstract infectional features to syntactic structure and to morphemes. Keywords: agreement; gender; number; morphology; nominals Este capítulo presenta las propiedades básicas de las dos categorías fexivas en las frases nominales del español: el género y el número. El género en español clasifca los nombres en dos o tres clases, y el número relaciona los nombres con una cantidad singular o plural. Ambas categorías se expresan a través de terminaciones morfológicas y determinan la concordancia con los determinantes y adjetivos en el dominio nominal. Desde un punto de vista analítico, el capítulo presenta dos formas posibles de representar el género: como simétrico o asimétrico. En el primer caso, el género se representa como dos valores separados que pueden asumir los sustantivos, mientras que en el segundo, uno de los rasgos de género está marcado y el otro no lo está. Finalmente, presentamos las diferentes relaciones posibles entre los rasgos fexivos abstractos y la estructura sintáctica y la morfología. Palabras clave: concordancia; género; número; morfología; nombres

2 Basic facts about nominal infection Nominal infection in Spanish is restricted to two categories: gender and number. Gender is one type of classifcatory system that divides words into two, sometimes three, classes. In the case of Spanish, noun gender classes include masculine and feminine. Gender is recognizable 97

José Camacho

because it is “refected in the behavior of associated words” (Hockett 1958, 231), what is usually called agreement, and it also appears as a morpheme ending on individual nouns, determiners and adjectives. For example, in (1a), feminine is realized as -a on the determiner la, the noun gata and the adjective blanca. In (1b), masculine is realized as -o on gato and blanco and as a null morpheme on el. (1) a. L-a gat-a blanc-a. Det-F cat-F white-F ‘The white (female) cat’ b. El gat-o blanc-o. Det.M cat-M white-M ‘The white (male) cat’ While gender is productively realized as the morpheme -a or -o for feminine and masculine, as seen in (1), other nouns do not have an overt morpheme associated with gender, for example, the noun árbol ‘tree’ in (2a). However, even in such cases, the noun still agrees with the determiner and the adjective in masculine gender, so (2b) is not possible. In this sense, árbol has an abstract masculine gender feature that does not correspond to an overt morpheme. The same is true for adjectives like elegante ‘elegant’, which does not have an overt gender morpheme but can agree with a masculine or feminine noun (see Pastor, this volume). (2) a. El árbol Det.M tree.M ‘The beautiful tree’ b. *La árbol Det.F tree.M

hermos-o. beautiful-M hermos-a. beautiful-F

Grammatical number refects a meaning related to quantity, ‘single unit’ for singular and ‘more than one’ for plural. Singular number appears without overt morphology, as we see in (3a), and with an -s morpheme in plural, shown in (3b). In both of these examples, the determiner and the adjective also agree with the noun in number. Gender morphology is always closer to the root than number. (3) a. L-a hoj-a Det-F leaf-F ‘The yellow leaf ’ b. L-a-s hoj-a-s Det-F-PL leaf-F-PL ‘The yellow leaves’

amarill-a. yellow-F amarill-a-s. yellow-F-PL

While gender does not always alternate for the same noun, most nouns appear in singular and plural, although with some important changes in meaning that we will also review subsequently. In sum, gender and number are abstract features that trigger agreement across nouns, determiners and adjectives; gender creates two classes, masculine and feminine and number indicates quantity. Those features may be realized as overt morphemes.

98

The infection of nouns

3 Empirical aspects 3.1 Number and morphological mapping As suggested, nouns indicate either singular or plural quantity. A  basic distinction relates to whether the noun refers to a countable entity like ‘chair’ or non-countable one like ‘cofee’. Both types of nouns appear in singular without overt morphology: silla ‘chair’, café ‘cofee’, but the plural feature generally entails a count interpretation so that café-s ‘cofees’ refers to cups of cofee. Some nouns like víveres ‘supplies’ only appear in the plural and are non-countable. Unlike gender, number is systematically specifed across the nominal domain, and as just seen, even non-count can be coerced into a count interpretation by plural morphology that indicates an individuated set. Number expression on quantifed determiners is subject to semantic constraints. Consider the examples in (5)–(6). Cada ‘each’ can only appear with singular nouns if they are bare, as shown in (5a–b), but it can appear with a numeral. Mucho ‘many/much’ agrees in gender and number with the noun, but if the noun is mass (carne ‘meat’), it is interpreted as ‘a lot’, and if the noun is count (mesa ‘table’), it is interpreted as an intensifer ‘an outstanding kind of table’. In plural, on the other hand, the noun is always interpreted as count. In other words, semantics clearly constrain the distribution of number with quantifed determiners and nouns. (5) a. Cada cas-a. each.SG house-F.SG ‘Each house’ b. *Cada cas-a-s. each.SG house-F-PL c. Cada cuatro cas-a-s. each.SG four house-F-PL ‘Each four houses’ (6) a. Much-a carne. much-F.SG meat.F.SG ‘A lot of meat’ b. Much-a-s carnes. many-F-PL meat.F.PL ‘Many meats’ c. Much-a mesa. much-F.SG table-F.SG ‘A lot of table’

3.2 Gender morphology and animacy In this section, I provide a basic description of the morphological patterns observed for gender and how the notion of animacy afects the distribution of gender marking. First, we should distinguish between a noun’s abstract gender and the morpheme associated with that gender. Abstract gender is seen in the agreement patterns observed when the noun appears with a determiner (cf. Corbett 1991). As we will see, abstract gender is highly correlated with morphology in many cases, although with some notable exceptions.

99

José Camacho

Most nominals in Spanish end in -o or -a, traditionally labeled as masculine and feminine, respectively, for example, rosa ‘rose.F’, edifcio ‘building.M’. However, some words are exceptions to this pattern: mano ‘hand.F’, tema ‘topic.M’, gorila ‘gorilla.M’. Other less frequent morphemes are also associated with specifc genders, as shown in (7). The sufxes -dad and -ción, for example, are typically feminine. (7) a. l-a Det-F b. l-a Det-F

verdad, truth.F acción, action.F

la Det-F l-a Det-F

ansiedad anxiety.F nación, nation.F

l-a Det-F

función function.F

An important set of nouns, the ones that Harris (1991) calls the ‘outer core’, do not have explicit gender morphology, as seen in (8): amante ‘lover’ in isolation does not belong to a single gender category; it can be masculine or feminine depending on discourse context, as seen when the determiner appears overtly. (8) a. El amante. Det.M lover.M ‘The ‘(male) lover’ b. L-a amante. Det-F lover.F ‘The (female) lover’ Animacy plays an important role in the overall distribution of gender morphology and meaning (cf. Roca 1989; Harris 1991). For nouns with animate and particularly human referents, gender overwhelmingly corresponds to biological sex, as in niño/niña ‘boy/girl’. These nouns tend to come in pairs, as seen in (9a–d), but some animate nouns do not have a matching counterpart in the other gender [cf. (9e–h)]. (9) Gender pairs for nouns with animate referent Masculine Feminine a. perr-o perr-a dog-M/F b. niñ-o niñ-a boy, girl c. prim-o prim-a cousin-M/F d. herman-o herman-a brother, sister e. — jiraf-a girafe-F f. — goril-a gorilla-F g. mon-o — monkey-M h. top-o — mole-M In many cases, the masculine noun has no overt marker, but the feminine does, as seen in (10). These pairs vary depending on individual speakers, sociolects or dialects, for example, some speakers prefer (10d), with separate morphology for masculine and feminine, while other speakers prefer (10e), with a single form for both genders. Notice that in (10a–d), the feminine is marked with the morpheme -a, while the masculine is unmarked. We do not seem to have the opposite pattern where the feminine is formally unmarked but the masculine gets a special morpheme, as in #presidente/presidento president.F/president.M. The unmarked masculine/ -a

100

The infection of nouns

feminine pattern also applies to many nouns ending in consonants, in particular -dor/-tor, such as ganador/ganadora ‘winner.M/winner.F’. (10) a. doctor/doctora doctor.M/F b. profesor/profesora professor.M/F c. nene/nena child.M/F d. presidente/presidenta president.M/F e. El presidente/la presidente the president.M/the president.F The pairing pattern just described only applies productively to nouns with animate referents. We fnd very few nouns with inanimate referents that alternate in gender. When they exist, they usually involve diferent meanings, as in (11), which shows a small pocket of predictable patterns where a fruit of a tree is feminine, and the corresponding tree is masculine (cf. Harris 1991, 36). (11) a. el manzan-o, l-a Det.M apple tree-M Det-F b. el naranj-o, l-a Det.M orange tree-M Det-F c. el peral, l-a per-a Det.M pear.tree.M Det-F pear-F

manzan-a apple-F naranj-a orange-F

In other cases, an inanimate masculine/feminine pair involves completely diferent roots and meanings, such as peso ‘currency name’ and pesa ‘weight’. Although inanimate referents do not denote biological sex, the basic correspondence between morpheme and abstract gender still holds: the majority of inanimate Ns ending in -o are masculine, and those ending in -a are feminine, for example, cedro ‘cedar’, sidra ‘cider’. As with animate nouns, there are a few exceptions, such as la mano hand.F, el tema topic.M, el problema problem.M.

3.3 Infectional morphology in adjectives, determiners and pronouns Adjectives and determiners also show infectional morphology, as seen in (12). The morphological expression of infection in adjectives is similar to that of nouns (see Pastor, this volume). Adjectives like the ones in (12) alternate between -o and -a; other adjectives like alemán ‘German’ add -a in the feminine (cf. (13)). Finally, adjectives like tenaz ‘difcult, persistent’ or tenue ‘faint’ do not show alternations in gender, but they do in number [cf. (14)]. (12) a. El libr-o colombian-o. Det.M book-M Colombian-M ‘The Colombian book’ b. L-a-s novel-a-s colombian-a-s. Det-F-PL novel-F-PL Colombian-F-PL ‘The Colombian novels’

101

José Camacho

(13) a. El presupuest-o alemán. Det.M budget-M German.M ‘The German budget’. b. L-a-s administracione-s aleman-a-s. Det-F-PL integration.F-PL German-F-PL ‘German administrations’ (14) a. Un-a luz tenue. Indf-F light.F faint ‘A faint light’ b. Un-o-s ruid-o-s tenue-s. Indf-M-PL noise-M-PL faint-PL ‘Faint noises’ From a semantic point of view, gender and number do not seem to have an efect on adjectives; in other words, semantic diferences related to gender seem to be restricted to nouns, not to adjectives. Some determiners also express infection through morphology in a similar way to adjectives, including un ‘a’, el ‘the’ and demonstratives like este ‘this’, ese ‘that’. These determiners lack overt masculine gender morphology in singular, as seen in (15), but not in feminine or plural. Other determiners like numerals or cada ‘each’ do not show variation in infection (see section 3.1): *cada niños ‘each boys’. (15) a. Un amig-o, un-o-s amig-o-s, un-a amiga-F, Indf.Det.M friend-M Indf.Det-M-PL friend-M-PL Indf.Det-F friend-F un-a-s amig-a-s. Indf.Det-F-PL friend-F-PL ‘Male/female friend(s)’. b. El amig-o, l-o-s amig-o-s, l-a amig-a, Def.Det.M friend-M Def.Det-M-PL friend-M-PL Def.Det-F friend-F l-a-s amig-a-s. Def.Det-F-PL friend-F-PL ‘The male/female friend(s)’. Personal pronouns show infectional information for person and case in addition to number and gender.1 Table 8.1 shows the strong pronoun paradigm and Table 8.2, the clitic paradigm. These two paradigms difer with respect to syntactic, morphological and prosodic properties (cf. Fernández Soriano 1999). Table 8.1 Strong pronoun paradigm2 Subject Person

Singular No gender

1st

yo

2nd

tú ~usted

3rd

102

M/F

Object Plural

No gender

Singular M/F

No gender

M/F

Plural No gender

nosotr-os/-as mi ustedes él/ ell-a

vosotr-os/-as ell-os/-as

M/F nosotr-os-/-as

ti

ustedes él/ella

vosotr-os-/-as ell-os/-as

The infection of nouns Table 8.2 Weak pronoun paradigm (clitics)3 Accusative Person

Singular No gender

Dative Plural

M/F

1st

me

2nd

te ~ le

l-o/-a

3rd

le

l-o/-a

No gender

Singular M/F

nos os ~ les

No gender

Plural M/F

me l-os/-as

No gender

M/F

nos

te ~ le

l-o/-a

os~les

l-os/-as

le

l-o/-a

les

l-os/-as

The two tables show that gender distinctions apply mostly to third person in general and to frst and second person plural. Notice that the patterns observed with pronouns are very similar to those seen with nouns: -o/-a as masculine/feminine (cf. nosotros/nosotras) and -e as non-marked morphology for gender (les). In section 4.3, we will return to cases where gender and number mappings are altered in groups of two or more clitics. To summarize section 3, Spanish has two genders that correspond to diferent morphemes; this partition appears on nouns, adjectives, determiners and personal pronouns. In the case of nouns with human referents, gender corresponds to biological sex. Number (singular and plural), on the other hand, is overwhelmingly interpretable as a semantic category. Masculine seems to be unmarked or a default value in many cases, but no such unique category exists for number. From a morphological point of view, -o and -a are the most frequent expressions of masculine and feminine, respectively, and masculine is frequently unmarked.

4 Analytical and theoretical questions regarding nominal infection Infectional categories tend to cluster together to the extent that they are frequently subsumed under the label “phi-features”, and they also appear fused in many languages. In this section, we present the theoretical challenges that they pose, including the abstract representation of infectional features, the representation of number and gender in the syntax and the division of labor between syntax, semantics and morphology in infection. Throughout this discussion, we will also address diferences between number and gender. To begin with, the semantic content of each category is fundamentally diferent; gender classifes nouns into diferent categories that may have a conceptual correlate, as with animate referents, or not, as with inanimate referents. In some intuitive sense, classifying mesa table-F as feminine is an arbitrary option, but the diference between mesa ‘table-F’ and mesas ‘table-F-PL’ depends on discourse referents.

4.1 Infectional features as part of a symmetric or asymmetric system As already mentioned, Spanish has two genders, masculine and feminine, shown in (16). The important question this system raises is whether gender is represented as symmetric, as in (16), or asymmetric, as in (17). The question can be asked both at the level of abstract gender features and at the level of morphological representation. Harris (1991) argues in favor of an asymmetric representation both at the abstract level and in the morphology. In his analysis, feminine is a privative feature assigned to certain nouns, as seen in (17). By contrast, all other nouns not marked as feminine will be marked with -o as a result of a default morphological rule. This morpheme -o expresses word class, which difers from gender in applying across categories (adverbs, 103

José Camacho

verbs, etc.). Masculine in this proposal is “the absence of any information about gender in lexical entries” (Harris 1991, 44). (16) Symmetric morphosyntactic representation of gender a. experto [M] expert.M b. experta [F] expert.F ‘Expert’ (17) Asymmetric representation of gender a. experta [F] expert.F b. experto expert ‘Expert’ It is important to note that Harris accounts for pairs like hermano/hermana ‘brother/sister’ through a ‘Human Cloning’ rule, which takes stems marked as ‘human’ and yields a ‘male’ and ‘female’ couplet. This rule attempts to capture the regularity of gender marking in nouns with a human referent. Harris’s proposal rests on the traditional intuition that masculine is a default form in Spanish. We already pointed out several cases that support this conclusion, for example, the fact that in many pairs of masculine/feminine, the masculine lacks overt marking, but the feminine does not [exs. in (9) previously]. Furthermore, new loanwords, such as el cheapo ‘the cheap one’, frequently adopt the masculine form. Additionally, when a pronoun or demonstrative is used to refer back to a part of a sentence, it always appears in the masculine, even if that part of the sentence has overt feminine gender, as seen in (18), although this might arguably be neuter gender. Roca (1989, 12) observes that nominalized verbs are always masculine: el/ *la murmurar de las aguas ‘the.M murmur of the waters’. (18) Susana dijo “agorafobia”. Nadie entendió es-o/*es-a. Susana said “agoraphobia” no-one understood that-M/that-F ‘Susana said “agoraphobia”. No one understood that’. Another argument for the default nature of masculine comes from so-called ‘resolution rules’, cases in which two or more elements with non-matching infectional features must agree with a single adjective or determiner, as illustrated in (19). In this example, two coordinated DPs with diferent genders must agree with an adjective. In such cases, one possible solution is to have a default masculine plural, as in (19a), but usually not default feminine plural, as in (19b). Aside from this general pattern, the conditions on resolution rules are also afected by word order and adjacency (cf. Roca 1989; Camacho 1999, 2003). (19) a. El cociner-o y l-a Det.M cook-M and Det-F ‘The Italian cook and professor’ b. *L-a profesor-a y el Det-F professor-F and Det.M 104

profesor-a professor-F

italian-o-s. Italian.M.PL

cociner-o cook-M

italian-a-s. Italian-F-PL

The infection of nouns

A similar type of argument comes from nominal reference: when the referent of a plural noun includes members with diferent gender, it frequently takes the masculine form, as illustrated in (20), where los and maestros are masculine and plural but include Marta, which refers to a female person. (20) L-o-s maestr-o-s incluye-n a Det-M-PL teacher-M-PL include.3-PL DOM ‘Those present include Marta and Pedro’

Marta Marta

y and

a DOM

Pedro. Pedro

Default gender marking cannot usually override grammatical agreement; otherwise, we would expect to generate sequences like *la madre francés ‘the-F mother.F French.M’, where feminine agreement has matched madre[F] and francés[F], but the default rule results assigns ∅ to the adjective. Current movements to make language more inclusive challenge the default nature of masculine by proposing a default -e morpheme that would not be associated with any specifc gender (les niñes ‘the children’). It will be interesting to see whether these proposals lead to changes in the morphological and agreement patterns in Spanish gender. We now turn to the representation of number infection, which shows two important diferences with respect to gender. First, from the morphological point of view, singular can sometimes be seen as a default, for example, in the case of bare nominals such as (21), adapted from Picallo (2008, 55). Picallo argues that bare nominals lack semantic number content but surface as morphological singulars. For example, barril ‘barrel’ in (22) cannot be an antecedent to a pronoun in backwards anaphora contexts. Picallo (2008, 55) concludes that they are “unmarked singulars but they lack number content, being interpreted as neither singular nor plural.” However, their number morphology is singular, and in this sense, singular morphology acts as the default marking in the absence of the corresponding semantic category. (21) Este whisky ha envejecido en barril. this whisky has.3SG aged in barrel ‘This whisky has aged in a barrel’ he conseguido, podemos conservar el (22) *Como ya loi as already it.ACC.M.SG have.1SG got can.1PL preserve the barrili. barril.M.SG ‘As I have already got iti, we can keep the whisky in a barreli’

whisky en whisky in

In support of this default view of the singular, words like grupo ‘group’ can be morphologically singular but semantically plural. On the other hand, we also have morphological plurals that are semantically singular: las tijeras ‘the scissors’. Singular morphology is also not the default in confict resolution contexts. Specifcally, when two conjuncts difer in number, the only possible resolution is in the plural, as illustrated in (23). In the frst example, a coordination of a masculine singular and a feminine plural triggers masculine plural agreement, but a singular adjective is ungrammatical in the second example. This suggests that number does not have a unique notion of default. (23) a. [El pensamient-o y l-a-s Det.M.SG thought-M.SG and Det-F-PL

ide-a-s] idea-F-PL

japonese-s me Japanese.M-PL me .ACC 105

José Camacho

infuyeron. infuenced ‘Japanese thought and ideas infuenced me’ b. *El pensamient-o y l-a-s Det.M.SG thought-M.SG and Det-F.SG infuyeron. infuenced

ide-a-s idea-F-PL

japoné-s me Japanese.M-SG me.ACC

A second diference between number and gender relates to the fact that number is intrinsically a semantic category, whereas gender is not in the general case. We already saw that the inanimate referent of a noun like silla ‘chair’ does not have a semantic feature associated with feminine gender. By contrast, number is almost always associated with semantic content: singulars can be either singleton sets if the noun is count (la casa ‘the house’), or mass nouns (la carne ‘the meat’), and plurals generally involved sets of individuals (las casas ‘the houses’, las carnes ‘[pieces of] meat’). In this sense, number is always interpretable, perhaps with the exception of bare nouns.

4.2 Representation of infectional information in the syntax An inflectional feature can be represented in several ways in the structure of the DP (cf. Déchaine 2019 for a general proposal): it can be analyzed as a feature connected to another category or as a separate functional category of its own, as schematically represented in (24). In (24a), G and N are features of D and N; in (24b), they head separate categories. These options are not mutually exclusive, and Déchaine (2019) argues that different combinations of features and heads give rise to different nominal inflectional systems across languages. (24) a. [DP D[G/Num] . . . [NP N[G/Num]]] b. [DP D [NumP Num [GP G. . . [NP N]]]] From a related point of view, whether infectional information is specifed in the lexical entry of N, as in (8)–(9) previously, or associated with a functional head has important theoretical and empirical implications (see Roca 1989; Harris 1991; Alexiadou 2004; among others). Traditionally, lexical specifcation is viewed as the repository of idiosyncratic information that cannot be derived from general rules. In this sense, lexical specifcation of infectional features misses important generalizations that apply to a whole class of words. For example, as we already saw, human-referring nouns in Spanish systematically mark masculine and feminine with -o and -a. If each lexical entry is marked as M and F, the lexicon becomes highly redundant, and, more importantly, a generalization about the distribution of human-referring nouns is missed. Alternatively, infectional features have been associated with functional categories (cf. Picallo 1991, 2008; Bernstein 1991; Depiante and Masullo 2001; Kornfeld and Saab 2004). Picallo (2008) has related the notion of gender with the broader notion of Class, which is widespread in many languages. She argues that gender appears as a feature on N in Romance, and it agrees with a functional head ‘class’, as in (25a), adapted from Picallo (2008, 59). (25b), adapted from Picallo (2008, 54) exemplifes the gender agreement operation between N and Class, abstracting away from number agreement.

106

The infection of nouns

(25) a. [D

D

[Num Num [c c [N N ]]] [num] [class] [±f, ±p]

[c class[+f] [NP N[+f] ]]]] b. [D D . . .  l-a/un-a corbat-a D.Det-F/INDF.D-F tie-F ‘The/a tie’ Fuchs, Polinsky and Scontras (2015) argue that gender and number are separate categories and also that masculine is the default, based on experimental data. Their participants rated sentences like (26) in which an adjective aburridos ‘bored.M.P’ that should agree with a noun notici-a ‘news-F’, agrees with the linearly closer noun periodic-o-s ‘newspaper-M-PL’, which has diferent gender and number features than the frst noun. In this study, participants showed more sensitivity to feminine than to masculine mismatches and also showed diferential sensitivity to gender compared to number, suggesting that agreement targets gender and number separately. This evidence supports the idea that gender and number are not bundled together and that masculine and feminine are asymmetric in the sense discussed previously; namely, feminine is marked and masculine is underspecifed. (26) *El niño considera l-a notici-a en l-o-s Det.M.SG boy consider.3SG Det-F news.item.F.S in Det-M-PL terriblemente aburrid-o-s. terribly boring-M-PL ‘The boy considers the news in the newspapers terribly boring’

periódic-o-s newspaper-M-P

Kornfeld and Saab (2002, 186), quoting Depiante and Masullo (2001), propose that gender is lexically specifed, but number is not. They note that number can difer but gender cannot in nominal ellipsis examples such as (27). In (27a), the noun antecedent tíos ‘uncles’ is plural, whereas the null noun represented by e is interpreted as singular. In (27b), on the other hand, the null noun cannot be interpreted as feminine if the antecedent is masculine. (27) a. Juan visitó a su-s ti-o-s y Pedro prometió visitar Juan visited DOM his.PL uncle-M-P and Pedro promised visit a-l e de él. DOM-Det.M.SG of his.SG ‘Juan promised to visit his uncles and Pedro promised to visit his (uncle)’ b. *Juan visitó a su ti-o y Pedro prometió visitar Juan visited DOM his.SG uncle-M.S and Pedro promised visit a l-a e de él. DOM Det-F.S of his.SG ‘Juan promised to visit his uncle and Pedro promised to visit his (aunt)’ The notion that infection is expressed though functional heads is a popular view within the Distributed Morphology framework. In this theory, roots carry essential information about their conceptual meaning, but most of the content related to grammar is carried by functional heads, for example, by n, a head that nominalizes the root. In this sense, Kornfeld and Saab (2002), partially reformulated in Saab (2010), propose that gender is a feature located in the

107

José Camacho

nominalizer head n. Number, on the other hand, is a separate functional head located higher than nP, as in (28). (28) [DP D [NumP Num [nP n[G] √P]]] If ellipsis only targets the lower (nP), then we expect that elided nouns cannot difer in gender and that they can difer in number. To summarize, we fnd substantial evidence that gender and number are represented diferently: number is assumed to be a separate functional category, and gender has been proposed both as a feature on the nominalizer and as a separate functional category located lower than number.

4.3 Infectional information and the division of labor Kornfeld and Saab’s analysis brings up another important discussion related to nominal infection, namely to what extent distributional properties follow from syntactic structure, morphological or semantic constraints. To illustrate this point, consider the ordering of infectional morphemes in Spanish, shown in (29): derivational morphology is closer to the root, followed by gender and number in strict order. (29) a. abuel-it-a-s grandparent-DIM-F-PL b. *abuel-it-s-a grandparent-DIM-PL-F ‘Grandmothers’ c. *abuel-s-o grandparent-PL-F ‘Grannies’ Ordering constraints such as the one observed in (29) have been explained in a number of ways (cf. Manova and Aronof 2010; Rice 2011). One infuential proposal to explain them combines syntactic structure and a mapping principle between syntax and morphology. In the case of nominal infection, the syntactic structure in (30) would map to the morphology following Baker’s (1985, 375) Mirror Principle in (31). This principle ensures that morpheme orders refect syntactic structure and vice versa: the more deeply embedded in the morphological word an afx is, the lower it is in syntactic structure. The Mirror Principle still leaves open the issue of how a given feature relates to a functional head. For example, if gender is part of a diferent functional head, one could argue that the Mirror Principle would not apply to it. (30) [Num Num [G G [N N]]] (31) The Mirror Principle Morphological derivations must directly refect syntactic derivations (and vice versa). A diferent kind of morphological ordering constraint stems from semantic principles. Déchaine (2019) argues that gender, a type of classifer, is a mechanism for partitioning nominal reference into exhaustive subsets. Number, on the other hand, arguably operates on sets of singularities (cf. Heycock and Zamparelli 1999), so number must take semantic scope over gender. This semantic scope is refected in the meaning of nouns in Spanish, for example, niñas ‘girls’ 108

The infection of nouns

means ‘a plurality of feminine children’ (num > G); it cannot mean ‘a feminine group out of which a plurality is selected’ (G > Num). Notice that this is a possible interpretation for partitives, such as muchas de las niñas ‘many of the girls’. Morphological ordering may follow directly from this semantic scope requirement, as shown in (32), which assumes that semantic structure constrains morphological ordering. Depending on how much structure one assumes morphology to have, mapping between semantic principles and morphological ordering could be similar to the Mirror Principle [cf. (33a)], or it could relate structure to linear orders [cf. (33b)].

(32)

Semantics Num

Num

[ [ [˜abuel -] aG ] -sNum]

G G

Structured Morphology

N

(33) a. Semantic structure to morphological structure mapping principle. If A has semantic scope over B, then A must be structurally higher in morphological structure than B. b. Semantic structure to morphological ordering mapping principle If A has semantic scope over B, the morpheme that expresses B must precede the morpheme that expresses A in linear ordering. Infectional content also interacts with phonological and prosodic constraints. For example, Harris (1991, 50) has argued that the -e in nouns like héroe ‘hero.M’ has “the syndrome of morphological behavior of a word marker”. This word marker, according to him, appears systematically in plural nouns whose singular ends in a consonant, like pintor/pintor-es ‘painter/ painters’. The vowel appears in the plural to break an otherwise illegal coda cluster -rs. In this sense, a phonological constraint on syllable structure (*CC]) drives the surface form of the word and reveals the underlying presence of a word marker, part of its morphological structure in Harris’s analysis. The appearance of -e in these plurals has been analyzed as deletion in the singular form (pintore → pintor) and also as output-to-output correspondence within Optimality Theory (cf. Colina 2006).

4.4 Nominal infection in the clitic system The Spanish clitic system (see Cuervo, this volume) raises interesting theoretical questions regarding infection when they appear in clusters of two or more. In such cases, gender and number morphology undergoes certain transformations that have been labeled ‘person case constraint’ interactions (cf. Perlmutter 1971; Bonet 1991, 1995; Grimshaw 1997; Heap 2005; Cuervo 2013, among many others). When a dative clitic appears by itself, it has the general form le(s), as in (33a), but when it combines with another third person clitic, it can no longer show plural infection and appears as se [cf. (33b)]. Descriptively, the third person dative loses all of its infectional morphology in contact with another third person clitic. In dialects that distinguish gender for dative clitics (la.F vs. le.M), both gender and number disappear. The change afects the frst clitic in a sequence of two, but sometimes the second one in a sequence of three (cf. Cuervo 2013). 109

José Camacho

(33) a. Le-s regalé el libro. DAT-PI gave.1SG Det.M.SG book ‘I gave them the book’ b. Se lo regalé. Dat ACC.M.SG gave.1sG ‘I gave it to them’ An infuential analysis of the PCC (person case constraint, cf. Bonet 1991, 1995) relies on manipulation of the clitics’ phi-feature structures. In this account, phi features are organized in hierarchical structures whose nodes may be deleted or re-associated with nodes of adjacent structures. Under this account, the nodes corresponding to person and number in the structure for les will be deleted, resulting in the underspecifed entry se. These impoverished structures are then linearized using a morphological template. Other approaches derive the PCC efects from the syntax or from constraint ranking within an Optimality Theory approach (cf. Grimshaw 1997; Heap 2005). A similar type of phi-feature transformation has also been described in varieties of Latin American Spanish. In (34a), the dative clitic is third person plural; when it appears in a cluster with a clitic that refers to a singular, accusative referent, such as el libro ‘the book’, the accusative clitic can host the plural morpheme as in (34b), where the intended meaning is that los refers to el libro, despite the obvious number mismatch. Descriptively, the plural morpheme associated with the dative has linked to the accusative clitic. (34) a. Le-s regalé el libr-o Dat-PL gave Det.M.SG book-M.SG ‘I gave the book to my friends’ b. Se l-o-s di. DAT ACC-M-PL gave ‘I gave it to them’

a DOM

mi-s my-PL

amig-o-s. friend-M-PL

Within the spirit of Bonet’s analysis, number in the phi-feature structure of the CL-DAT. PL has disassociated from that structure and re-associated to the second clitic’s phi-feature structure. Finally, another instance of interaction between phi-feature structures of adjacent elements, also from varieties of Latin American Spanish, can be seen in (35) (see Pato and Felíu, this volume). In the frst example, the imperative form that would be used in most varieties has the clitic attached after the plural number infection for the verb regale-n ‘give.IMP-PL’. In (35b), which is attested in non-standard varieties of Bogotá Spanish, the clitic appears between the root and the verb’s plural infectional marker regále-me-n ‘give.IMP-CL-PL’. Unlike in the previous cases, it is not just individual phi-features that are detached from a clitic but the full clitic that is moved across verbal infection. (35) a. Regále-n-me un vaso de agua, por favor. Give.IMP-P-me.DAT a glass of water please ‘Give me a glass of water, please’ b. Regále-me-n un vaso de agua, por favor. Give.IMP-me.DAT-PL a glass of water please ‘Give me a glass of water, please’

110

The infection of nouns

All of these phenomena share three properties: infectional features are transformed; they are manipulated locally, with the adjacent element and they involve clitics or clitics and verbal infection. For example, we do not see these kinds of efects between a determiner and a noun, although they also involve gender and number phi-features (el libro ‘the book’ does not turn into *se libro). These three properties suggest a combination of syntactic structure that determines the overall domain (clitic vs. determiner, for example) and morphological structure, which typically manipulates features locally.

5

Conclusions

The distribution and realization of abstract number and gender features is governed by a combination of lexical, syntactic, semantic and morphophonological constraints. Lexically, abstract gender forms classes that match biological sex in the case of animate nouns but forms arbitrary classes in the case of inanimate ones. Syntactically, both gender and number are assigned to functional heads in nominal structures and matched on adjectives and determiners through agreement. Gender is structurally lower than number, plausibly due to semantic scope requirements. Masculine operates as the default gender, whereas feminine seems to be marked in syntactic phi-feature resolution rules and in the organization of morphological paradigms. Both abstract number and gender systematically map onto specifc morphemes, more systematically in the case of number than in the case of gender. Number, unlike gender, always relates to a semantic category connected to individuation, and no single notion of default applies to that category. Finally, pronominals and clitics show interesting interactions in clusters that involve deletion and rearrangement of phi-features.

Notes 1 Neuter infection appears in non-personal pronouns, demonstratives and determiners. The morphology is similar to that of masculine singular, and agreement is generally with the default masculine: (i) L-o bueno D-N good ‘the good (thing)’ (ii) Aquell-o that-N ‘That (thing, idea, etc.)’ (iii) No quiero hacerl-o not want do.CL-N ‘I don’t want to do it’. 2 This table shows the two main pronominal systems, which vary with respect to the 2nd person (ustedes/ vosotros), but there are other systems where the 2nd singular is vos. The symbol ‘~’ indicates alternation between two forms. 3 Table 8.2 includes three varieties, one that has le/les mostly for dative and lo(s)/la(s) mostly for accusative, one where le(s) is sometimes used for accusative and one where lo(s)/la(s) is sometimes used for dative. On the issue of so-called leísmo/laísmo/loísmo, see, Fernández Ordóñez (1999) and Bleam (2000).

References Alexiadou, A. 2004. “Infection Class, Gender DP and DP Internal Structure.” In Explorations in Nominal Infection, edited by G. Müller, L. Gunke, and G. Zifonun, 21–50. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Baker, M. 1985. “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation.” Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–416.

111

José Camacho

Bernstein, J. 1991. “DPs in French and Walloon: Evidence for Parametric Variation in Nominal Head Movement.” Probus 3 (2): 101–26. Bleam, T. 2000. “Leista Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling.” PhD diss., University of Delaware, Newark. Bonet, E. 1991. “Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13534. Bonet, E. 1995. “Feature Structure of Romance Clitics.” Natural Language Linguistic Theory 13: 607–47. Camacho, J. 1999. “La coordinación.” In Gramática descriptiva la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 2635–95. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Camacho, J. 2003. The Structure of Coordination. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Colina, S. 2006. “Output-to-Output Correspondence and the Emergence of the Unmarked in Spanish Plural Formation.” In New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics. Vol II: Phonetics, Phonology and Dialectology, edited by J-P. Montreuil, 49–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Corbett, G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cuervo, M. C. 2013. “Spanish Clitic Clusters.” Borealis—An International Journal Hispanic Linguistics 2 (2): 191–220. doi:10.7557/1.2.2.2692. Déchaine, R-M. 2019. “Partitioning the Nominal Domain: The Convergence of Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics.” In Gender and Noun Classifcation, edited by É. Mathieu, M. Dali, and G. Zareikar, 17–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198828105.003.0002. Depiante, M., and P. J. Masullo. 2001. “Género y número en la elipsis nominal: Consecuencias para la hipótesis lexicalista.” Presented at I Encuentro de Gramática Generativa. Escuela Superior de Idiomas, Universidad Nacional del Comahue. General Roca, Río Negro, Argentina. Fernández Ordóñez, I. 1999. “Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 1317–97. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Fernández Soriano, O. 1999. “El pronombre personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres átonos y tónicos.” In Gramática descriptiva la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 1209–74. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Fuchs, Z., M. Polinsky, and G. Scontras. 2015. “The Diferential Representation of Number and Gender in Spanish.” The Linguistic Review 32 (4): 703–37. Grimshaw, J. 1997. “The Best Clitic: Constraint Confict in Morphosyntax.” In Elements of Grammar, edited by L. Haegeman, 165–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Harris, J. W. 1991. “The Exponence of Gender in Spanish.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (1): 27–62. Heap, D. 2005. “Constraining Optimality: Clitic Sequences and Feature Geometry.” In Perspectives Clitic and Agreement Afx Combinations, edited by F. Ordóñez and L. Heggie, 81–102. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Heycock, C., and R. Zamparelli. 1999. “Toward a Unifed Analysis of DP Conjunction.” In Proceedings Twelfth Amsterdam Colloquium, edited by P. Dekker, 127–32. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam. Hockett, C. F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York, NY: MacMillan. Kornfeld, L., and A. Saab. 2004. “Nominal Ellipsis and Morphological Structure in Spanish.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2002. Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’, Groningen, 28–30 November 2002, edited by R. Bok-Bennema, B. Hollebrandse, B. Kampers-Manhe, and P. Sleeman, 183–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Manova, S., and M. Aronof. 2010. “Modeling Afx Order.” Morphology 20 (1): 109–31. Perlmutter, D. 1971. Deep Surface Structure Constraints Syntax. Austin, Texas: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Picallo, M. C. 1991. “Nominals and Nominalization in Catalan.” Probus 3: 279–316. Picallo, M. C. 2008. “Gender and Number in Romance.” Lingue e Linguaggio 7 (1): 47–66. Rice, K. 2011. “Principles of Afx Ordering: An Overview.” Word Structure 4 (2): 169–200. Roca, I. 1989. “The Organisation of Grammatical Gender.” Transactions Philological Society 87 (1): 1–32. Saab, A. 2010. “(Im)possible Deletions in the Spanish DP.” Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2 (2): 45–83.

112

9 The basic infectional structure of verbs (I) Ramón Zacarías-Ponce de LeónBasic infectional structure of verbs (I)

Aspect, tense, mood and agreement

(La estructura básica de los verbos (I): aspecto, tiempo, modo y concordancia)

Ramón Zacarías-Ponce de León

1 Introduction The infectional structure of the Spanish verb is complex due to the confuence of several grammatical categories: tense, aspect and mood on the one hand, number and person on the other. Spanish, however, is not a language with concatenative infectional morphology and does not present specifc morphemes for each of these categories. Because of this, there are mismatches between the semantic categories and the morphs that represent them; in other words, there is less phonological material than semantic categories. This problem means that segmentation in morphemes is not systematic and that there are various ways to analyse the structure of the verbal word, depending on the analytical model or the methodological posture assumed. In this chapter I will show, briefy, the problems that come with segmentation into morphemes, the most common generalizations that have been found and the diferent solutions proposed. Also, after careful analysis of the behaviour of verbal paradigms, I will propose a split of the tenses according to the way of representing grammatical categories in infectional morphemes: on the one hand, tenses where a homogeneous and diferentiated segmentation of infectional marks is possible; on the other, those where it is not possible to segment those categories. This analysis allows identifcation of the regularities that exist in verbal infection and explains, to some extent, the exceptions. Keywords: verbal infection; grammatical categories; morpheme segmentation; verbal paradigms; infectional structure La estructura fexiva del verbo español es compleja debido a la confuencia de varias categorías gramaticales: tiempo, aspecto y modo por un lado, número y persona por el otro. El español, sin embargo, no es una lengua con morfología fexiva concatenativa y no presenta morfemas específcos para cada una de estas categorías. Debido a esto, existen desfasamientos entre las categorías semánticas y los morfos que las representan; dicho de otro modo, hay menos material fonológico que categorías semánticas. Este problema provoca que la segmentación en morfemas no sea sistemática y que existan diversas formas de analizar la estructura de la palabra verbal, según el modelo analítico 113

Ramón Zacarías-Ponce de León

o la postura metodológica que se asuma. En este capítulo mostraremos, de manera concisa, los problemas que conlleva la segmentación en morfemas, las generalizaciones más comunes que se han encontrado y las distintas soluciones propuestas. Asimismo, después de analizar detenidamente el comportamiento de los paradigmas verbales, plantearemos una subdivisión de los tiempos de acuerdo con la manera de expresar las categorías gramaticales en morfemas fexivos: por un lado, los tiempos donde es posible una segmentación homogénea y diferenciada de las marcas fexivas; por otro, aquellos donde no es posible segmentar dichas categorías. Este análisis permite identifcar las regularidades que existen en la fexión verbal y explicar, hasta cierto punto, las excepciones. Palabras Clave: Flexión verbal; categorías gramaticales; segmentación de morfemas; paradigmas verbales; estructura fexiva

2 The basics of Spanish verbal infection The infectional morphology of the Spanish verb exhibits irregular behaviours that make it diffcult to analyse. It is a fusional morphology that also shows vowel changes at the base as well as alternations in the conjugation of paradigms (see Camus, this volume). These characteristics identify Spanish as a language whose verbal paradigms are not canonical, in the sense they are defned by Stump (2016, 35). While many of the verbal words can be analysed from a concatenative perspective, as in example (1), there are cases where the analysis becomes more complex due to the fusion of morphemes, as in examples (2), (3) and (4). It is important to note that there are several hypotheses regarding segmentation, and the decision to assign a certain category to a phonological segment is not unanimous. See Alcoba’s work (1999, 4924) for a description of some divergent analyses. The following examples intend to show the variability of the verbal word structure: in some cases, we can do more segmentations than in others; however, the same morphosyntactic categories are always identifed, resulting in variable segmentations, and, as a consequence, correspondences between meanings and segments become heterogeneous. (1) cant- -a -ro -n sing-ThV -pst.ind -3.pl ‘They sang’ (2) cant- -a -mos sing-ThV -prs.ind.1.pl ‘We sing’ (3) cant-o sing-prs.ind.1.sg ‘I sing’ (4) cant- -e -mos sing-prs.sbjv -1.pl ‘We sing’ (hypothetical) Analysing examples (1–4), it is obvious that segmentation of the verbal word is not simple, nor does it allow the unequivocal identifcation of morphemes. In the proposed segmentations, the assignment of morphosyntactic properties to the formal segments varies in each word. For example, the segment -mos in (4) only indicates 1pl, but in (2), it also assumes the representation of present indicative. Of course, any other type of segmentation could be proposed, but such difculties always arise. In addition, the form cantamos also represents the indicative preterit with a perfective meaning and traditionally known also as indefnido or pretérito perfecto simple: 114

Basic infectional structure of verbs (I)

(5) cantsing‘We sang’

-a -ThV

-mos -pst.ind.1pl

If we compare (2) and (5), we notice that the same shape is associated with diferent property of tense. This phenomenon, called syncretism, is another difculty for segmentation and for assigning infectional categories to morphs (Fábregas 2013, 194). To explain this verbal homonymy, in some linguistic models, a zero morpheme is proposed, that is, a morpheme lacking form but expressing a morphosyntactic category. This is the position taken by the Academy (RAE and ASALE 2009, 186). Another problem arises when comparing the frst three examples. In (1) and (2), the segment -a appears, but it is absent in (3). This segment is known as the theme vowel (ThV) and represents one of the recurring problems in any analysis; even its existence is a matter of debate, since some associate it with another segment, for example, the morpheme of tense, aspect and mood (TAM). It is also worth mentioning that most scholars consider in their structural description the existence of a specifc morpheme of person and number (PN), as in (1) and (4), but that it is not always possible to segment, as in (2) and (3). On the other hand, some segmentations such as that of example (4) show that there is a morpheme of tense and mood, -e, which was not present before. If we contrast with (2), we observe that two similar verbal words have been segmented very diferently. In (4), the meaning is introduced by two morphemes, as we notice that -mos has now been reduced to only indicate person and number, when in (2), it also indicated tense and mood. Many cases of cumulative morphemes or amalgamations (RAE and ASALE 2009, 85) appear where one of the marks (ThV, TAM, PN) is absent and the values accumulate or fuse in a contiguous morph. The extreme case is (3), where it is clearly observed that all the infectional categories, tense, mood, person and number, are associated with a single morpheme. This problem is also joined by the absence of the theme vowel. Clearly, it is not possible to segment. The opposite case is that of some verbal words, where four morphemes, Root, ThV, TAM and PN, are segmentable, as in the following example: (6) cant-á sing-ThV ‘We used to sing’

-ba -impf.ind

-mos -1.pl

In this example, it is possible to associate each of the categories with a segment (see Felíu, this volume, for the problems associated with the traditional defnition of morpheme). However, this segmentation is not unanimous either, since, as we said before, there are opinions that deny the existence of the theme vowel. Then, another segmentation like that of (7) is proposed: (7) cant-á sing-ind ‘We used to sing’

-ba -impf

-mos -1.pl

Even more radical positions attempt an exhaustive segmentation, as shown in the following example (Ambadiang 1994, 204): (8) cant-áb sing-impf ‘We used to sing’

-a -ind

-mos -1

ø pl

115

Ramón Zacarías-Ponce de León

In analyses such as these, the assignment of an individual segment for each morphosyntactic category is proposed; however, segmentation is not complete, since there are categories that are not formally actualized, in this case, the number. These sentences show the problem of the segmentation of the verbal word in Spanish. The word-structure chosen depends on the analytical model and the researcher’s position. One of the most relevant controversies is the status of theme vowel: does it exist, or does it not exist; should it be segmented from the root or not; can it be associated with this some meaning or function? In the following pages, I will discuss the morphosyntactic categories that have traditionally been distinguished in the verbal word, the cases in which segments associated with a meaning can be clearly identifed and cases in which a single formal segment is associated with more than one meaning. I will begin by establishing which semantic categories are represented in the verb: tense, aspect and mood; number and person.

3 The structure of the verbal word in Spanish The structure of the Spanish verb is complex because several morphosyntactic categories associated with it are recognized, which, in addition, are amalgamated into diferent segments. In this subchapter, I will analyse in detail each of these infectional meanings and their expression within the verbal word.

3.1 Main infectional categories in Spanish Verb structure has always been divided into two parts: the root or lexical morpheme and the infectional morphemes. Several morphosyntactic categories are recognized in these infectional morphemes (Alcoba 1999, 4919). On the one hand, we have the categories of tense, aspect and mood, which defne the structure of the event and, on the other hand, the categories of person and number that establish a link of agreement with the subject of the grammar sentence. The tense, aspect and mood categories are fused in a single morpheme, while the categories of person and number occur in another one. Morphemes representing more than one category are called amalgamations in the academic nomenclature (RAE and ASALE 2009, 85).

3.1.1 Person and number The person and number morpheme (PN), also called agreement (RAE and ASALE 2009, 182), establishes a relationship with the subject of syntactic sentence. These morphosyntactic categories, person and number, are closely related and cannot be divided, so the morpheme PN fuses both characteristics. As for the person, it may refer to the participants of the colloquium, that is, the frst person, who is the speaker or origin of the conversation and the second person, who is the listener, or refer to an entity of the world that is spoken of, the third person. With respect to the number, it can be singular or plural. First person plural refers to the speakers, second person plural indicates the listeners and, fnally, third person plural designates the things that are spoken of. Being a mark of agreement, PN is the most distant morpheme from the root, the most external in the verbal word.

3.1.2 Mood, tense and aspect The grammatical category of mood indicates the way in which the action is carried out from the subjectivity of the speaker. Grammatical tenses are usually classifed around the mood, 116

Basic infectional structure of verbs (I)

so both categories are fused into the same morpheme. Indicative tenses are used to make an assertion that assumes the predication as real. On the other hand, the tenses of the subjunctive mood imply the unreality to which the enunciation is subordinated. Tense is recognized as a deictic category (Comrie 1985, 14) so that the distinctions made with the verbal tenses allow one to place the event around the moment of the enunciation: previous, that is, in the past; later or future; simultaneous or present (Timberlake 2007, 304). In Spanish, some verb tenses are conceived from a double reference, the moment of enunciation and another tense; because of this, the Spanish tense system is complex. The structure of the verbal tenses of Spanish will be discussed in the next section. Regarding the category of aspect, this indicates the perspective from which the event is focused: start, continuity, conclusion. In Spanish, the most common aspectual values are perfective (fnished actions) and imperfect (unfnished actions). Aspect is a non-deictic category, since the internal conformation of the event is independent of any tense point (Comrie 1981, 5). In Spanish, there is a close relationship between tense and aspect: “In Spanish conjugation, aspect is intimately bound up with tense, and it is not possible to separate out tense and aspect markers in synthetic Verb forms” (Spencer 2006, 113). The aspect category is controversial, since its existence, independent of tense, in the verbal system is questioned by some authors (Azpiazu 2019, 33). Currently, the academic position considers that the category of aspect is included in the category of tense, which is understood in a broad sense (RAE and ASALE 2009, 182). Therefore, the morpheme that includes these categories is determined as tense-mood (TAM).

3.1.3 Theme vowel The most controversial case in the verbal infection of Spanish is that of theme vowel (ThV). It is identifed as the segment that distinguishes the verbal class. Thus, the -a corresponds to the frst class or conjugation, the -e to the second one and the -i to the third one. It is present in the infnitive, which is the preferred way to cite and name the verbs in Spanish (hablar ‘to speak’, comer ‘to eat’ and vivir ‘to live’). The theme vowel, however, does not retain its shape throughout all the infections of the verb; it does not appear in some verbal words and in other cases alternate or diphthongize. In some analyses, such as that of RAE and ASALE (2009, 188), the theme vowel together with the root of the verb forms diferent verbal themes, according to the accentual position: present theme if the accent appears before the theme vowel, the preterit theme if the accent appears on the theme vowel, the future theme if the accent falls on the vowel after the theme vowel. There are, as I mentioned, points of view that do not recognize the existence of the ThV, such as that of Ambadiang (1994, 203).

3.2 Segmentation of the infectional marks As we have already seen, it is very difcult to propose a general structure of the verbal word. The problem is that the segmentation proposals seek to impose a valid scheme or template for all verbal words, which results in absence of marking, fusion of morphemes and redundancies that must be covered or adjusted through zero morphemes or null processes. From my point of view, we need to analyse in detail the verbal paradigms to fnd relationships of analogy that allow us to establish the possible segmentations and their scopes. In the following tables, I present the paradigms of the simple tenses of the three verbal classes of Spanish in order to identify the structure of the verbal words of Spanish. If we look carefully at the Next tables, we note that in certain verbal tenses, there is greater segmentability of infectional marks ThV, TAM, PN. In fact, for most tenses, the three 117

Ramón Zacarías-Ponce de León Table 9.1 First infectional class: hablar ‘to talk’ 1s 2s 3s 1p 2p 3p

Present hablo hablas habla hablamos habláis hablan

Preterit hablé hablaste habló hablamos hablasteis hablaron

Future hablaré hablarás hablará hablaremos hablaréis hablarán

1s 2s 3s 1p 2p 3p

Imperfect hablaba hablabas hablaba hablábamos hablabais hablaban

Conditional hablaría hablarías hablaría hablaríamos hablaríais hablarían

Present subjunctive hable hables hable hablemos habléis hablen

1s 2s 3s 1p 2p 3p

Preterit subjunctive hablara/hablase hablaras/hablases hablara/hablase habláramos/hablásemos hablarais/hablaseis hablaran/hablasen

Future subjunctive hablare hablares hablare habláremos hablareis hablaren

Table 9.2 Second infectional class: comer ‘to eat’

118

1s 2s 3s 1p 2p 3p

Present como comes come comemos coméis comen

Preterit comí comiste comió comimos comisteis comieron

Future comeré comerás comerá comeremos comeréis comerán

1s 2s 3s 1p 2p 3p

Imperfect comía comías comía comíamos comíais comían

Conditional comería comerías comería comeríamos comeríais comerían

Present subjunctive coma comas coma comamos comais coman

1s 2s 3s 1p 2p 3p

Preterit subjunctive comiera/comiese comieras/comieses comiera/comiese comiéramos/comiésemos comierais/comieseis comieran/comiesen

Future subjunctive comiere comieres comiere comiéremos comiereis comieren

Basic infectional structure of verbs (I) Table 9.3 Third infectional class: vivir ‘to live’ 1s 2s 3s 1p 2p 3p

Present vivo vives vive vivimos vivís viven

Preterit viví viviste vivió vivimos vivisteis vivieron

Future viviré vivirás vivirá viviremos viviréis vivirán

1s 2s 3s 1p 2p 3p

Imperfect vivía vivías vivía vivíamos vivíais vivían

Conditional viviría vivirías viviría viviríamos viviríais vivirían

Present subjunctive viva vivas viva vivamos viváis vivan

1s 2s 3s 1p 2p 3p

Preterit subjunctive viviera/viviese vivieras/vivieses viviera/viviese viviéramos/viviésemos vivierais/vivieseis vivieran/viviesen

Future subjunctive viviere vivieres viviere viviéremos viviereis vivieren

morphemes can be identifed in the verbal words. The exceptions are the present and the preterit, which I have highlighted inside a thick box. In these two verbal tenses, segmentation does not seem possible. The observation of these paradigms indicates that there are two diferentiated behaviours in Spanish conjugation. I consider it appropriate to analyse separately the segmentation of each of these tense groups in order to fnd regularities and restrictions for the segmentation of morphosyntactic categories. While in this chapter I will adopt the terminology that is usual in theoretical studies, as was done in the previous tables, it is important to mention the subdivision that Bello (1841, 1847) makes of verbal tenses. This well-known grammarian distinguished between two types of tenses: those that relate only to the moment of enunciation; that is, they have a simple relationship: present, preterit and future, and those that establish references with the moment of enunciation and with another verbal tense, in other words, establish a complex relationship. An example of the latter is the imperfect (co-preterit in bellist terminology) that establishes a double relationship, on the one hand, with the “act of the word”, as Bello called it, and, on the other hand, a relationship of simultaneity with the preterit. Alonso (1951) called to the frst ones absolute tenses and the second ones relative tenses. This is the nomenclature I will use in the analysis of the following sections of the chapter. It is interesting to note that the present and the preterit, which I had identifed as the two tenses with diferentiated behaviour, coincide with the so-called absolute tenses which, according to Bello, only establish referentiality with the moment of enunciation. This simple referentiality is, from my point of view, the cause of the structure of the verbal word that in both tenses is diferent from that of the rest. The case of the future tense is special, since, in the distinction made by Bello, it is an absolute tense; however, the structure of the verbal word is like that of 119

Ramón Zacarías-Ponce de León

the other tenses; that is, infectional segments can be identifed. Because of this, I will only treat the present and the preterit in a diferentiated way. It is not an objective of this chapter to describe Bello’s terminology in detail, much less compare it with the academic one. What becomes relevant in this approach is the distinction between absolute and relative tenses, since, as will be discussed in the following subchapters, it is closely related to the analysis of grammatical categories within the verbal word. The proposal presented in this chapter considers that the behaviour of verbal tenses should not be described from a single template but should take into account that the verbal infection of Spanish presents two groups of tenses with diferent structures and conceptualizations. In the next subchapter, I will frst cover relative tenses, which allow regular segmentations and, subsequently, the absolute tenses, which have a fused structure of the verbal word and do not allow segmentations of morphosyntactic categories.

4 Regularities in infectional marks of the Spanish verb I believe that in the segmentation of verbal words, we must proceed diferently with absolute and relative tenses. Relative tenses, as I said, refer to the moment of enunciation and another verbal tense. This requires that the marking must be more precise so that the relationships are distinguished, every tense is precisely marked and, above all, infectional properties can be clearly identifed. As for absolute tenses, especially present and preterit, they establish referentiality only with the moment of enunciation and are closely linked to each other from a conceptual point of view. They involve the conception of temporality on the same axis and starting from the same deictic point (Rojo and Veiga 1999, 2889). These are very basic tenses for expressing the status of entities and, on the other hand, they appear constantly in discourse. This basic temporality of present and preterit causes their distinction to be drawn from very specifc contrasts, and the verbal words of these paradigms have a diferent structure from those of absolute tenses. In the following sections, I will present the proposal of this chapter to segment the verbal words of Spanish. I will frst discuss the relative tenses, in which, as we shall see, there is more regularity and it is easier to segment infectional marks. Subsequently, I will analyse the absolute tenses from the contrasts they present with each other.

4.1 Distribution of the infectional properties in relative tenses These tenses are called relatives because their temporality is related to the tense of the enunciation and to another verbal tense, as discussed in section 3. This complex conceptualization is coupled with a more detailed word structure that makes it easier to be segmented. If we look at the tables in section 3.2, we note that in most cases, the theme vowel, the tense-mood mark and the number-person mark can be segmented. The structure of the verbal word and the order of the morphemes are as follows: (9) Root + ThV + TAM + PN The tenses I will discuss in this section are the imperfect, the conditional and the future of indicative mood and the present, the preterit and the future of subjunctive mood. Next, I will discuss in detail the structure of the verbal word of relative tenses starting with the PN mark, which is the most regular.

120

Basic infectional structure of verbs (I)

4.1.1 Segmentability of the person-number mark This mark is also called agreement and can be considered a type of contextual infection (Haspelmath 2002, 81). As the name implies, it depends on the agreement established in the syntax, particularly with the nominal phrase that acts as the subject of the sentence. Unlike the TAM mark, this PN mark is more homogeneous and can be segmented with some ease from the rest of the verbal word. However, both grammatical properties, person and number, can never be separated and always act together. This allows us to consider that this mark actually agrees with the subject in the sentence, so it could only be considered a person’s mark or, simply, regarded as agreement. In general, in relative tenses, we can fnd the following markers for this morpheme: (10) Person-number morpheme in relative tenses Agreement 1s 2s 3s 1p 2p 3p

Marking Not marked -s Not marked -mos -is -in

It is interesting to note that PN morpheme is very regular in paradigms of this type, including the case of the frst person, which does not carry a mark, causing the appearance of a syncretism between frst and third person of the singular that is recurrent in relative tenses. This syncretism generates an ambiguity that is resolved at the syntactic level. Syncretism disappears in the future due to the variations presented by the TAM mark that allow distinguishing the frst and third person. From my point of view, this specifc distinction of the future does not mean that the number and the person are marked, so I will maintain the generalization of the absence of the PN mark in these two persons. These inflectional marks of agreement can be considered a relevant feature of the verbal inflection of Spanish. They are maintained in all verbal classes, and even with certain modifications, they could be identified in absolute tenses, as we will see later. This type of contextual inflection, as I  mentioned, establishes the nexus of person and number at the sentence level, redundant marking that, as we know, is normative in Spanish. Because of this, agreement marks must maintain formal and semantic regularity throughout the paradigm.

4.1.2 Segmentability of the tense-mood mark This morpheme is identifed with what Haspelmath (2002, 81) calls inherent infection. As opposed to the contextual infection I  discussed in the previous section, tense-mood morpheme is independent of agreement and is associated with the modal and temporal conceptualization of the action. In general, it is a mark that has greater variability within the paradigm and with respect to verbal classes. Nevertheless, certain regularities can be identifed in relative tenses. The following table shows the marks associated with tensemood morpheme.

121

Ramón Zacarías-Ponce de León

(11) Tense-mood morpheme in relative tenses. Imperfect-indicative Conditional-indicative Future-indicative Present-subjunctive Preterit-subjunctive Future-subjunctive

First class -ba -ría -ré (-rá) unmarked -ra/-se -re

Second class -ía -ría -ré (-rá) unmarked -ra/-se -re

Third class -ía -ría -ré (-rá) unmarked -ra/-se -re

As we can see, the regularity of TAM in these tenses is evident, which means that it can be identifed and segmented with some ease within the verbal word. There are, however, some deviations that I will analyse in greater detail. The imperfect presents two variants, -ba for the frst class and -ía for the second and third. There is another diference between these verbal classes regarding the imperfect. In the frst, the theme vowel is present and in the second and third not. I will analyze this absence in more detail in the following section; for the moment, it is enough to say that from another type of analysis, in which the absence of the ThV is generalized, the mark of imperfect is -aba for the frst verbal class. The present of subjunctive mood is the only of the relative tenses that does not mark the tense-mood morpheme. This absence contrasts with the rest of the tenses that do have a segmentable mark TAM, so it is not difcult for speakers to distinguish this temporal paradigm. This tense is distinguished by an alternation in the theme vowel with respect to the present of the indicative mood in each of the verbal classes. Thus, it can be said that an alternation in the theme vowel indicates a change of mood. This ThV alternation will be further addressed in the next section. The preterit of subjunctive mood takes the alternating forms -ra and -se in all verbal classes. As we know, these forms are equivalent in their semantics, although certain diatopic nuances that I will not analyse in this chapter can be established. About the future of indicative mood, the structure of the verbal word is like that of relative tenses and clearly marks TAM, although it does so with two allomorphs, -ré and -rá. However, the situation is more complicated, since this distinction between morphological allomorphs is conditioned by the category of person: -ré for the frst person singular and plural and the second plural; -rá for the second singular and for the third singular and plural. As a result of this alternation, there is no syncretism between the frst and third person singular. We could assume that there is a kind of amalgamation between these infectional marks for the future and that this avoids syncretism. However, these allomorphs do not actually include the PN category, as they do not allow all persons to be distinguished. From my point of view, the alternation of variants can be used to distinguish two forms, but this distinction cannot be generalized. I believe that there is no agreement mark for the frst singular person, as it does not exist either for the third. We know that the origin of the future from the infnitive periphrasis with mandatory sense in Latin is responsible for the special behaviour of this tense. This etymological discussion is beyond the scope of this chapter. The TAM marks for conditional of indicative mood, -ría, and for the future of subjunctive mood, -re, do not show any variation between the verbal classes. As we can see from the previous description, the TAM mark is regular, constant and segmentable and is easily distinguished from the PN marks and the theme vowel. The distinction

122

Basic infectional structure of verbs (I)

between absolute and relative verbal tenses has allowed us to fnd broad regularities in the TAM mark of the latter, which is undoubtedly a point which favours such a distinction.

4.1.3 Segmentability of theme vowel As I said before, the existence of the theme vowel has given rise to an abundant controversy between positions that prefer not to segment and consider it a part of the tense-aspect mark and others that confer it modal or temporal value. The point of view that I maintain in this chapter is that theme vowel does exist and is present in almost all verbal infections, although it has certain variations, as will be shown in the following. For the relative tenses of the frst verbal class, the presence of the theme vowel can be considered total; it does not disappear in any tense or person. In most cases, it is marked with segment -a. The only alternation it shows is in present of subjunctive mood, where it is marked with -e. As I said when I analysed the morpheme TAM, this paradigm is special, since the alternation of the ThV allows one to distinguish it from the present of indicative mood in the absence of the tense-aspect mark (for example, for the third singular person, the alternation is habla/hable). This alternation in the ThV in the present of subjunctive appears in all verbal classes; in the second class, the variation is -e → -a (coma), while in the third, the change is -i or -e → -a (viva). In addition to this alternation in the present of subjunctive, the second and third verbal classes present greater variability in the theme vowel. In both classes, the ThV is absent in the imperfect, which distinguishes them from the frst class, where it does appear. This absence of theme vowel does not prevent the segmentation of TAM and PN morphemes. This is the only absence of the ThV in relative tenses. The other change that the theme vowel undergoes in the second and third verbal classes is the diphthongization in the preterit and future of subjunctive, in both cases -ie (comiera/comiese, comiere; viviera/viviese, viviere). In the future and conditional of indicative mood, the theme vowel does not have alterations. Although alternations of the theme vowel are few, a notable diference exists between the frst verbal class and the second and third ones, since in the frst, the regularity of the theme vowel remains unchanged, except for the present of subjunctive mood. For relative tenses, it can be said that the verbal word is composed by three diferent morphemes: theme vowel, tense-mood and person-number or agreement. In other words, the verbal words in relative tenses respond to a concatenative morphology that allows segmentation of the corresponding morphosyntactic categories, which, as already established, are fused in TAM and PN. It must be considered, however, that there are absences of marking and syncretism that generate ambiguities that must be resolved at the syntactic level. Despite these mismatches, the verbal word in relative tenses shows regularity and is segmentable.

4.2 Distribution of the infectional properties in absolute tenses Unlike relative tenses, absolute ones cannot be segmented into all their morphosyntactic categories. In Spanish, this applies especially to the present and preterit tenses, since, as I noted in the previous section, the future of indicative has a similar behaviour to the relative tenses, and I analysed it with that group. Segmentation proposals typically fnd the biggest pitfalls when analysing absolute tenses. Segmentation difculties are overcome by diferent analytical tools, depending on linguistic model. Thus, empty segments can be used to mark all missing categories, or the concept of amalgamation is used to bring together in a single morph the categories that do not fnd formal

123

Ramón Zacarías-Ponce de León

expression, as we saw in the previous section. In the analysis proposed now, absolute tenses, given their basic temporality and their wide use, represent a set of verbal forms that establish a contrast that allows us to distinguish present from the preterit. These tenses are closely related and are distinguished from subtle diferences in the complete form of verbal words. Since it is not possible to distinguish infectional morphemes, the structure of the proposed verbal word for absolute tenses is as follows: (12) Root + Infection This structure is similar to that found in the proposal of Boyé and Cabredo (2006, 12), who consider that the Spanish verb should be analysed from a dual perspective: theme + termination. In this chapter, I will begin by analysing, as I did with relative tenses, the frst verbal class, and then I will deal with the remaining two.

4.2.1 Absolute tenses of the frst verbal class From a detailed observation of the present and preterit tenses of the frst verbal class in (9), we can make the following observations: • • •

There is a presence of the theme vowel, except in the frst person singular in present and preterit and in the third person singular in preterit. There is a presence of an apparent person-number mark, with almost the same segments with which it appears in relative tenses, except in the second person. Some of the segments that appear in verbal words are unique and exclusive for these tenses.

These tenses, as I said, are distinguished by contrast person by person. Here are these contrasts: (13) Contrastive marks between present and preterit. First infectional class PN

Present

Preterit

1s

-o

-é

2s

-as

-aste

3s

-a

-ó

1p

-amos

-amos

2p

-áis

-asteis

3p

-an

-aron

In the previous table, I have included all the infectional marks, along with the theme vowel, so that the contrasts are clearly noted. In some cases, it would be possible to separate the PN marker, but I consider it part of the contrasts that are made to distinguish the tenses, so I prefer to include it. I argue that these contrasts between persons are the ones that distinguish the present and the preterit. These are very common tenses, and speakers have control over these variations. To clarify the contrasts better, I will discuss each of them in detail. In the frst singular person, it is very clear that there is no possible segmentation, and, in both tenses, ThV is absent. Both, -o and -é are exclusive marks to these verbal tenses. For the second person singular, the contrast is given by the segments -as and -aste, present and preterit, respectively. From a traditional point of view, the ThV and a PN marker could 124

Basic infectional structure of verbs (I)

be segmented; however, as I already said, there is no trace of TAM at present. In the preterit, we have a segment, -ste, that has been identifed as a marker of preterit, since it also appears in the second person plural of this tense; However, for other researchers, it is also a second person marker. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that in some colloquial varieties of Spanish, the paradigmatic pressure with respect to the segments associated with the second person singular leads some speakers to attach an -s as an PN marker: *hablasteS, which would allow a complete segmentation of this verbal word. This phenomenon is evidence of the need of some speakers to analogically extend a recurring mark and also demonstrate the special formal behaviour of these absolute tenses. For the third person singular, the contrast is given by the presence of a segment that could be identifed with the theme vowel in the present and by the segment -ó in the preterit. In fact, the third singular form of the present is pointed to as the least-marked one of verbal infection, and it is considered the verbal theme in some analyses. The segment that appears in the preterit, -ó, is exclusive to this verbal tense. The case of the frst person plural is special, since there is no contrasting segment for this verbal class between present and preterit; that is, both forms are identical. This is a phenomenon of verbal homonymy or syncretism and, as in the cases I analyse in relative tenses, causes ambiguities that must be resolved in syntax. For the second person plural, the contrast is set between -áis and -asteis. In the present form, a diphthong appears. Again, the segment that allows the contrast is -ste, which I already analysed for the case of the second person singular. In both tenses, the ThV is present. Finally, in the case of the third person plural, the contrast between both tenses is given by the segments -an and -aron. Here an exclusive segment of the preterit tense, -ro, appears, which is the one that distinguishes the preterit and the present. As for the previous case, there are those who see this segment as a TAM marker, and some prefer to associate it with PN. The theme vowel is present in both verbal forms. The contrasts between present and preterit in each of the persons are very specifc and appear as exclusive segments of these verbal tenses that are not necessarily associated with tense-mood or agreement marks. While these contrasts are largely maintained in the remaining two verbal classes, each of these has particularities that I will discuss in the following.

4.2.2 Absolute tenses of the second verbal class The following table shows the contrasts between the present and preterit absolute tenses of the second verbal class. (14) Contrastive marks between present and preterit. Second infectional class PN

Present

Preterit

1s

-o

-í

2s

-es

-iste

3s

-e

-ió

1p

-emos

-imos

2p

-éis

-isteis

3p

-en

-ieron

The frst distinction I must make regarding the frst verbal class is the change that the theme vowel undergoes in this second class. Whereas in the frst, the theme vowel, when it appears, 125

Ramón Zacarías-Ponce de León

always has the same shape, in the case of this class, it varies between the present and the preterit, -e and -i, respectively. This variation of ThV alone indicates the switch between present and preterit; however, some other changes persist that also indicate such an alternation. I will briefy mention these cases and stop at the relevant ones. Regarding the frst person, the contrast is -o/-í, both exclusive marks. For the second person, the contrast is between -es and -iste, with the appearance of the same segment, -ste, as in the frst class. We also have the contrast that is given with the theme vowel. For the third person, the contrast is larger, since a diphthong appears in the preterite due to the presence of the theme vowel. The most notable distinction between the frst and second classes is given in the frst person plural, since, given the additional contrast of the ThV, the syncretism disappears, so present and preterit have their own expression: -emos/-imos. The second and third persons in plural are like those of the frst class, with the appearance of the segments -ste and -ro, although the additional contrast of the theme vowel is added. In addition, in the third person plural in the preterit, there is a diphthongization, -ieron, which did not exist in the same person of the frst class.

4.2.3 Absolute tenses of the third verbal class The following table shows the contrasts between the present and preterit absolute tenses of the third verbal class. (15) Contrastive marks between present and preterit. Third infectional class PN

Present

Preterit

1s

-o

-í

2s

-es

-iste

3s

-e

-ió

1p

-imos

-imos

2p

-ís

-isteis

3p

-en

-ieron

We note that the structures of the verbal word of the second and third conjugations are similar; in fact, the preterit is identical. This observation has sometimes led to the assertion that the second and third verbal classes are actually a single one (Ambadiang 1994, 214). It is in the present tense that two variations appear, in the frst and second person in plural. It is a change of ThV that prevents generalizing one form for the present and another form for the preterit, as was done for the second class. The contrasts between the two tenses are like those of the second class, so I will not repeat them. I will describe only the contrasts of the two verbal words that change. The frst person plural has the same verbal form for present and preterit, -imos, that is, a syncretism similar to that of the frst class, with the consequent ambiguity. In the case of the second person plural, the contrast appears between the forms -ís and -isteis. This form of present without a diphthong distinguishes this verbal class from the other two, in which such a diphthong always appears. The proposal to analyse the absolute tenses by contrast is an acknowledgement of the special nature of these tenses and the diferent handling that the speakers make when they refer to the present and the preterit from the moment of the enunciation. A feature of these verbal tenses is the absence of a specifc tense-mood mark, TAM. As for the ThV and PN markings, they can 126

Basic infectional structure of verbs (I)

be identifed, to some extent; however, they have variations and shapes that do not appear in the rest of the verbal infection. The distinction between the two tenses must be marked by contrast between infectional marks by means of exclusive segments of these verbal tenses, such as -ste (for the preterit of the second person) and -ro (for the preterit of the third person plural). On the other hand, there is no distinguishing mark for the frst person in plural, so a syncretism is established between the present and the preterit only for frst and third classes: (amamos, vivimos). Things change a bit for the second class, as it has an additional contrast in the switch in the theme vowel between the two tenses that allows marking of the contrast between the present, comemos, and the preterit, comimos. It is interesting to note that the frst and third persons of the singular are closely linked in relative tenses and are always syncretic, while in absolute tenses, given their deictic characteristic, they are distinguished to make evident the diference between the origin of the colloquium and the things frst and second persons talk about.

5 Conclusion In this chapter, I have made a detailed description of the verbal infection of Spanish. I show, at frst, the general problem that has always been the segmentation of the verbal word given the lack of correspondence between the grammatical categories and the formal marks that can be segmented. Diferent solutions have been proposed to solve this mismatch, but none have received unanimous recognition so far. From a careful observation of verbal paradigms, we note that the infection of Spanish presents divergent behaviours for diferent groups of tenses. I proposed a split, according to Bello’s position, between absolute and relative tenses and found a correlation with the diferent structures of the verbal word and the ease of segmenting the morphosyntactic categories. The absolute tenses, present and preterit, are only related to the moment of the enunciation and refer to the general temporality. In absolute tenses, it is essential to make distinctions between the persons of the colloquium, frst and second persons, and the entities of the world that we are talking about, the third persons. In these tenses, it is not possible to segment tensemood, person-number or theme vowel marks, at least unequivocally. On the contrary, the present and the preterit establish a series of contrasts person-to-person; thus, the frst person establishes a contrast, for the frst class, between the segments -o and -é (hablo/hablé), respectively. In these verbal words, it is not possible to segment any infectional morpheme. On the other hand, in relative tenses, it becomes important to accurately point out all the temporal distinctions that are made in Spanish, so the morphosyntactic categories are identifable with some ease. These tenses establish a reference with the moment of enunciation and with another verbal tense, so they present greater specifcity. In these tenses, we can recognize, to some extent, a concatenative morphology with a fxed order of morphemes: the theme vowel ThV, always adjacent to the verbal root, appearing even in some cases of derivation as in the nominalizations crear ‘to create’ → creación ‘creation’ (Alcoba 2012, 29); the morpheme of tense-mood TAM, adjacent to the theme vowel, if it exists (hablabas) or next to the verbal root (comías); fnally, the most external of the morphemes is PN, person-number, also called, because of this characteristic, agreement. I think that the distinction between absolute and relative tenses is appropriate, since it has allowed a more precise and homogeneous description of the verbal word of Spanish. I assumed from the beginning that there are two types of verbal words with diferent structures that require 127

Ramón Zacarías-Ponce de León

independent analysis. This way of proceeding has led me, on the one hand, to fnd regularities and identify analogies in relative tenses and, on the other hand, to understand the special behaviour of the present and the preterit of indicative mood.

References Alcoba, S. 1999. “La Flexión Verbal.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, dirs. I. Bosque and V. Demonte, vol. 3, 4915–91. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Alcoba, S. 2012. “Tema verbal, vocal temática y el afjo -ción.” In “Assi como es de suso dicho”. Estudios de morfología y léxico en homenaje a Jesús Pena, edited by M. Campos, R. Mariño, J. Pérez, and A. Rifón, 1–34. San Millán de la Cogolla, La Rioja: Cilengua. Alonso, A. 1951. “Introducción a los estudios gramaticales de Andrés Bello.” In Gramática de la lengua castellana destinada al uso de los americanos. Caracas: Ministerio de Educación. Ambadiang, T. 1994. La morfología fexiva. Madrid: Taurus. Azpiazu, S. 2019. La composicionalidad temporal del perfecto compuesto en español. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. Bello, A. 1841 [1951]. “Análisis ideológica de los tiempos de la conjugación castellana.” In Obras completas, vol. V, 1–67. Caracas: Ministerio de Educación. Bello, A. 1847 [1960]. Gramática de la lengua castellana destinada al uso de los americanos. Buenos Aires: Sopena. Boyé, G., and P. Cabredo. 2006. “The Structure of Allomorphy in Spanish Verbal Infection.” Cuadernos de Lingüística del Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset 13: 9–24. Comrie, B. 1981. Aspect. An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fábregas, A. 2013. La Morfología. El análisis de la palabra compleja. Madrid: Síntesis. Haspelmath, M. 2002. Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold. Real Academia Epañola and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Rojo, G., and A. Veiga. 1999. “El Tiempo Verbal. Los Tiempos Simples.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, dirs. I. Bosque and V. Demonte, vol. 2, 2867–934. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Spencer, A. 2006. “Morphological Universals.” In Linguistic Universals, edited by R. Mairal and J. Gil, 101–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stump, G. 2016. Infectional Paradigms. Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Timberlake, A. 2007. “Aspect, Tense, Mood.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Descriptions. Volume III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, edited by T. Shopen, 280–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

128

10 The basic infectional structure of verbs (II) Bruno Camus BergarecheBasic infectional structure of verbs II

Conjugation classes and other paradigmatic properties of verbs (La estructura fexiva básica de los verbos 2: Las conjugaciones y otras propiedades paradigmáticas de los verbos)

Bruno Camus Bergareche

1 Introduction This chapter describes those aspects of verbal infection that can be accounted for by means of paradigmatic properties, that is, whenever the presence of a specifc exponent in an infected form can be explained taking into account the distribution inside the paradigm of the forms that actually materialize the morphosyntactic properties of the Spanish verb. I will proceed by characterizing those properties with a greater descriptive scope in the Spanish verbal infection. More specifcally, those properties that are capable of informing about the confguration of each one of the resulting forms will be selected. Therefore, I begin by defning the conjugation classes. The formal properties that can be associated with these conjugations will then be thoroughly described. I will continue with the exponents of the regular verbs with reference to both root forms and desinential endings. Finally, the characterization of the diferent patterns of irregularity in Spanish verbs will be addressed, with particular focus on the way their diferent formal features are distributed throughout each paradigm. Keywords: verbal infection; paradigm; conjugation; regular patterns; irregular patterns Este capítulo describe aquellos hechos de la fexión verbal de cuya expresión formal se puede dar cuenta a partir de la consideración de propiedades paradigmáticas. Esto es, siempre que la presencia en una forma fexiva de un determinado exponente pueda explicarse a partir del modo en que se distribuyen en el interior del paradigma las distintas formas que realizan las propiedades morfosintácticas correspondientes a esta categoría en español. Procederé a caracterizar aquellas propiedades formales del verbo español que tengan mayor alcance descriptivo e informen en mayor medida de la confguración fnal de cada una de las formas resultantes.

129

Bruno Camus Bergareche

Empezaré con la defnición de las conjugaciones y la descripción de las propiedades asociadas a ellas. Continuaré después por la caracterización de los rasgos formales que defnen los exponentes regulares del verbo tanto en lo que respecta al bloque desinencial como al bloque radical. Finalmente, abordaremos la caracterización de los distintos patrones de irregularidad con especial atención al modo en que se distribuyen a lo largo del paradigma sus distintas propiedades formales. Palabras clave: fexión verbal; paradigma; conjugación; formas regulares; patrones de irregularidad There are fewer terms in linguistics with better evidence of a long and robust existence than the term paradigm. It is already well established in Classical Greek and Latin grammar with the meaning of ‘model, pattern’ (< Gr. παράδειγμα ‘example, model’). Its preferred use was in reference to the patterns of nominal and verbal infections and, more specifcally, to declension classes for nouns and conjugational classes for verbs. And this is the use we still fnd in Saussure, the father of European Structuralism, a canonical comparatist, and his Cours de linguistique génerale. In the frst pages of this work, he discusses the paradigm of the Latin word for ‘origin, lineage’ genus compared to that of the corresponding Greek γένοσ and Sanskrit gánas, that is, the variety of forms these lexemes display to incorporate diferent morphosyntactic traits (Saussure 1916/1967, 15). The 19th-century philologists had evidently assumed the Classical meaning of paradigm without discussion and continued to make extensive use of it. Nevertheless, later in the same book, Saussure discusses the related topic of syntagmatic and associative relations (Saussure 1916/1967, 170–71). Words have syntagmatic relations with adjacent words when used in text or speech. These relations in praesentia let us defne the chain of words thus related as a syntagma. But words are also related to other words by means of multiple associations in the memory. These associative relations are connections between words in absentia and are the basis for the constitution of Saussurean associative families. Some years later, Jakobson renamed this dichotomy as syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic relations. These contributions will extend and enrich the 20th-century concept of paradigm beyond the feld of infectional morphology. Paradigm now had a broader meaning and could be used to refer to any set of forms that are in a paradigmatic relation, that is, linked by formal or semantic associations of any kind. The Classical and more restricted sense of the term reappeared in the defnition of Hockett’s models of linguistic analysis. In opposition to the traditional framework for the description of Classical languages and their infectional systems—revealingly called Word and Paradigm—this author proposed two new frameworks, Item and Process and Item and Arrangement (Hockett 1954, 210). Hockett’s proposal can be considered the starting point for the current consideration of paradigm. As the history of revitalization of Graeco-Roman treatment of infection through contemporary Word and Paradigm approaches show, paradigms have become a central tool in theoretical morphology.1 Ever since the seminal work of Matthews (1972), Word and Paradigm approaches to morphology have built a renewed version of paradigm. These can be grouped together with other works that present a similar position on paradigms in the so-called realizational morphology proposals.2 These continue to rely on the same principles of Classical tradition, so that a paradigm is defned as the set of all the diferent forms that a word or lexeme adopts depending on the morphosyntactic characteristics it shows in a given syntactic context (Fábregas and Scalise 2012, 76). Thus, the paradigm of the Latin adjective bonus ‘good’ will include all its diferent forms which are dependent on case, gender and number as the following table shows: 130

Basic infectional structure of verbs II Table 10.1 Paradigm of Latin bonus

Nominative Accusative Genitive Dative Ablative

Masculine

Feminine

Neuter

Singular

bonus

bona

bonum

Plural

boni

bonae

bona

Singular

bonum

bonam

bonum

Plural

bonos

bonas

bona

Singular

boni

bonae

boni

Plural

bonorum

bonarum

bonorum

Singular

bono

bonae

bono

Plural

bonis

bonis

bonis

Singular

bono

bona

bono

Plural

bonis

bonis

bonis

As is the case in Latin and languages with complex infectional morphology, words within the same grammatical category may difer in the materialization of the corresponding form in the same cell. This results in subdivisions within the same category that are called subparadigms. These subparadigms constitute specifc patterns of formal realizations for words of the same category, that is, diferent infection classes. In nouns and adjectives, these correspond to declensions and conjugations when we refer to verbs. For instance, there are adjectives in Latin that follow a diferent pattern than that of bonus in Table 10.1 and which therefore belong to a diferent infection class or declension, as is the case for fortis ‘strong’: Table 10.2 Paradigm of Latin fortis Nominative Accusative Genitive Dative Ablative

Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural

Masculine/feminine fortis fortes fortem fortes fortis fortium forti fortibus forti fortibus

Neuter forte fortia forte fortia fortis fortium forti fortibus forti fortibus

The paradigms in Tables 10.1 and 10.2 are not only—as Classical paradigms used to be—a set of diferent forms for a given word, each of which flls a diferent cell defned by diferent morphosyntactic features. As in the paradigms of Saussure and Jakobson, they are also a set of (paradigmatic) relations between all forms of bonus or fortis in these cells. And furthermore, this is the case in subparadigms of bonus and fortis and any other paradigms of the same type and the forms they include. The current concept of paradigm can be seen as a network of word-forms mutually connected on the basis of their morphosyntactic properties. And these many varied connections within and between paradigms of diferent types give way to the appearance of the efects of formal attraction or divergence, analogies of difering extents that modify and give shape to infectional patterns. I will assume that these facts are properties of paradigms that defne the formal nature of complex infectional systems. 131

Bruno Camus Bergareche

As I intend to show in the following discussion, such a descriptive tool can be particularly useful when dealing with the rich infectional systems of fusional languages like Spanish. More specifcally, paradigms and paradigmatic properties seem to be at the centre of the confguration of Spanish verbal infection and the particular distribution of the many diferent forms of each verb (Ambadiang 2016). Following Ambadiang, Camus, and García Parejo (2008, 8), the paradigmatic nature of the Spanish verb system is refected by the fact that (i) the verbs are distributed in diferent infectional classes or conjugational classes, (ii) their infection shows formal divergences that are systematic for each one of the morphosyntactic characteristics considered (tense, mood, number, person, aspect and voice) and (iii) this systematic variation allows us to recognize and associate diferent exponents for those morphosyntactic characteristics (cells in the paradigm). On the basis of these assumptions, I will summarize in section 2 the main properties of the Spanish verbal infection, their formal structure and the traits that let us distinguish between regular and irregular verbs, leaving apart the discussion about the possible internal structure of verb forms (see Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume). In section 3, the formal features of regular infection in Spanish will be described. Section  4 will deal with Spanish irregular verbs and describe the diferent types of irregularities and their main formal features. Finally, section 5 will address the distribution of these irregularities and the consequent morphomes or consistent and historically enduring patterns that can be found in Spanish, as in any other Romance language (Maiden 2018).

2 The structure of the Spanish verb system The expression of tense (and aspect) has served in the Spanish grammatical tradition to organize the collection of diferent verbal forms in a series of closed paradigms, which are therefore called tiempos verbales (verb tenses). These tenses are subordinated to mood, so that they can be classifed as tenses that are indicative, subjunctive or imperative. Each displays six diferent forms corresponding to the categories of person and number combined. Finally, the three non-fnite forms of infnitive, gerund and past participle must be added. There is also a parallel paradigm of compound forms and tenses. It includes a combination of simple forms of the auxiliary verb haber ‘to have’ and the past participle of the lexical verb. Thus, the set of verb forms available to build compound tenses is exactly the same we fnd in the paradigm of simple tenses. Consequently, the complete set of infected forms for a given verb in Spanish includes 53 simple forms organized in eight paradigms or tiempos verbales (RAE and ASALE 2009, §4.1k).3 Table 10.3 illustrates the diferent cells of this paradigm for the verb amar ‘to love’. In the confguration of the forms of Table 10.3, it is easy to distinguish two diferent blocs that are central to the description of formal properties of Spanish verb infection. There is the fnal segment or desinence (desinencia), which varies for each form depending on the morphosyntactic characteristics it fulfls, as can be seen in the table, and then there is the verb root (raíz verbal). The verb root—the frst segment of every form in Table 10.3—remains almost unchanged and corresponds to the verb lexeme, the verb amar in this case. The verb roots in Spanish present specifc variants that are associated with a group of tenses and are commonly called stems (temas). It will then be necessary to identify at least three diferent stems. There is the present stem (tema de presente), which is used in the present indicative and present subjunctive, but also in the imperative. It generally corresponds to a stressed form of the verb root together with the thematic vowel, that is, ám+a-. The preterit stem (tema de pretérito) is associated with the preterit, imperfect indicative and imperfect subjunctive, gerund and past participle. Contrary to the present stem, the root is unstressed, am+á-. Finally, the future stem (tema de futuro) is the basis

132

Basic infectional structure of verbs II Table 10.3 Spanish verb system: amar Infnitive Infnitivo

Indicative Indicativo

Subjunctive Subjuntivo

Imperative Imperativo

N/P

Present Presente

1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL N/P

amo amas ama amamos amáis aman Present Presente

1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL N/P 2SG 2PL

Gerund Gerundio

amar

amando

Imperfect Pretérito imperfecto

Preterit Pretérito perfecto simple amé amaste amó amamos amasteis amaron

amaba amabas amaba amábamos amabais amaban Imperfect Pretérito imperfecto ame amase/amara ames amases/amaras ame amase/amara amemos amásemos/amáramos améis amaseis/amarais amen amasen/amaran Imperative Imperativo ama amad

Past Participle Participio amado Future Futuro simple

Conditional Condicional simple

amaré amarás amará amaremos amaréis amarán

amaría amarías amaría amaríamos amaríais amarían

for the future, conditional and infnitive, with a form that also includes the thematic vowel but without stress, am+a- (Ambadiang 2016, 587). As often happens in fusional languages, there is not a unique pattern for all the verbs but three infectional classes of verbs or conjugations. The previous paradigm in Table 10.3 is thus one of three diferent subparadigms. These conjugations in Spanish are identifed by the vowel (the thematic vowel), always stressed, contained in the infnitive ending. The frst conjugation includes all the verbs whose infnitive vowel is an -á-, like amar in the table. The second conjugation comprises verbs with an -é- (for instance temer ‘to fear’). And the third conjugation will be for verbs with a fnal -í- (partir ‘to leave’, for example). In modern Spanish, there is only one productive conjugation, the frst one. This -a- verb class comprises 88 percent of the verbs. The second and third conjugations are no longer productive and include only inherited verbs. They make up nearly 12 percent of the current verbs more or less equally distributed between the -e- verb class and the -i- verb class. Despite their small size, these two conjugations remain relevant insofar as they include some of the most frequently used verbs, such as the auxiliary haber ‘to have’, ser ‘to be’, tener ‘to have’, decir ‘to say’, ir ‘to go’, venir ‘to come’ and so on (RAE and ASALE 2009, §4.6d). Beyond this frst split in three infectional patterns, Spanish verbs show another important division that gives rise to a considerable number of minor subparadigms with signifcant

133

Bruno Camus Bergareche

diferences. First of all, there exists a regular, that is, more frequent and simple, pattern. This regular verb pattern includes the great majority of verbs distributed throughout the three conjugations. The paradigm of the verb amar provides a good instance of regular Spanish verb infection, whose properties will be listed in the next section. But there are also irregular and specifc patterns. Although there are also irregular verbs in the frst conjugation, these irregular patterns are typical for both the second and third conjugations, where they account for half of the verbs. Nevertheless, irregular verbs of any kind make up only 11 percent of Spanish verbs (RAE and ASALE 2009, §4.6d). But the interesting point is that there are numerous types of irregular patterns, each one with a specifc formal trait or traits. These specifcities can be of diferent extension and scope, most of them having to do with verb stems, but there are also a few that are related to the form of desinences. We can even fnd mixed irregular patterns. All this variety and the consequent richness of paradigmatic efects will be reviewed in sections 4 and 5.

3 The regular verb pattern In Spanish verbal infection, regularity is a property assigned to verbs whose paradigms include forms resulting from the combination of regular or typical constituents. These regular constituents—the stem and the desinence—are so called because (i) they are widely distributed throughout the infection system, and (ii) they usually present one form or at most a pair of basic variants. Amar in Table 10.3 is a regular verb, and, as we see, the stem has a practically unique basic form, am+a- corresponding to the verb root and the thematic vowel. The desinences are also regular and can be found everywhere in this same conjugation class or, in the case of some verb endings such as -mos, -is or -n, even in regular verbs of other conjugations (Ambadiang 2016, 589). This uniform behaviour is what we fnd when we look at the forms of the complete patterns or subparadigms of Spanish regular verbs corresponding to the three conjugation classes. They are exemplifed subsequently, where I reproduce again the case of amar as the model of the frst conjugation, together with temer ‘to fear’ for the second conjugation and partir ‘to leave’ for the third conjugation: (Tables 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6). If we compare these three patterns, the frst remarkable thing is the selection of almost the same stem in every cell for each verb class. The only required adjustment with respect to the verb root is the addition of the thematic vowel and the correct assignment of the stress, as we previously saw in section 2. As for the frst case, frst conjugation verbs take a unique stem with -a- after the root (am+a-). But second and third conjugations share the same basic stem for nearly every cell with an -i- after the verb root (tem+i-, part+i-). They only difer in the future stem (tem+e- but part+i- in future and conditional tenses) and in the variant of the present stem for 1PL and 2PL in the present indicative and 2PL in the imperative (tem+e-mos, tem+é-is, but part+i-mos, part+(i)-ís and tem+e-d but part+i-d). The description of the assignment of stress is, however, more complex in this regular pattern. But, as is the case for the thematic vowel, there is also a paradigmatic distribution of the stress specifc to each tense of the system. Thus, stress position is uniform for the tenses built on the future stem (future and conditional), where it always falls on the desinence (am+ar-ás, am+ar-ías . . .). It is the same case for the tenses built on the preterit stem (preterit, imperfect indicative and imperfect subjunctive), where the stress falls on the vowel that follows the root, usually the thematic vowel (tem+í-ste, tem+í-as, tem+ié-se . . .). And fnally, for the tenses built on the present stem (present indicative, present subjunctive and imperative) the stress always falls on the root (párt+e-s, párt-as, párt-e . . .), except for the forms of the 1PL and 2PL 134

Basic infectional structure of verbs II

of both present tenses and the 2PL of imperative, where it falls on the vowel after the root (part+í-mos, part-ámos, part-íd  . . .) With the exception of these last forms, the stress in this regular verb pattern can therefore be considered dependent on the morphological confguration of any given verb form, as it always falls on the same morphological constituent for each person of the same tense. This is why it has been considered since Janda (1993) an example of columnar stress, a label that emphasizes its morphological, namely paradigmatic, bias (Pérez Saldanya 2012, 233; Ambadiang 2016, 589). This regular association of stress position with stem, and consequently also with the corresponding tenses, results once again in a picture of paradigmatic nature. The other remarkable trait of the forms of the regular pattern has to do with the general homogeneity of the desinences. As exponents of morphosyntactic properties, each tense has a diferent confguration and form for this desinential bloc. However, the segments that correspond to exponents of person and number remain constant throughout the paradigm (-s, -mos  . . .) with minor exceptions for frst, second and third singular in the preterit (-é, -ste, -ó  .  .  .). Predictably, the regular pattern of desinence is also subject to paradigmatic properties and shows diferences relevant to each conjugation class. Looking at Tables 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6, we fnd a signifcant division between the frst and both second and third conjugations with respect to their desinences, particularly if we consider the imperfect,

Table 10.4 The regular verb pattern. First conjugation in -a-: amar ‘to love’ Infnitive Infnitivo

Indicative Indicativo

Subjunctive Subjuntivo

Imperative Imperativo

N/P

Present Presente

amar Imperfect Pretérito imperfecto

1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL N/P

amo amas ama amamos amáis aman Present Presente

amaba amabas amaba amábamos amabais amaban Imperfect Pretérito imperfecto

1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

ame ames ame amemos améis amen

amase/amara amases/amaras amase/amara amásemos/amáramos amaseis/amarais amasen/amaran Imperative Imperativo

N/P 2SG 2PL

Gerund Past Gerundio Participle Participio amando amado Preterit Future Conditional Pretérito Futuro Condicional perfecto simple simple simple amé amaré amaría amaste amarás amarías amó amará amaría amamos amaremos amaríamos amasteis amaréis amaríais amaron amarán amarían

ama amad

135

Bruno Camus Bergareche Table 10.5 The regular verb pattern. Second conjugation in -e-: temer ‘to fear’

Indicative Indicativo

Subjunctive Subjuntivo

Imperative Imperativo

Infnitive Infnitivo

Gerund Gerundio

N/P

Present Presente

temer Imperfect Pretérito imperfecto

1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

temo temes teme tememos teméis temen

temía temías temía temíamos temíais temían

temiendo Preterit Pretérito perfecto simple temí temiste temió temimos temisteis temieron

N/P

Present Presente

Imperfect Pretérito imperfecto

tema temas tema temamos temáis teman

temiese/temiera temieses/temieras temiese/temiera temiésemos/temiéramos temieseis/temierais temiesen/temieran Imperative Imperativo teme temed

1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL N/P 2SG 2PL

Past Participle Participio temido Future Conditional Futuro Condicional simple simple temeré temerás temerá temeremos temeréis temerán

temería temerías temería temeríamos temeríais temerían

preterit and present tenses of the subjunctive (-ba- vs. -ía-, -ase- vs. -iese-, -é vs. -í, -e- vs. -a- . . .). In fact, this split in the desinence distribution among conjugation classes crucially contributes to reinforce the idea that there exist in Modern Spanish two mostly consistent verb classes: the frst conjugation in -a- and second/third conjugation in -e/i- (RAE and ASALE 2009, §4.6b). In this latter subparadigm, the pattern is identical for both -e- and -i-, except for a few forms that retain the original thematic vowel of their infnitive in the stem (-e- vs. -i-), as explained previously. Furthermore, the formal diferences between the frst conjugation pattern and the second/third conjugation pattern exist in accordance with other properties already mentioned. In a clear contrast with the frst conjugation class, the second/third conjugation class is not productive anymore and includes only inherited verbs, many of which present special patterns and irregularities, as will be shown in the next section.

4 Irregular verbs and types of irregularities A verb is considered irregular in Spanish whenever it difers in its infection from any of the regular paradigms shown in Tables 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6. Some verbs present only orthographic 136

Basic infectional structure of verbs II Table 10.6 The regular verb pattern. Third conjugation in -i-: partir ‘to leave’

Indicative Indicativo

Subjunctive Subjuntivo

Imperative Imperativo

N/P

Present Presente

1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL N/P

parto partes parte partimos partís parten Present Presente parta partas parta partamos partáis partan

1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL N/P 2SG 2PL

Infnitive Infnitivo

Gerund Gerundio

partir Imperfect Pretérito imperfecto

partiendo Preterit Pretérito perfecto simple

partía partías partía partíamos partíais partían Imperfect Pretérito imperfecto partiese/partiera partieses/partieras partiese/partiera partiésemos/partiéramos partieseis/partierais partiesen/partieran Imperative Imperativo parte partid

partí partiste partió partimos partisteis partieron

Past Participle Participio partido Future Conditional Futuro Condicional simple simple partiré partirás partirá partiremos partiréis partirán

partiría partirías partiría partiríamos partiríais partirían

adjustments that grammars have at times also considered an irregularity. This is the case, for instance, in the alternation between “z” and “c” (realizo—realicé) or “c” and “qu” (sacar—saqué). However, these alleged “irregularities” are due simply to the regular application of orthographic rules and will not be considered here. There is another kind of irregularity that can be explained through syntactic properties. Thus, there are some defective verbs that lack frst and second person forms due to the fact that they are used only in impersonal contexts. This is the case for verbs such as acontecer or ocurrir ‘to happen’, the existential haber, and meteorological verbs such as llover ‘to rain’, nevar ‘to snow’. An aspectual verb such as soler ‘(to be) used to’ (RAE and ASALE 2009, §4.14a–c; Pérez Saldanya 2012, 238), as long as it is not infected for imperfective tenses, is also included in this group. More problematic is the case of verbs with a vowel-fnal root (RAE and ASALE 2009, §4.9b, 4.9d–r; Pérez Saldanya 2012, 238–39). The nature of their diferences with regard to regular paradigms can usually be accounted for by means of regular phonological processes in Spanish (Alcoba 1999, 4948–51). These have to do with the treatment of vowels in contact, stress and consequent syllabifcation in the boundary between root and thematic vowel or desinence. They can involve the appearance of hiatus, diphthongs or the insertion of a consonant “y”. Verbs that typically belong to this class of phonological “irregularity” are those with a fnal ending -iar, -uar. For verbs of this frst subtype, like odiar ‘to hate’ or evacuar ‘to evacuate’, the stress of the present stem falls on the penultimate vowel of their root: ódi-as, evácu-as. But for other verbs of this same ending, like enviar ‘to send’ or actuar ‘to perform’, the stress in these same 137

Bruno Camus Bergareche

forms falls on the last vowel of the root: enví-as, actú-as. This same positioning of the stress is the one favoured by verbs with an infnitive ending in -ear, -oar, -eer, -oer, -aer and so on (pelear ‘to fght’, loar ‘to praise’, leer ‘to read’, roer ‘to gnaw’, caer ‘to fall’ . . .): pelé-a, ló-a, lé-e, ró-e, cá-e and so on. And some verbs in this subgroup add a consonant “y” in forms of the preterit tense: leyó, cayó and so on. This same consonantal epenthesis is also what we have in the boundary between root and desinence for verbs ending in -uir (construir ‘to build’, huir ‘to run away’ . . .): constru-y-es, hu-y-es and so on. There is fnally a group of verbs whose irregularities are of a morphological nature, even if, in some cases, as for verbs with vowel alternations in the root, there also exists some basic phonological conditioning. From now on, I will only consider this sort of irregularity, that is, morphologically irregular verbs. The distribution of irregular forms of this type for a given verb is morphologically (paradigmatically) determined, as long as they depend on categories such as conjugation class, stem, tense or any of the morphosyntactic properties corresponding to the cells in the Spanish verb paradigm. Contrary to the verbs with orthographic, syntactic and phonological “irregularities”, there is no way in Spanish to predict whether a given verb belongs to this former class of irregular verbs. The defnition as an irregular verb of this sort has to be stipulated in the lexicon. Similarly, the afliation with a specifc type of irregularity amongst the diferent existing types within this irregular class needs also to be lexically specifed, although in this case, properties such as conjugation class and phonological confguration sometimes can be easily associated with some specifc type of irregularity. In the following paragraphs of this section, I will focus on the classifcation of the diferent types of morphological irregularities and the description of its corresponding allomorphs and formal variants, together with the most usual phonological marks each one of them entails. It is important to remember from now on that morphological irregularities afect mainly the form of the root or the stem. Thus, Spanish irregular verbs are to be distinguished by the presence of some kind of divergent allomorph in their root or stem (see Armstrong, this volume, for a discussion of allomorphy and suppletion). It is true that there are also some irregular desinences that cannot be found in regular paradigms. This is particularly the case for some of the forms of the irregular preterit tense. And, of course, we have some odd desinences for monosyllabic and special verbs, the most irregular ones in the Spanish verb system, but also the most frequent verbs (ser ‘to be’, estar ‘to be, to stand’, ir ‘to go’, dar ‘to give’ . . .). Finally, to these few cases of irregular desinence we can add the special mark of the 2SG form of the imperative in a handful of verbs with roots ending in -n or -l (for instance, salir ‘to go out’: sal, not sale . . .). All the previous observations on irregularities will be accounted for in the next classifcation. Following RAE and ASALE (2009, §4.10–4.14) and Pérez Saldanya (2012, 239–44), I will consider the following fve types.

4.1 Verbs with vowel alternation in the root This is the most common alternation among verbs in Spanish, and it can be found in the three conjugation classes. It implies two or three root allomorphs with a diferent fnal vowel that alternate according to the position of the stress and the vowel of the following syllable. It includes verbs that have to be marked in the lexicon with this feature, as there are also other verbs with the same confguration but without the alternation. For instance, contar ‘to count’ and entender ‘to understand’ have diphthongs [cuento, entiendo, see (1) subsequently], whereas

138

Basic infectional structure of verbs II

montar ‘to ride’ or comprender ‘to understand’ have a simple vowel (monto, comprendo). These are the existing alternations and their main traits.

4.1.1 Alternation vowel - diphthong The allomorph with diphthong is found whenever the stress falls on the root. Consequently, the alternation is restricted to the present stem of the corresponding verbs with a distribution that will be discussed in detail in section 5. 4.1.1.1 e - ié, o - ué

This is the most frequent subtype of vowel alternation and afects many verbs of the frst and second conjugations. Verbs in (1) are examples of this frst alternation: (1) First conj. empezar ‘to start’, contar ‘to count’ Second conj. entender ‘to understand’, morder ‘to bite’

e - ié o - ué

Present stem Unstressed Stressed empezamos empieza entendemos entiende contamos cuenta mordemos muerde

4.1.1.2 i - ié, u - ué

The alternation of high vowel and diphthong is exceptionally rare and can only be found in very few verbs: (2) Third conj. adquirir ‘to acquire’ First conj. jugar ‘to play’ Present stem Unstressed

Stressed

i - ié

adquirimos

adquiere

u - ué

jugamos

juega

4.1.2 Alternation mid vowel e - high vowel i This is a relatively common alternation for verbs of the third conjugation, and it seems that phonological conditions control the presence of each variant. The mid vowel will appear whenever a syllable with a simple /i/ follows the root. The high vowel, instead, is preferred before any other syllable nucleus, including the diphthong -ié-. This means that the irregular form of the stem is extended beyond the distribution we had for the previous alternation type 4.1.1. Thus a variant of the present stem with unstressed vowel -i- is found for 1PL and 2PL in the present subjunctive. This same variant appears for the preterit stem in the gerund, imperfect subjunctive and 3SG and 3PL of the preterit:

139

Bruno Camus Bergareche

(3) Third conj. pedir ‘to ask for’ Present stem

Preterit stem

-e-

Stressed -i-

Untressed -i-

-e-

Unstressed -i-

pedimos

pide pida

pidamos pidáis

pedí pedimos

pidiendo pidiese pidió pidieron

e- i

4.1.3 Alternation mid vowel e, o - high vowel i, u - diphthong ié - ué Another group of verbs of the third conjugation seems to combine the two previous patterns of vowel alternation. They have a diphthong, as expected, whenever the mid vowel of the root is stressed, that is, in rhizotonic forms of the present stem, and the other two variants are distributed as in the alternation type 4.1.2: mid vowel with a following simple /i/, and high vowel elsewhere: (4) Third conj. mentir ‘to lie’ Third conj. dormir ‘to sleep’ -e-, -omentimos e - ié - i dormimos o - ué - u

Present stem -ié-, -uémiente mienta

-i-, -umintamos mintáis

duerme duerma

durmamos durmáis

Preterit stem -e-, -o-i-, -umentí mintiendo mentimos mintiese mintió mintieron dormí durmiendo dormimos durmiese durmió durmieron

4.2 Verbs with consonant alternation in the root Some verbs of the second and third conjugation alternate between two variants of the present stem, the regular one and another form with some kind of consonantal insertion after the root. These are the corresponding subtypes:

4.2.1 Verbs with epenthesis of -g-, (-ig-) The insertion of a voiced velar consonant is typical for some verbs with a fnal lateral /l/ or a fnal nasal /n/: (5) Second conj. valer ‘to cost’, poner ‘to put’ Third conj. salir ‘to go out’

140

Basic infectional structure of verbs II

Present stem Regular -g- insertion valemos valgo ponemos valga pongo ponga salimos salgo salga

For a few verbs with a fnal vowel, such as caer ‘to fall’ or traer ‘to bring’, the segment -ig- is inserted after the root: caigo, caiga; traigo, traiga.

4.2.2 Verbs with epenthesis of /k/ This irregularity relates to verbs ending in -ecer. It has also been extended to the third conjugation for verbs in -ducir and the verb lucir ‘to brighten’, so that it is a group formed by verbs ending in /θ/ (Canary Islands and America /s/). The allomorph of the present stem shows epenthesis of a voiceless velar consonant -k- after the root. (6) Second conj. agradecer ‘to thank’ Third conj. conducir ‘to drive’, lucir ‘to brighten’ Present stem Regular -K- insertion agradecemos agradezco agradezca conducimos conduzco lucimos conduzca luzco luzca

4.2.3 Alternation /θ ~ s/ - /g/ The verbs hacer ‘to do’ and decir ‘to say’ (and other verbs based upon them) form a group with an ir regularity in the present stem that seems to be a combination of the previous 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 subtypes. Both of them have a root ending in /θ/ (or /s/), but, instead of adding /k/ as the verbs in (10) do, they substitute their fnal consonant for /g/: (7) Second conj. hacer ‘to do’ Third conj. decir ‘to say’ Present stem Regular -ghacemos hago haga decimos digo4 diga

141

Bruno Camus Bergareche

4.2.4 Alternation ab - ep The last consonant alternation involves the fnal vowel of the root and is found in just one pair of verbs. But in the case of saber ‘to know’, it afects only the present subjunctive forms and is absent in the present indicative. (8) Second conj. caber ‘to ft’, saber ‘to know’ Present stem Regular -epcabemos quepo quepa sabemos

sepa

Finally, it is also important to recall that this second type of irregularity with consonant alternation can be found in combination with the previous vowel alternation type, as is the case for verbs such as tener ‘to have’ (tengo, tienes, tenemos), venir ‘to come’ (vengo, vienes, venimos) or decir (see endnote 4).

4.3 Verbs with strong preterit and/or strong past participle Some verbs from the second and third conjugation classes—but also a few from the frst (andar ‘to walk’, estar ‘to be, to stand’, dar ‘to give’  .  .  .)—present in the preterit tense a specifc stem (strong preterit stem) that usually involves important diferences with regard to the infnitive form. The changes can afect the last vowel or consonant, but more often they afect both segments. And, more signifcantly, these strong stems also have a diferent desinence in the 1SG and 3SG forms of the preterit: unstressed -e and -o, respectively. The rest of the desinences for this strong preterit stem are the corresponding regular ones from the second and third conjugations, even if the verb belongs to the frst one (andar for instance). Verbs with strong preterit extend this irregular stem to the imperfect subjunctive, but not to the imperfect indicative.5 The form of this strong preterit stem can vary considerably, as has been said before, but the presence of a high vowel /i, u/ is a common trait. The examples in (9) show this variation through the comparison between the infnitive and the preterit and imperfect subjunctive of some of the verbs belonging to this group: (9) a. andar ‘to walk’—anduve, anduviese; estar ‘to be, to stand’— estuve, estuviese; haber ‘to have’ (aux.)—hube, hubiese; tener ‘to have’—tuve, tuviese . . . b. caber ‘to ft’—cupe, cupiese; saber ‘to know’—supe, supiese . . . c. poner ‘to put’—puse, pusiese . . . d. poder ‘can’—pude, pudiese . . . f. conducir ‘to drive’—conduje—condujese; decir ‘to say’—dije, dijese; traer ‘to bring’—traje, trajese g. querer ‘to want’—quise, quisiese . . . h. hacer ‘to do’—hice, hiciese; venir ‘to come’—vine, viniese . . .

142

Basic infectional structure of verbs II

This so-called strong form, which is related to the Latin strong perfect, reappears in some irregular past participles in Spanish. Curiously enough, these irregular strong participles, which lack a thematic vowel and are rhizotonic, are found in irregular but also regular verbs of the second and third conjugations. Moreover, the existence of a strong participle is not connected to the existence of a strong preterit, since we have verbs with the latter and a regular participle (tener—tuve—tenido, venir—vine—venido . . .) and vice versa (morir ‘to die’—morí—muerto, romper ‘to break’—rompí—roto . . .). The verbs in (10) are a good sample of the existing variants of this strong past participle: (10) a. abrir ‘to open’—abierto; cubrir ‘to cover’—cubierto; poner ‘to put’—puesto—volver ‘to come back’—vuelto . . . b. hacer ‘to do’—hecho; decir ‘to say’—dicho . . . c. escribir ‘to write’—escrito; ver ‘to see’—visto; imprimir ‘to print’—impreso . . . Finally, strong preterits (and past participles) can coexist with any of the previous types of irregularities. Thus, poder has diphthongs in the present stem and a strong preterit; caber has consonant alternation in the present stem and also a strong preterit; and tener or venir have diphthongs and consonant alternation in the present stem and strong preterits.

4.4 Verbs with epenthetic future stem Although most future stems are very regular, there are some verbs that have a future stem where the original thematic vowel before a segment /r/ has been deleted (11). Some of them also show epenthesis of a consonant (12): (11) a. hacer ‘to do’—haré, haría . . . b. poder ‘can’—podré, podría; saber ‘to know’—sabré, sabría . . . (12) a. querer ‘to want’—querré, querría . . . b. valer ‘to cost’—valdré, valdría; poner ‘to put’—pondré, pondría; tener ‘to have’— tendré, tendría; venir ‘to come’—vendré, vendría . . . Although in some of these cases, there seems to be a phonological pattern—root ending in /l/ or /n/—there are also verbs with this same confguration but a regular future stem, such as doler ‘to hurt’ (dolerá) or unir ‘to unite’ (uniré). To conclude this group, some of the verbs in (11–12) present the irregularity in the future stem combined with other types, as is the case again for tener or venir, as we have repeatedly seen before.

4.5 Verbs with monosyllabic or suppletive roots. Special verbs The last group of irregular verbs comprises some of the most frequent verbs in Spanish, each one of them with a specifc and often unique infection (dar ‘to give’, estar ‘to be, to stand’, haber ‘to have’ aux., ir ‘to go’, ser ‘to be’). However, some features are shared by most of them and therefore will be briefy described. The majority of these verbs have monosyllabic roots or stems: dar, ir, ser, but also estar, whose frst segment does not make part of the root and therefore is never stressed. They frequently present some particularly unique allomorphs and suppletive roots and stems, as

143

Bruno Camus Bergareche

is the case for ser or ir, which share a common stem fu- in the preterit and imperfect subjunctive, for instance. Many of them also have some of the irregularities already described (strong perfect stem for estar, irregular future for haber). But other oddities can be found as well, such as the fact that dar, despite being a verb of the frst conjugation class, has many forms corresponding to the second/third conjugation (imperfect subjunctive diese). And ir, a third conjugation verb, has a regular frst conjugation desinence in the imperfect indicative (iba). One special verb within this group is haber, which has a monosyllabic allomorph for the present stem (he, has, ha  . . .). And there exists a feature originally found in this verb, but which has spread to other verbs of this group. Haber in its existential use has a 3SG form in the present indicative with an ending -y (ha-y). This same ending is also found in the 1SG form in the present indicative of verbs such as dar (doy), estar (estoy), ir (voy), ser (soy) and so on.

5 Patterns of distribution of irregular verb forms As seen in the previous section, in Spanish, we cannot predict which verbs are irregular or to which type of irregularity they belong. These two properties have to be defined in the lexical entry of each verb. Nonetheless, the way these irregularities are distributed within the verb paradigm follows patterns that seem to be independent of lexical stipulations or phonological conditions. They constitute templates that determine somewhat arbitrarily the exponents to be shared by each of the paradigm cells. Apart from the fact that this behaviour reinforces the concept of the inflectional paradigm as a theoretical primitive, as Fábregas claims (2013, 188–89), it favours the autonomy of morphology and recognizes a specific domain with neither morphosyntactic nor morphonological determination. This layer of “morphology by itself ” is called morphomic by Aronoff (1994, 25) and its functions, that is, the patterns of distribution, are therefore called morphomes. As Maiden (2018) argues, morphomes are particularly active in Romance verb inflection. They reveal themselves as a powerful force in morphological changes and innovations as a consequence of the frequent extension of their properties to new paradigms and verbs. But from a synchronic point of view, they also sketch close relations between the forms that constitute a morphome and give great stability to the inflectional system (see Acedo-Matellán, this volume, for a discussion of alternatives to using the morphome to explain these patterns). Given their diachronic and synchronic effects, it is no wonder that Maiden emphasizes the search for a psychological reality for these structures (2018, 1). Having in mind these straightforward theoretical assumptions, let us go to the description of those patterns of distribution, or morphomes, that are more widespread among the Spanish irregular verbs. I have selected four of the various diferent patterns found in Romance languages by Maiden (2018). As will be seen, they are presently recognizable and relatively frequent but also enduring and historically persistent.

5.1 The N-pattern The frst pattern of distribution corresponds to verbs with vowel alternation in the root and is one of the most extended throughout Romance languages. As Maiden (2018, 167) explains, its name comes from the resemblance of the disposition of the cells in a table like that in (13) with the letter N in Morse code:—·. This N-pattern comprises all tenses of the present stem and in each tense opposes forms of 1PL and 2PL to the rest: 144

Basic infectional structure of verbs II

(13) The N-pattern cells: PR IND PR SUBJ IMP IMP IND PRET IMP SUBJ FUT COND

Present stem

Preterit stem

Future stem

1SG 1SG 1SG 1SG 1SG 1SG 1SG

2SG 2SG 2SG 2SG 2SG 2SG 2SG 2SG

3SG 3SG

1PL 1PL

3SG 3SG 3SG 3SG 3SG

1PL 1PL 1PL 1PL 1PL

2PL 2PL 2PL 2PL 2PL 2PL 2PL 2PL

3PL 3PL 3PL 3PL 3PL 3PL 3PL

Such a distribution scheme is what we fnd in Spanish for verbs that present some of the irregularities of the group classifed previously as type 4.1, that is, verbs with vowel alternation. As shown in the samples in (14), it involves a contrast between rhizotonic forms of the present stem (stress on the root) and arrhizotonic forms (stress on the vowel after the root). The former always have a diphthong, whereas the latter forms have a simple vowel (-e, o- or -i, u- for type 4.1.1, mid and high vowel for type 4.1.3): (14) The N-pattern for irregular verbs of type 4.1: a. Type 4.1.1. Alternation vowel - diphthong (empezar ‘to start’, morder ‘to bite’ - jugar ‘to play’): PR IND

Present stem

PR SUBJ

empiezo muerdo

empiezas muerdes

empieza muerde

empezamos mordemos

empezáis mordéis

empiezan muerden

juego empiece muerda

juegas empieces muerdas

juega empiece muerda

jugamos emepecemos mordamos

jugamos empecéis mordáis

juegue

juegues empieza muerde

juegue

juguemos

juguéis empezad morded

juegan empiecen muerdan jueguen

IMP

juega

jugad

b. Type 4.1.3. Alternation mid vowel e, o - high vowel i, u - diphthong ié - ué (mentir ‘to lie’, dormir ‘to sleep’): PR IND Present stem

PR SUBJ IMP

miento duermo mienta duerma

mientes duermes mientas duermas miente duerme

miente duerme mienta duerma

mentimos dormimos mintamos durmamos

mentís dormís mintáis durmáis mentid dormid

mienten duermen mientan duerman

The original conditioning of this distribution pattern is clearly phonological and has to do with the stress and the length of the corresponding Latin vowels. Thus, verbs with Latin short ě or ŏ in the root will have a diphthong in Spanish in the rhizotonic forms. But, as Maiden (2018, 168–69, 234–35) convincingly argues, this primitive phonological explanation no longer functions. First of all, the position of stress in Spanish is fully morphologized and relies on factors 145

Bruno Camus Bergareche

such as stem or tense, so that the forms with diphthong in the present stem tenses are determined ultimately by these morphological conditions of the paradigm. Consequently, the 1PL and 2PL of the present of verbs of the third conjugation in Latin, which were rhizotonic, have been adjusted to the morphological stress and are now arrhizotonic: (15) Present indicative of perder ‘to lose’ (< Latin third conj. perděre): pierdo, pierdes pierde, perdémos (≠ Lat. pérdĭmus), perdéis, (≠ Lat. pérdĭtis), pierden Similarly, although the present of the previous verbs stressed in the penultimate syllable of the root in Latin used to have this same stress in Medieval Spanish, as in signífca (‘to mean’ 3SG), they soon adopted the morphological stress pattern: > signifíca (Penny 2002, 155–56). These changes on the original stress and its substitution for a paradigmatic stress can be viewed as an efect of the N-pattern. In fact, Maiden (2018) gathers many other changes of this same kind in other Romance languages. Among them, he includes the invention of the new widespread -esc- verb class and its forms as one of the most salient cases of extension of the N-pattern. There is no such verb class in Spanish, but an efect of similar importance can be considered instead. That is the expansion of the Spanish N-pattern with diphthong in the root to verbs that did not have a short ě or ŏ in Latin. Although they could not possibly have a diphthong, they have been attracted to this pattern and become a verb of type 1.1. This is the case for verbs like pensar ‘to think’ (pienso), plegar ‘to fold’ (pliego), colar ‘to strain’ (cuelo), consolar ‘to confort’ (consuelo) and so on. Given the powerful presence of this N-pattern distribution, at least among Romance verb paradigms, it is legitimate to wonder about the motivation of the repartition of exponents it entails. Maiden (2018, 229–31) suggests that the N-pattern may be interpreted as a way of diferentiating unmarked forms. Thus we will detach by means of a specifc phonological trait, the diphthong, unmarked present tense, unmarked singular and unmarked third person, as seen in N-pattern cells of (13). The argument is clearer if we look at the other side of the procedure and at the forms that do not have the characteristic feature of the N-pattern: 1PL and 2PL forms. It seems that this special treatment for these two persons of speech is found in many other areas of Romance verb infection, in Latin and outside the Romance world, in other languages. The N-pattern would then be somewhat motivated by and thus reinforce the specifcity of 1PL and 2PL.

5.2 The L-pattern The L-pattern also often recurs in other Romance languages and corresponds to verbs with consonant alternation in the root. The name comes from the shape of a rotated L letter that appears when represented in a table such as the one in (16). As this table shows, the typical L-pattern cells are to be found in present stem tenses and include all the forms in the present subjunctive but only 1SG in the present indicative:

146

Basic infectional structure of verbs II

(16) The L-pattern cells: Present stem

Preterit stem

Future stem

PR IND PR SUBJ IMP IMP IND PRET IMP SUBJ FUT COND

1SG 1SG 1SG 1SG 1SG 1SG 1SG

2SG 2SG 2SG 2SG 2SG 2SG 2SG 2SG

3SG 3SG

1pl. 1pl.

3SG 3SG 3SG 3SG 3SG

1pl. 1pl. 1pl. 1pl. 1pl.

2PL 2PL 2PL 2PL 2PL 2PL 2PL 2PL

3PL 3PL 3PL 3PL 3PL 3PL 3PL

All the verbs included in the irregular type 4.2 of the list in section 4 present this pattern of alternation between forms with or without consonant insertion. Verb forms in (17) are a sample of the L-pattern in Spanish: (17) The L-pattern for irregular verbs of type 4.2 (salir ‘to go out’, lucir ‘to brighten’): PR IND Present stem

PR SUBJ

salgo luzco salga luzca

sales luces salgas luzcas

sale luce salga luzca

salimos lucimos salgamos luzcamos

salís lucís salgáis luzcáis

salen lucen salgan luzcan

As with the N-pattern, there existed a phonological explanation for this alternation that goes back to palatalization and lenition processes in Latin. These early changes afected the original fnal consonant of the verb root and resulted in a diferentiation of the 1SG of the present indicative and all present subjunctive forms. In many Romance languages, these changes also included the 3PL of the present indicative, which gives rise to the U-pattern variant. But there are many other extensions to other forms and even stems throughout Romance languages and dialects that prove what Maiden (2018, 91–92) claims to be a remarkably robust behaviour in diachrony for this pattern. Clearly enough, these replications must be connected to the loss of its phonological motivation. Actually, there is no Romance language with a phonological rule for palatalization or lenition of the relevant consonants and paradigmatic cells, so that, once again, we can witness here the emergence of a pattern subject only to morphological principles, a morphome. The history and development of this L-pattern in Spanish is not so remarkable, but it is not difcult to fnd evidence of the extension of the pattern beyond its previous phonological requirements. Probably the best argument has to do with the absence of the original palatal consonants in the irregular stems of this type in Spanish, as we saw in examples (5–8). This means that Spanish has distributed the resulting modifcations, mainly velar insertion, regardless of any phonological condition. In this new ordering of the original irregularity, two diferent paradigmatic efects are to be found. First, only a few types of consonant insertion were selected and then extended to other verbs and forms that did not have it. This is the case, for instance, for the verbs traer or caer. They originally had trayo, cayo in 1SG of the present indicative (and caya, traya and so on in the present subjunctive) but developed a velar variant for the present stem: caigo, traigo and so on. And there are also verb forms that undergo changes that are clear L-pattern efects. The verb hacer adopts a new 1SG form hago in the present indicative, contrary to the expected form from Latin facio, to accommodate present subjunctive forms haga, hagas and so on and the more general irregular present stems with velar insertion. 147

Bruno Camus Bergareche

But it is also true that the primitive phonological nature of the L-pattern can still be traced in the current morphome in Spanish and in other Romance languages, as Maiden (2018, 161) points out. It is worth noting in this respect that the cells of the L-pattern continue to be the same that were afected in Latin by the necessary phonological changes, so that the connection between them remains. Moreover, the L-pattern in Spanish continues to be limited to second and third conjugation verbs, because it was originally conditioned by the presence of a front vowel after the root, that is, the second, third and fourth conjugations in Latin. Again, the phonology seems to hide behind morphology. Finally, there is a last issue concerning precisely this connection between the L-pattern and the second/third conjugation class. It is been claimed—at least in Spanish—that the pattern is no longer in use due to the fact that is confned to these unproductive conjugation classes. But even if this were the case and no psychological reality could be found for the L-pattern in modern Spanish, its diachronic relevance is indisputable (Maiden 2018, 164–65). In this regard, the suggestion in Fábregas (2013, 194) about a possible external motivation for the L-pattern is interesting, as there exists a strong relation between 1SG, the speaker and the subjectivity corresponding to the Subjunctive mood.

5.3 The perfecto y tiempos afnes pattern This PYTA pattern—its acronym derived from the Spanish perfecto y tiempos afnes ‘perfect and related tenses’—is inherited from the Latin perfect tenses in all the Romance language varieties. It therefore corresponds to variants of the preterit stem that can appear in the preterit and imperfect subjunctive (and also the future subjunctive wherever it exists): (18) The PYTA pattern cells: Preterit 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

Imperfect subjunctive 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

(future subjunctive) 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

The PYTA pattern is represented in Spanish by verbs with strong preterit stems, that is, irregular verbs of type 4.3: (19) The PYTA pattern for irregular verbs of type 3 (andar ‘to walk’): Preterit anduve anduviste anduvo anduvimos anduvisteis anduvieron

Imperfect subjunctive anduviera/anduviese anduvieras/anduvieses anduviera/anduviese anduviéramos/anduviésemos anduvierais/anduvieseis anduvieran/anduviesen

(future subjunctive) anduviere anduvieres anduviere anduviéremos anduviereis anduvieren

Despite being the continuation of Latin strong perfects, the PYTA pattern has a life of its own in Romance languages, including Spanish. It closely links the development and materialization 148

Basic infectional structure of verbs II

of just these two (or three) tenses of the preterit stem and all the corresponding cells of their paradigms. This relation implies that the specifc PYTA stems tend to develop some autonomy as a group and converge in an increasingly smaller set of variants. Furthermore, these variants are independent and often diferent from those present in Latin. The strong roots of Spanish are a good example. There has been a reduction of possible variants and a growth of some of them, such as the -uj- type of conduje, introduje and so on or the -uv- type of estuve, hube, tuve, anduve and so on. This last one has even caused the original -id- form of verbs like estar to disappear. Many verbs with a strong stem in Latin lost this irregularity (crecer ‘to grow’), but there are others that were incorporated into the pattern (andar). As a morphome, the PYTA pattern also implies that any change in one of its cells will consequently afect the rest of them. Thus, the original high vowel /i, u/ in the 1SG of some preterits (dije, puse . . .) was extended to other verbs with an original mid vowel, such as haber/(h)ove > hube and then to the rest of the forms and tenses in the PYTA pattern. The consequence is that PYTA stems in Modern Spanish have generalized these high vowels, with the only exception of traer/traje. This highly coherent behaviour within the PYTA pattern could be explained after some semantic relation between the preterit and imperfect subjunctive (and the future subjunctive) but, as Maiden (2018, 80–81) claims, no connection has been convincingly proved so far. That said, however idiosyncratic the forms and semantically and functionally disparate the tenses, the PYTA pattern remains relatively easy to learn for speakers as long as it shows formal cohesion and stability.

5.4 The future and conditional pattern This last FUÉC pattern—its acronym referring to the future and conditional—establishes a strong formal relation between the complete paradigms of the future and conditional tenses in Romance languages on the basis of its specifc unstressed stem: (20) The FUÉC pattern cells: Future 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

Conditional 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

This pattern in Spanish corresponds to the future stem tenses in its irregular variant, verbs of type 4.4, as shown in the sample in (21), but also in its regular form of Tables 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6 previously: (21) The FUÉC pattern for irregular verbs of type 4.4 (valer ‘to cost’): Future valdré valdrás valdrá valdremos valdréis valdrán

Conditional valdría valdrías valdría valdríamos valdríais valdrían

149

Bruno Camus Bergareche

This pattern again has an explanation from Latin forms. In this case, the origin is the periphrasis built on the infnitive and habere. But in modern Romance languages the primitive relationship between the infnitive and the corresponding future stem is blurred and not necessarily transparent for the average speaker. Instead, the current relation between the future forms on the one hand and the conditional forms on the other is indisputable, since they share a perfectly identical stem in all their forms, regular or irregular (Maiden 2018, 265). In other words, once again, this pattern constitutes a morphome. Changes in one of their cells will drag forms of other cells in the same direction. That is exactly what we see in the emergence of the irregular future stem in Spanish. Despite some phonetic resemblances, its expansion can be accounted for independently and on the basis of paradigmatic principles. Finally, there seems to be some semantic motivation behind this close proximity between the future and conditional. In fact, both tenses point to a future time, the former from the time of utterance, the latter from a reference point in the past. Although the conditional has acquired new meanings, at least in Spanish the ‘future in the past’ sense is still active and guarantees the formal and semantic cohesion of the so-called FUÉC pattern (Maiden 2018, 266).

Acknowledgements I want to thank Patrick Shutt for the language revision of a preliminary version.

Notes 1 See Blevins, Ackerman, and Malouf (2019, 266–70) for the development of Word and Paradigm models. 2 For new WP models, see Anderson (1992) or Stump (2001). Parallel views are to be found in Zwicky (1985); Aronof (1994); Beard (1995) and recently Blevins (2016). 3 Reference grammars usually include another tense, the future subjunctive, in -re (amare, amares, amare . . .). It is an archaic and disused tense, rarely found nowadays even in formal written style. Therefore I have chosen to discard it from the general description of the Spanish verb system. 4 The verb decir presents also e - i alternation in the present stem: digo, dices, dice, but decimos, decís and so on. 5 The old future subjunctive also took this strong preterit stem: tuviere as in tuve, preterit of tener.

References Alcoba, S. 1999. “La Flexión Verbal.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, dirs. I. Bosque and V. Demonte, vol. 3, 4915–91. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Ambadiang, T. 2016. “Flexión Verbal.” In Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica, edited by J. Gutiérrez-Rexach, vol. 2, 584–94. London: Routledge. Ambadiang, T., B. Camus, and I. García Parejo. 2008. “Representación, procesamiento y uso en la morfología del verbo español.” Verba 35: 7–34. Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aronof, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Beard, R. S. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Infection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Blevins, J. P. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blevins, J. P., F. Ackerman, and. R. Malouf. 2019. “Word and Paradigm Morphology.” In Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory, edited by J. Audring and F. Masini, 265–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fábregas, A. 2013. La Morfología. El análisis de la palabra compleja. Madrid: Síntesis. Fábregas, A., and S. Scalise. 2012. Morphology: From Data to Theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

150

Basic infectional structure of verbs II

Hockett, C. F. 1954. “Two Models of Grammatical Description.” Word 10 (2–3): 210–34. Janda, R. 1993. “Metrical Phonology  & the ‘Columnar’ Morphology of  Spanish Verb-Stress.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Linguists, edited by A. Crochetière, J.-C. Boulanger, and C. Ouellon, vol. 1, 51–54. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université de Laval. Maiden, M. 2018. The Romance Verb. Morphomic Structure and Diachrony. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matthews, P. H. 1972. Infectional Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Penny, R. 2002. A History of the Spanish Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pérez Saldanya, M. 2012. “Morphological Structure of Verbal Forms.” In The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, edited by J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, and E. O’Rourke, 227–46. Oxford: Wilry-Blackwell. Real Academia Epañola and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Saussure, F. de. 1916/1967. Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique T. de Mauro. Paris: Payot. Stump, G. T. 2001. Infectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zwicky, A. M. 1985. “How to Describe Infection.” In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 372–86. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

151

11 The basic infectional structure of adjectives Alberto PastorInfectional structure of adjectives

Degree and agreement

(La estructura fexiva de los adjetivos: grado y concordancia)

Alberto Pastor

1 Introduction This chapter explores the infectional properties of adjectives, which include agreement in gender and number with head nouns and possibly the morphological manifestation of degree, which according to some authors should, however, be considered a derivational property. Keywords: agreement; degree; adjectives; gender; number Este capítulo explora las propiedades fexivas de los adjetivos, las cuales incluyen la concordancia en género y número con el nombre, y la posible manifestación morfológica del grado, la cual según algunos autores, no obstante, debería ser considerada una propiedad derivativa. Palabras clave: concordancia; grado; adjetivos; género; número

2 Adjectival infection and agreement In Spanish, nouns agree with their modifers (determiners, quantifers and adjectives) in gender and number. Thus, speakers utter el niño alto (the tall boy), la montaña alta (the high mountain), los niños altos (the tall boys), las montañas altas (the high mountains), with agreement in gender and number between the noun and the adjectives and determiners modifying it. Gender is an inherent property of nouns and pronouns, which produces efects in the agreement processes with determiners, quantifers and adjectives (see Camacho, this volume). These types of words reproduce the gender features of the nouns and pronouns: (1) La silla Det.f.sg chair.f.sg The chair

blanca white.f.sg white

Nouns and pronouns have inherent gender features, while other types of words, including adjectives, acquire gender features through agreement. In other words, the noun’s gender 152

Infectional structure of adjectives

features extend to the noun phrase where the noun is generated. Hence the adjective blanca (white) in la silla de ofcina blanca (the white ofce chair), agrees with the noun silla and, by extension, with the whole noun phrase. Adjectival gender infection lacks any meaning, because it is an agreement marker. Number infection also lacks semantic interpretation in the adjective, and it appears on the adjective as a formal manifestation of the noun’s plural features. Therefore, gender and number features in an adjective such as rojo (red) do not provide information in the noun phrase los coches rojos (the red cars). Number features in the noun coches (car-plural) provide information about the members included in the class denoted by the noun. Although agreement between adjective and noun does not encode semantic relationships, plural can condition the interpretation of certain adjectives and contribute to defning their semantic relationship with the noun they modify, especially if count nouns are contrasted with mass nouns such as in abundante pelo ‘abundant hair’ vs. abundantes lágrimas ‘many tears’. When adjectives are coordinated and in singular, they do not show a plural marker that agrees with the noun (dos novelas largas ‘two novels long-plural’ or dos novelas cortas ‘two novels short-plural’ but not *dos novelas larga y corta ‘two novels-plural long and short’). However, relational adjectives can show that type of plural-singular plus singular agreement sometimes: las políticas agraria y pesquera del gobierno ‘the policies agrarian-singular and fshing-singular of the government’; mis abuelas paterna y materna ‘my grandmothers paternal-singular and maternal-singular), as can ordinal adjectives: los capítulos primero y segundo ‘the chapters frst-singular and second-singular’.

2.1 Infectional types of adjectives From an infectional standpoint, adjectives in Spanish are classifed in three groups according to the Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española (RAE 2009) A B C

Adjectives with gender and number infection Adjectives with number infection but lacking gender infection Adjectives that are invariable in gender and number

Group A includes a large number of adjectives that give rise to four form paradigms: oso pardo (bear-masc grizzly-masc)/osa parda (bear-fem grizzly-fem)/osos pardos (bear-masc-plur grizzlymasc-plur)/osas pardas (bear-fem-plur grizzly-fem plur). These adjectives are known as twoending adjectives. Gender infection in this paradigm is marked in most cases by the sufx -a: alta (tall-fem), guapa (beautiful-fem), española (Spanish-fem), and so on. In general, gender infection is found in simple adjectives, derived adjectives and compound adjectives ending in -o (alto-alta ‘tall’), án (catalán-catalana ‘Catalan’), -ote (muchachote-muchachota ‘big young boy/girl’), -ete (regordete-regordeta ‘chubby’); those adjectives ending in -s (escocés-escocesa ‘Scottish’, with the exception of cortés ‘polite’, descortés ‘rude’, gris ‘gray’ and montés ‘wild’) and adjectives ending in -n, with the exception of aborigen ‘aboriginal’, virgin ‘virgin’, joven ‘young’, afín ‘related’, ruin ‘despicable’, común ‘common’ and marrón ‘brown’ (Ambadiang 1993). A  higher number of exceptions are found in adjectives ending in -or, -er, -ur and -ir. Less frequent are adjectives that are exclusively used in feminine, as in encinta (pregnant). Although adjectives ending in -ora belong to Group A (fuerza impulsora ‘driving force’, guía rectora ‘governing guide’), some alternate with variants in -iz (fuerza motora-fuerza motriz ‘driving force’; automotora-automotriz ‘motorized’). Group B includes a smaller but still plentiful number of adjectives called one-ending adjectives. The paradigms in this group only show two variants: singular and plural, as in posible candidato/candidata (possible candidate), posibles candidatos/candidatas (possible candidates). This group 153

Alberto Pastor

includes numerous adjectives ending in -e (bilingüe ‘bilingual, culpable ‘guilty’, inerme ‘defenseless’, leve ‘minor’, ovoide ‘ovoid’, triste ‘sad’, verde ‘green’). Many derived adjectives ending in -ete/-eta, -ote/-ota are exceptions, since they belong to group A: regordete-regordeta (chubby). Adjectives ending in other vowels also belong to group B: -i and -í cursi (kitsch), baladí (trivial), marroquí (Moroccan); -a (ácrata ‘anarchist’), agrícola ‘agricultural’, azteca ‘Aztec’, belga ‘Belgian’, hipócrita ‘hypocritical’); -ú (hindú ‘Hindu’, zulú ‘Zulu’), as do most adjectives ending in the consonants -z, -r, -l, and -s (audaz ‘audacious’, feliz ‘happy’, feroz ‘ferocious’, soez ‘rude’). However, andaluz ‘Andalusian’ belongs to group A (andaluza ‘Andalusian-fem’). The sufx -ar is characteristic of this group: polar (polar), familiar (familiar), celular (cellular), escolar (scholastic). A high number adjectives ending in -or, -er, -ur and -ir do not display variation, including derived forms with the Latin sufx -ior: mejor (better), inferior (inferior), superior (superior), ulterior (subsequent), citerior (domestic) and superior (superior; except for madre superiora ‘chief nun’ or madre priora ‘mother prioress’, which belong to group A; also the adjective mayor [major], peor [worse], and adjectives that derived from color [tricolor ‘tricolor’, multicolor ‘multicolor’, etc.] in addition to other terms such as prócer ‘hero’, púber ‘pubescent’, astur ‘Asturian’ and ligur ‘Ligurian’). Numerous adjectives ending in -l belong to this group, particularly those adjectives formed with the sufx -al (industrial ‘industrial’, fundamental ‘fundamental’, nacional ‘national’, liberal ‘liberal’, etc.); those ending in stressed syllable -il (infantil ‘infantile’, juvenil ‘juvenile’, civil ‘civil’, mercantil ‘mercantile’); also, hábil ‘skillful’, útil ‘useful’, grácil ‘graceful’ , táctil ‘tactile’, portátil ‘portable’. Some adjectives ending in -es belong to this group, such as cortés (polite) or montés (wild), but most demonyms are part of Group A: francés (French), irlandés (Irish), and so on. Adjectives ending in -a, -e, í, -e, -ar, -z and -al are also invariable with respect to gender (alerta ‘alert’, iraní ‘Iranian’, dulce ‘sweet’, escalar ‘scalar’, ágil ‘agile’, cruel ‘cruel’, genial ‘genius’, audaz ‘audacious’, feliz ‘happy’, falaz ‘false’) (Cf. RAE 1973, 2.4; Butt and Benjamin 1988, 39–40). Group C includes adjectives ending in -s (in unstressed syllables), such as isósceles (isosceles) and gratis (free). Also, a set of adjectives that are inherently formed in plural: cachas (muscular), frescales (cheeky), guaperas (gorgeous, arrogant), locates (crazy), loqueras (crazy), rubiales (blond). Some loan words are also invariable, such as unisex, light or heavy from English, or gagá from French. Some adjectives that undergo shortening processes oscillate between groups B and C such as depre (depressed) in estamos un poco depre/depres (We are a bit depressed) or repe (repeated) in estos cromos los tengo repe/repes (I have these cards repeated) (see Torres Tamarit, this volume, for details on shortening, or truncation). In general, the plural form is more frequent, with the exception of the adjectives porno (películas porno ‘porn movies’), tecno (músicas tecno ‘techno music’), reven (reventado ‘exhausted’, in Mexico), extra (as a synonym for superior, aceite extra ‘supreme oil’; however, it pluralizes with the meaning ‘additional’: horas extras ‘extra hours’) (RAE 2009). This type of shortening is diferent from apocope: santo/san (saint). Apocope implies deleting the gender sufxes in some singular adjectives (and determiners) when they appear to the left of a masculine noun (cualquier buen primer día ‘any good frst day’) (Ambadiang 1993). Apocope is found in adjectives such as bueno (good), santo (saint), and grande (big). While Harris (1996, 113) argues that the shortening that is characteristic in these forms is determined by lexical, morphological and syntactic factors, Wong-Opasi (1991) claims that it is due to phonological and syntactic factors. With respect to the syntactic contexts in which the shortening takes place, it is widely understood that the determiner must be next to the adjective that is adjacent to the head of the noun phrase. Postnominal adjectives do not undergo apocope: el primer día/el día primero ‘the frst day’ (Ambadiang 1993).

154

Infectional structure of adjectives

2.2 Agreement marking: syntax and shape From a syntactic point of view, gender infection has to do with the relationship that is established between features and gender markers in nouns and the adjectives that agree with them (Wonder 1978). Adjectives agree with nouns with respect to the gender feature but not necessarily with respect to the sufxes or markers, which can be very diferent (Ambadiang 1993). Some linguists, such as Baker (1991, 90–93), suggest that agreement takes place in syntax, where the gender feature in the noun is copied in the adjective, while the nature of the sufxes exclusively belongs to syntax. From a morphological point of view, despite the fact that, generally speaking, adjectives display the canonical gender markers, some adjectives are invariable with respect to gender (Morales Pettorino 1980–81). Adjectives (and determiners) make explicit the gender and number features of the noun when the noun lacks gender and plural markers as in lunes negro/negros (black Monday/s), crisis violenta/violentas (violent crisis/crises). Similarly, Group A (two-endings) adjectives perform a diacritic function with respect to gender when they modify common nouns: estudiantes destacados/destacadas (outstanding students) (RAE 2009). Gender infection must be distinguished from processes involving markers, homonym forms or unique forms rendering pairs of derived words such as: naranja/naranjo (orange/orange tree), and el/la naranja (the orange color, the orange) (Ambadiang 1993; Camacho, this volume). Regarding number infection in agreement processes, note that based on their morphonological confguration, noun plural formation involves adding -s (gatos ‘cats’, libros ‘books’, pesas ‘weights’), -es (redes ‘nets’, papeles ‘papers’, reyes ‘kings’) or no variation at all (bíceps ‘biceps’, cosmos ‘cosmos’, crisis ‘crises’, lavaplatos ‘dishwashers’, lunes ‘Mondays’, torax ‘chest’) (see Camacho, this volume). Adjectival plurality markers are formed in the same manner as in nouns: altos ‘tall-masc-pl’, altas ‘tall-fem-pl’ (adding of -s), jóvenes ‘young-pl’ (adding of -es) and gratis in bebidas gratis ‘free drinks’ (no variation) (Ambadiang 1993). The only diference is that there are not adjectives whose confguration prevents adjunction of -(e)s since all adjectives, with the exception of forms such as isosceles ‘isosceles’ and gratis ‘free’, end in a vowel, consonant or the Vs sequence with stress on the vowel (Ambadiang 1993). Therefore, all adjectives have one plural form next to the singular form, leaving aside forms of the sort (not entirely adjectival) extra or just one plural form (una madre vivales ‘a lively mother’, una moza rubiales ‘a blond girl’). Regarding compound adjectives, they allow the plural marker on the second term (guerras árabe-israelíes ‘Arab-Israeli wars’; palabras altisonantes ‘soaring words’; estudios semántico-generativos ‘semantic-generative studies’). Words that can be both nouns and adjectives (RAE 1973, 2.4) regularly allow plural infectional morphology in appositional structures (las casas vecinas ‘neighboring houses’; los pueblos amigos ‘the friendly towns’), contrasting with nouns (conejos macho ‘male rabbits’, ranas hembra ‘female frogs’). Some color nouns tend to be invariable when used as adjectives (luces violeta ‘violet lights’, fores carmín ‘carmine fowers’, labios rosa ‘pink lips’, pantalones beige ‘beige pants’). Conversely, both mujer ‘woman-female’ and varón ‘male-masculine’, as well as other color names such as amarillo ‘yellow’, azul ‘blue’, blanco ‘white’, marrón ‘brown’, negro ‘black’, and so on, allow plural markers (soldados mujeres ‘woman soldiers’, hijos varones ‘male children’, manchas azules ‘blue stains’), except for when they are followed by a modifer (botas rojo oscuro ‘dark red boots’, camisas azul claro ‘light blue shirt’). Adjectives can agree with both the noun and determiners with respect to gender features but not necessarily with respect to plural markers (Ambadiang 1993). In other words, gender in adjectives depends on the interaction that takes place inside noun phrases between a noun’s gender and the determiner that precedes it inside the noun phrase. Diferent results arise from

155

Alberto Pastor

that interaction. On the one hand, the determiner and the noun in their singular form can determine together, but in a contradictory manner, the gender agreement within the noun phrase or a sentence (el único área sana ‘the only healthy area’, el otro ave ‘the other bird’, el mismo arma ‘the same weapon’, etc.). Contrary to the norm, according to which the presence of an adjective to the left of the noun makes the gender of the noun prevail in the whole noun phrase (compare el hada ‘the fairy’ and la buena hada ‘the good fairy’, for instance), in these cases, not only can the noun’s gender prevail (el África contemporánea ‘contemporaneous Africa’, el alma humana ‘the human soul’) but also the determiner’s gender (el arma mágico ‘the magic weapon’, aquel alba puro ‘that pure dawn’). In marginal cases of the latter type, masculine agreement can be extended to the plural, such as in aquellos albas puros ‘those pure dawns’ (Ambadiang 1993).

3 Degree adjectival morphology: derivation vs. infection 3.1 The morphological marking of degree There is a relatively small set of afxes in Spanish that attach to adjectival roots to convey meaning related to the notion of degree, that is, the extent to which the property denoted by the adjective is applied to an individual. (2) menor (smaller), mayor (bigger), peor (worst), mejor (better), superior (higher), inferior (lower). (3) a. -ísimo: altísimo (extremely tall) b. -érrimo: paupérrimo (extremely poor) (4) a. súper-: superinteligente (superintelligent) b. sobre-: sobrehumano (superhuman) c. ultra-: ultraligero (ultralight) d. meg-: megapijo (super-preppy) e. hiper-: hiperactivo (hyperactive) f. archi: archifamoso (super-famous) (5) a. re-: reguapo (extremely handsome) b. requete-: requetealto (extremely tall) (6) a. medio-: mediovacío (half empty) b. semi-: semilleno (half full) Spanish does not have comparative sufxation (Varela 2012). The old Latin comparative sufxes are not active any longer, although they appear in some residual formations with a comparative meaning, such as those illustrated in (2): mejor ‘better’, peor ’worse’, mayor ‘bigger’, menor ‘smaller’, superior ‘higher’, inferior ‘lower’. The only morpheme with a degree meaning that has remained in Spanish is -ísim {-o/-a} in (3) (Varela 2012). Applied to a qualitative adjective, this sufx denotes the quality in its higher or more intense degree. Thus, the adjective bueno ‘good’ receives the meaning ‘extremely good’ when the sufx -ísimo (buenísimo) is attached to it. More restrictively, the sufx -érrim{-o/-a} also adds an extreme degree reading such as in celebérrimo (famous-érrimo ‘extremely famous’) or paupérrimo (poor-érrimo ‘extremely poor’), which alternate with the forms famosísimo ‘famous-ísimo’ and pobrísimo ‘poor-ísimo’.

156

Infectional structure of adjectives

An extreme degree reading can also be added to the adjective by attaching the prefxes súper-, sobre-, ultra-, hiper, mega- and archi in (4), which form adjectives such as superinteligente (superintelligent), sobrehumano (superhuman), ultraligero (microlight), megapijo (super-preppy), hiperactivo (hyperactive) and archifamoso (super-famous) (see also Kornfeld, this volume, for the view that these prefxes are actually appreciative). These prefxes are highly restricted with respect to the lexical forms to which they are attached. It would be very uncommon to hear the following derived adjectives: sobresimpáticos (super-nice), ultraguapo (ultra-handsome), or archihumano (archi-human), for instance. Conversely, the sufx -ísim {-o/-a} is highly productive in Spanish and can attach to any gradable adjective. The adjectival degree forms in (2) and (3) form a subclass of degree expressions known as “elatives” together with adjectives such as hermoso ‘gorgeous’, exhausto ‘exhausted’ and degree constructions including degree adverbs such as increíblemente alto ‘incredibly tall’, tremendamente difícil ‘tremendously difcult’ (Pastor 2008, 2011). Elatives share an extreme degree reading and syntactic properties such as combining with the exclamative/emphatic degree operator lo ‘how’: lo increíblemente guapa/guapísima/hermosa/ *muy guapa/ *bastante guapa que está Carmen (how incredibly pretty/gorgeous//*very pretty/*so pretty Carmen is!) (Pastor 2011). Two additional instances of morphological degree forms in Spanish are gradable adjectives formed with the prefxes re-(re-alto ‘re-tall’; very tall) and requete- (requete-alto ‘requete-tall’ very, very tall) in (5), which have similar high-degree readings as elatives but have diferent syntactic properties: *lo reguapa que está Carmen ‘*how re-pretty Carmen is’. Somewhat related to the notion of gradability are the prefxes medio- (mediolleno ‘half-full’) and semi- (semivacío ‘halfempty’) in (6).

3.2 Degree: infection or derivation? Further study of Spanish degree adjectival morphology allows us to participate in theoretical discussions about the distinction between infectional and derivational morphological processes, especially with regard to the properties of gradable adjectives formed with the elative sufx -ísimo. It is controversial whether the morphological manifestation of degree should be considered a derivational or an infectional property (see Felíu, this volume, and Mendívil, this volume). Prefxes such as re-, requete-, super-, ultra- and so on in (4)–(6) previously are consistently considered derivational based on the general rule that infection is only carried out through sufxation in Spanish. Also, the elative sufx -ísimo is widely considered derivational in the literature. For instance, Eguren (2001) and Varela (2012) extend their analysis of evaluative suffxation (diminutives -ito/illo/ino/ico) to elative -ísimo. According to Eguren (2001), evaluative sufxes in languages such as Spanish mostly behave like prefxes do: a) they are added to nouns, adjectives and (some) adverbs, resulting in a violation of the Unitary Base Principle (cas-ita, ‘house-ita’; pequeñito, ‘small-ito’); b) they do not alter any of the features of the lexical root they combine with (casa + N Fem, cas-ita +N fem; pequeño + A masc, pequeñ-ito +A masc . . .); c) they lack a word marker of their own (see Harris 1991): cas+a cas+it+a (house+wm+DIM), tont-o tont+it-o (silly+wm+DIM), lej-os le-jit-os (far+wm+DIM); and d) fnally, they can be iterated (cas+IT+IN+a house+DIM+DIM+wm; guap+IT+IN+a pretty+DIM+DIM+wm) (see Kornfeld, this volume). Moreover, unlike other prefxes, evaluative sufxes in Spanish force stress displacement, as sufxes in this language usually do (casa < casita; tonto>tontito; lejos>lejitos). Eguren (2001) uses diminutive -IT- formation in Spanish to illustrate non-head sufxation and extends the proposal

157

Alberto Pastor

to all evaluative sufxes and to morphological elatives, the latter added to (sub)categories that are gradable (pequeñ-ÍSIMO ‘small-elative’, cerqu-ÍSIMA ‘near-elative’, *Juan-ÍSIMO ‘*Johnelative’, *cas-ÍSIMA ‘*house-elative’, *debaj-ÍSIMO ‘*under-elative’). Similarly to diminutives, elative -ísimo is added to gradable adjectives, as in altísimo ‘tall-elative’ (and gradable adverbs: lejísimos ‘far-elative’), but not to non-gradable adjectives (*eléctricísimo ‘electric-elative’). More restrictively, some nouns denoting kinship relations may manifest this sufx in order to convey the meaning of an intense infuence of the person holding this relation to a political authority (yernísimo ‘son-in-law+ísimo’) or just to convert the noun into an elative adjective (padrísimo ‘father+ísimo’; cool) (Varela 2012). Also, morphological elative -ísimo does not alter any of the features of the lexical root it combines with (alta+ A Fem, alt-ísim +A fem; yern-o +N masc, yern-ísim-o +N masc). Furthermore, it lacks a word marker of its own (see Harris 1991): alt+a alt+ísim+a (tall+wm+DIM), tont-o tont+it-o (silly+wm+DIM), lej-os le-jit-os (far+wm+DIM). Whenever -ísimo (or a diminutive) is added to adjectival roots, gender is specifed in terms of one of its two canonical exponents, o/a, even in those cases in which the base does not carry such overt markers: fuerte-fortísimo/a. Moreover, just like diminutives, elative sufxes in Spanish force stress displacement, as sufxes in this language usually do (tonto>tontísimo). Lastly, iteration with elatives—although not very common—is also possible in Spanish: guap-is-ísim-a; lej-is-ísim-os. Despite the aforementioned formal similarities with some derivational afxes, adjectival degree morphology has some characteristics that separate it from word-formation processes and bring it closer to a lexeme’s paradigm membership, specifcally considering the empirical criteria that have been invoked in drawing the distinction between infection and derivation. At least fve criteria are commonly used to distinguish infection from derivation (Stump 1998): a) change in lexical meaning or part of speech, b) syntactic determination, c) productivity, d) semantic regularity, and e) closure. a) Change in lexical meaning or part of speech: Two expressions related by principles of derivation may difer in their lexical meaning, their part-of-speech membership or both, but two expressions belonging to the same infectional paradigm will share both their lexical meaning and their part of speech—that is, any diferences in their grammatical behavior will stem purely from the morphosyntactic properties that distinguish the cells of a paradigm. By this criterion, the rule of adjectivization which produces canoso from cana must be derivational, while the rule of pluralization which produces canas from cana need not be. When the elative sufx -ísimo is added to the adjective alto ‘tall”, the resulting adjective altísimo ‘tall-elative’ does not undergo a category change and denotes the same basic adjectival property with an extreme degree reading added to it. Similarly, prefxes re- and requete- realto ‘very tall’ or requetealto ‘super tall’ raise the degree of the property denoted by the adjective. b) Syntactic determination: A lexeme’s syntactic context may require that it be realized by a particular word in its paradigm but never requires that the lexeme itself belong to a particular class of derivatives. Thus, if a lexeme francés ‘French’ is to modify a noun encoded with a feminine gender feature invasión ‘invasion’, it must assume its feminine form: la invasión francesa/*francés ‘the invasion French-fem/*French-masc’. By contrast, there is no syntactic context which requires demonym adjectivization such as francés and therefore excludes simplex (synchronically underived) lexemes such as gabacho ‘French-pejorative’: la invasión francesa/gabacha ‘the French invasion’. In other words, “infectional morphology is what is relevant to the syntax” (Anderson 1982, 587). The logic of infection entails that distinct members of a lexeme’s paradigm carry distinct sets of morphosyntactic properties; in the context of a fully articulated theory of syntax in which such properties are by defnition syntactically relevant, it follows that infectional morphology must itself be syntactically relevant in the indirect sense that it spells out 158

Infectional structure of adjectives

a paradigm’s syntactically contrasting word-forms (Stump 1998). Assuming that the lexeme alto includes both the positive alto ‘tall’ and elative altísimo ‘tall-elative’ in its paradigm entails that there must be syntactic contexts in which these two forms behave diferently. And that is indeed the case. The adjectival lexeme alto in its positive form alto ‘tall’ can combine with all degree words: más/menos/tan/muy/demasiado/un poco/increíblemente/  . . . alto ‘more/less/as/very/too/a bit/incredibly/  .  .  . tall’. However, the elative form altísimo ‘tall-elative’ is excluded in these syntactic environments (*más/*menos/*tan/*muy/*demasiado/*un poco/*increíblemente/  .  .  . altísimo ‘more/less/as/very/too/a bit/incredibly/ . . . tall-elative’), with the exception of the exclamative lo ‘how’: ¡Lo altísimo que está Pedro! (‘how tall-elative Peter is’) (Pastor 2011). c) Productivity: Infection is generally more productive than derivation. In Spanish, for instance, an arbitrarily chosen noun may or may not give rise to a related derived adjective with the adjective-forming sufx -osa: perezosa ‘lazy-fem’ from pereza ‘laziness’ is an existing word in Spanish, but *simpatosa from simpatía ‘friendliness’ is not possible, with simpático ‘friendly-masc’ being its accepted derivative. The elative sufx -ísimo can be added to any adjective as long as the adjective denotes gradable properties. As a matter of fact, the elative sufx -ísimo is the only option in Spanish to convey elative meaning morphologically. Elatives such as enorme ‘huge’, estupenda ‘gorgeous’ or exhausto ‘exhausted’ illustrate cases of lexical suppletion (see Pastor 2008, 2011). The high-degree denoting prefxes re- and requete- are not as productive as the elative sufx -ísimo. While reguapa ‘very pretty’, recaro ‘very expensive’ or rebueno ‘very good’ are commonly found in Spanish, other forms such as rerápido ‘re-fast’, reelegante ‘re-elegant’ or redelicado ‘re-delicate’ would not be as easily accepted. Thus, if infectional paradigms tend to be complete, while derivational relations are often quite sporadic, it can be concluded that elative -ísimo aligns with infectional sufxes in this regard. d) Semantic regularity. Infection is semantically more regular than derivation. Thus, the plural sufx -s in altos ‘tall-plural’ has precisely the same semantic efect from one adjective to the next, while the precise semantic efect of the evaluative sufxes (-ito, -azo, etc.) is somewhat variable. The semantic class of evaluatives comprises a fxed number of sufxes that transmit a diminutive, augmentative or pejorative meaning. However, evaluative meaning cannot be categorically associated with a specifc sufx, because the evaluative or afective connotation that they may transmit depends on the lexical base to which they adjoin and also on the speaker’s intention and the context in which they are produced (Varela 2012). Thus, while diminutive -ito can convey a low degree meaning when added to bajo ‘short’ in el niño bajito ‘the very short kid’ (for instance, while signaling the shortest kid in a group of kids), adding a degree reading is not the only option for evaluative morphology. For example, tontito ‘fool-ito’ has the interpretation of acting silly in tengo un alumno tontito (I have a silly student) instead of the original meaning, ‘fool’ of the root ‘tont-’. Similarly, in the adjective buenazo ‘good-azo’, a derogatory meaning of being naively good in nature is added to the adjectival base buen- ‘good’ (me irrita tener un marido buenazo ‘having a good-natured husband irritates me’). Conversely, adjectives that are formed with the sufx -ísimo regularly and productively receive an elative interpretation. On the assumption that the lexicon lists derivative lexemes, but not infected words, the fact that derived lexemes are listed in the lexicon frees their meanings to “drift” idiosyncratically, as seems to be the case with evaluative sufxation. On the other hand, the fact that regularly infected forms are not listed requires their meanings to remain rule regulated, as observed with the rule underlying elative formation with -ísimo in Spanish. Note that even with newly coined adjectives such as the English loan fotochopeado (from ‘photoshopped’), adding the sufx -ísimo (fotochopeadísimo ‘very photoshopped’) gives rise to an elative meaning. In other words, if in instances of infection, given the meaning of a lexeme L, the meaning associated with each cell in L’s paradigm is in general fully determinate (Stump 1998), then the elative forms of gradable adjectives in Spanish 159

Alberto Pastor

seem to be part of the adjective’s paradigm. Therefore, it could be claimed that elative -ísimo behaves as an infectional afx according to semantic regularity criterion. e) Closure. Infection closes words to further derivation, while derivation does not. On the one hand, Spanish elative and evaluative sufxes do not close words for further infection. For example, an evaluative adjective cannot be derived from an adjective’s infected plural form (*altosito ‘tall-diminutive’) but can be derived from an adjective’s uninfected root, whether or not this is itself derived (alto/altito ‘tall-diminutive’; redondeado/redondeadito ‘round-diminutive’). Similarly, elative -ísimo must always be inserted before infectional gender and number sufxes: *altosísimo ‘tall-masc-plural-elative’. The linear order of sufxes must be: root-elative-gendernumber (altísimos). On the other hand, even though there are not many adjective-adjective derivatives in Spanish, it is still possible to form an elative such as grandiosísimo ‘impressive-elative’ from the derived adjective grandioso ‘big-os-o’ (impressive, grandiose). Note that the elative sufx -ísimo cannot be added to the root before the derivative sufx -os-, therefore closing the word for further derivation: *grandísimoso. In words containing both infectional and derivational afxes, the infectional afxes will always be further from the root than the derivational afxes (except in cases of infxation) (Stump 1998). This criterion has been used to motivate a principle of grammatical organization known as the Split Morphology Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1988), according to which all derivation takes place in the lexicon, prior to lexical insertion, while all regular infection is post-syntactic. Based on the criteria presented previously to distinguish between infection and derivation, we must conclude that degree adjectival morphology is a hybrid, having characteristics of both derivational and infectional processes. This, in turn, takes us to the question of whether the distinction between infection and derivation is illusory. As Aronof (1994, 126) observes, “derivation and infection are not kinds of morphology but rather uses of morphology: infection is the realization of syntax, while derivation is the morphological realization of lexeme formation” (see also Beard 1995). The distinction between infection and derivation presupposes a well-delineated distinction between morphosyntactic properties (such as plural and gender in Spanish). Fundamentally, the latter distinction is one of function (Stump 1998): morphosyntactic properties are phrase-level properties to which syntactic relations such as agreement and government (in the traditional sense) are sensitive; a word’s lexicosemantic properties, by contrast, simply determine the manner in which it enters into the semantic composition of larger constituents. “Plural” is a morphosyntactic property in Spanish because, for instance, a noun agrees with the determiner and adjectives around it with respect to this property. By contrast, Spanish nouns are never required to agree with respect to lexicosemantic properties like being a mass or count noun. Thus, the distinction between infection and derivation is frst and foremost one of function. While derivation serves to encode lexicosemantic relations within the lexicon, the function of infection is to encode phrase-level properties and relations. Typically, a phrase’s morphosyntactic properties are infectionally encoded on its head (Stump 1998).

4 Conclusions Degree is an inherent semantic feature of gradable adjectives (and other dimension-denoting expressions) that has syntactic consequences; specifcally, degree is related to a functional phrase heading the extended projection of the adjective. From a semantic point of view, it is widely accepted that gradable adjectives include the notions of “degree” and “scales” in their denotation. Authors such as Bierwisch (1989), Cresswell (1977) and Kennedy (1999) develop their proposals from two main ideas: a) gradable adjectives project their arguments onto abstract 160

Infectional structure of adjectives

representations of measurement or “degrees”; and b) a set of degrees totally ordered with respect to a dimension (height, price, etc.) constitutes a “scale”. Building upon these assumptions, and following the ideas of Bartsch and Vennemann (1972), Kennedy (1999) analyzes gradable adjectives as “measure functions”. A gradable adjective such as tall is analyzed as a function from the subset of the domain of the individuals that have a value of height to degrees of height. Measure functions turn into properties of individuals by means of degree morphology (more, -er, -est, less, etc.). According to Kennedy, degree morphemes perform two main functions: they provide one of the arguments to the measure function denoted by the adjective and impose restrictions to the degree derived from the application of the adjective to its argument, typically by relating it to another degree. Kennedy develops his proposal from comparative degree terms (more, -er, most, -est, less, as) and the positive form (John is pos-tall for his age) in English and suggests that the measure function analysis can be extended to the rest of degree terms (too, so, very, etc.). On syntactic grounds, it is usually assumed since the works of Abney (1987) and Corver (1991) that gradable adjectives project extended functional structure headed by degree morphology and thus that the extended projection of the adjective corresponds to a degree phrase, not to an adjective phrase. Degree morphemes function as degree operators that saturate the degree argument of the adjective from the head position of the upper degree phrase (Higginbotham 1985; Zwarts 1992; Corver 1997). In other words, if a language’s infectional categories are the categories of morphosyntactic properties which are expressed in its infectional system, then degree is an inherent infectional category of adjectives; the morphosyntactic properties which it comprises serve to distinguish the extent to which a referent evinces some quality. The English adjectival lexeme tall, for instance, has three degrees. The positive tall specifes the quality of tallness without reference to the extent to which it is exhibited; by means of the comparative sufx -er, the comparative degree taller specifes the extent of one referent’s tallness relative to that of some other referent, and by means of the superlative sufx -est, the form tallest specifes extreme tallness relative to some class of referents. English alternates the expression of comparative and elative degrees between infectional sufxes -er and -est, and their equivalent free bound morphemes more and most based on the phonetic weight and structure of the adjective. In fact, languages vary considerably not only in their infectional categories (for instance, it is sometimes claimed that evaluative properties such as ‘diminutive’ and ‘augmentative’ constitute an infectional category of nouns in some languages like in Kikuyu; see Anderson 1982) but also with respect to how infectional categories are encoded (afxes or free bound morphemes). Regarding Spanish, Pastor (2011) distinguishes between degree operators and degree modifers. The former includes the adjective in its positive form and comparative morphemes (más ‘more’, menos ‘less’, tan ‘as’) and superlative morphemes (más ‘most’, menos ‘least’). Degree operators convey a comparative relation between the degree they introduce and a comparison class. On the other hand, the semantic function of degree modifers (muy ‘very’, bastante ‘so’, demasiado ‘too’, increíblemente ‘incredibly’, etc.) consists in the modifcation of the interval opened by degree operators such that a predication over that distance is added. Thus, the utterance Juan es increíblemente alto para su edad (‘John is incredibly tall for his age’) is interpreted as ‘the distance between John’s height and the standard for his age is incredibly high’: in other words, as an extreme degree. Elatives are a subclass of degree expressions that denote an extreme degree reading, including syntactic elatives (increíblemente ‘incredibly’, tremendamente ‘tremendously’, etc.), lexical elatives (hermosa ‘gorgeous’, exhausto ‘exhausted’) and morphological elatives (altísimo, ‘very tall’) (Pastor 2008). Returning to the issue at stake, the expression of the degree feature of gradable adjectives in Spanish is encoded syntactically through free morphemes in the majority of cases, with 161

Alberto Pastor

only two exceptions. The frst one is the old Latin comparative sufxes that appear in some residual formations with a comparative meaning: mejor ‘better’, peor ’worse’, mayor ‘bigger’, menor ‘smaller’, superior ‘higher’, inferior ‘lower’. The second one is the only morpheme with a degree meaning that has remained in Spanish, the elative sufx -ísim {-o/-a}, which, applied to a qualitative adjective, denotes the quality in its higher or more intense degree.

References Abney, S. 1987. “The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect.” Doctoral diss., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Ambadiang, T. 1993. La morfología fexiva. Madrid: Taurus Universitaria. Anderson, S. 1982. “Where’s Morphology?” Linguistic Inquiry 13 (4): 571–612. Aronof, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baker, M. 1991. “Morphological Classes and Grammatical Organization.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1991, edited by G. Booij and J. van Marie, 89–106. Dordretcht: Kluwer. Bartsch, R., and T. Vennemann. 1972. “The Grammar of Relative Adjectives and Comparison.” Linguistische Berichte 20: 19–32. Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Bierwisch, M. 1989. “The Semantics of Gradation.” In Dimensional Adjectives: Grammatical Structure and Conceptual Interpretation, edited by M. Bierwisch and E. Lang, 71–261. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Butt, J., and C. Benjamin. 1988. A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish. New York: Routledge. Corver, N. 1991. “Evidence for DegP.” NELS 22: 33–47. Corver, N. 1997. “Much-Support as a Last Resort.” Linguistic Inquiry 28 (1): 119–64. Cresswell, M. 1977. “The Semantics of Degree.” In Montague Grammar, edited by B. H. Partee, 261–92. New York: Academic Press. Eguren, L. 2001. “Evaluative Sufxation in Spanish and the Syntax of Derivational Processes.” In Features and Interfaces in Romance: Essays in Honor of Heles Contreras, edited by J. Herschensohn, E. Mallén, and K. Zagona, 71–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Harris, J. 1991. “The Exponence of Gender in Spanish.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (1): 27–62. Harris, J. 1996. “The Syntax and Morphology of Class Marker Suppression in Spanish.” In Grammatical Theory and Romance Languages, edited by Karen Zagona, 99–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Higginbotham, J. 1985. “On Semantics.” Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–93. Kennedy, C. 1999. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York: Garland. Morales Pettorino, F. 1980–81. “El Nombre y Sus Accidentes.” Boletín de Filología XXXI (1–2): 537–50. Pastor, A. 2008. “Split Analysis of Gradable Adjectives in Spanish.” Probus 20: 257–99. Pastor, A. 2011. “Sobre las interferencias entre el grado, la (in)defnitud y la (in)especifcidad.” Revista Española de Lingüística 41 (2): 117–45. Perlmutter, D. 1988. “The Split Morphology Hypothesis, Evidence from Yiddish.” In Theoretical Morphology, edited by M. Hammond and M. Noonan, 79–100. San Diego: Academic Press. Real Academia Española. 1973. Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Real Academia Española. 2009. Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa Libros. Stump, G. 1998. “Infection.” In The Handbook of Morphology, edited by A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky, 13–43. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Varela, S. 2012. “Derivation and Compounding.” In The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, edited by J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, and E. O’Rourke, 209–26. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Wonder, J. P. 1978. “Género Natural, Género Grammatical.” Español Actual 34: 19–27. Wong-Opasi, U. 1991. “On Deriving Specifers in Spanish: Morpho-Phono-Syntactic Interactions.” In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 69), edited by D. Wanner and D. A. Kibbee, 101–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zwarts, J. 1992. X´-syntax/X´-semantics: On the Interpretation of Functional and Lexical Heads. Utrecht: Led, OTS. 162

12 Main issues in the diachronic development of Spanish infection Antonio Fábregas and Isabel Pujol PayetDiachronic development of infection

(Cuestiones del desarrollo diacrónico de la fexión en español)

Antonio Fábregas and Isabel Pujol Payet

1 Introduction This chapter discusses a number of diachronic changes in the infectional system of nouns, adjectives and verbs from Latin to Modern Spanish, with the goal of pointing out several changes of relevance for the analysis of Spanish morphology and highlighting a few main processes of particular signifcance for morphological theory. In the frst part of the chapter, we present a description of the main phenomena involving case, gender and number in nouns; degree and agreement in adjectives and conjugation classes and paradigmatic expression in verbs. We will see that three general processes are ubiquitous: (i) a tendency to reject synthetic marking in favour of an analytic, syntactic expression that is instantiated as the loss of case distinctions in nouns, the loss of degree morphemes in adjectives and the development of periphrastic constructions for voice and aspect in verbs; (ii) a tendency towards a more clear overt marking of several morphological properties, such as gender in nouns, that produces a tighter correspondence between grammatical values and exponents and (iii) in the case of idiosyncratic class markers and theme vowels, an attraction of elements belonging to less frequent classes to the more frequent classes. The second part of the chapter evaluates the signifcance of these facts for morphological theories. Keywords: infection; case; gender; degree; agreement; aspect; voice; analogy Este capítulo discute algunos cambios diacrónicos que afectan al sistema fexivo del nombre, el adjetivo y el verbo en su paso del latín al español, con el objetivo de presentar distintos procesos de cambio relevantes para el análisis de la morfología del español y destacar algunos procesos centrales de especial signifcación para la teoría morfológica. La primera parte del trabajo presenta una descripción de los principales fenómenos que afectan al caso, género y número en los sustantivos, el grado y la concordancia en los adjetivos y las clases de conjugación y sus paradigmas en el verbo. Veremos que tres procesos aparecen de forma repetida: (i) una tendencia al rechazo de la expresión sintética a favor de una expresión analítica que usa estructuras sintácticas, instanciada como la pérdida de distinciones casuales en el sustantivo, la pérdida de los morfemas de grado en el adjetivo y el desarrollo de estructuras perifrásticas para expresar voz y 163

Antonio Fábregas and Isabel Pujol Payet

aspecto en el verbo; (ii) una tendencia hacia la marca explícita de ciertas propiedades morfológicas, como el género en los sustantivos, que produce como resultado una correspondencia más estrecha entre los valores gramaticales y ciertos exponentes, y (iii) en el caso de los morfemas idiosincráticos de marca de palabra y vocales temáticas, una atracción de los miembros pertenecientes a clases menos frecuentes hacia las clases más frecuentes. La segunda parte del capítulo evalúa la importancia de estos hechos para las teorías morfológicas principales. Palabras clave: fexión; caso; género; grado; concordancia; aspecto; voz; analogía

2 Issues on noun infection Noun infection is a complex topic which, at a bare minimum, involves gender and number marking (see Camacho, this volume). In this section, we will focus on three diferent aspects of this marking that we consider crucial within the diachronic evolution from Latin to Spanish: the process of case loss, which etymologically explains the use of -s as a plural marking with nouns—and adjectives—(§2.1); the reduction and reanalysis of declension classes and consequent reorganisation of the gender system (§2.2) and the modifcation of the gender information contained in some afxes (§2.3).

2.1 Case loss As is well known, Latin had morphological case both in nouns and in pronouns. Standardly, a Latin noun had six cases with two numbers (a total of 12 grammatically distinct forms, cf. 1) involving a good deal of morphophonological syncretism. For example, in a frst declension noun—remember that Latin had fve declensions of unequal frequency—the ending -ae could correspond to genitive or dative singular or nominative or vocative plural; -is could be dative or ablative plural. The loss of distinctions in the length of vowels also increased the number of syncretisms, especially in oral language. (1) Nominative Vocative Accusative Genitive Dative Ablative

Sg. ros-a ros-a ros-am ros-ae ros-ae ros-ā

Pl. ros-ae ros-ae ros-ās ros-ārum ros-īs ros-īs

It is believed that in Late Latin, this amount of syncretism already favoured the use of prepositions to mark the syntactic function of nouns (Aebischer 1971; Lapesa 1964), which in turn had the efect of reducing the morphological case distinctions—as the preposition could mark the function, the need for distinct cases was reduced from a communicative perspective. There is some consensus that at the later stages of Late Latin spoken in Hispania, the case distinctions had been reduced to two that, in nouns, simply diferentiated between nominative and oblique (Penny 1980) in three diferent declension classes. (2) 1st decl.

164

nominative oblique

Sg. rosa rosa

Pl. rosas rosas

Diachronic development of infection

2nd decl. 3rd decl. 3r decl.

nominative oblique nominative oblique nominative oblique

annos anno leo leone nubes nube

anni annos leones leones nubes nubes

From (2), it is believed that two facts made the Spanish nouns derive from the oblique case forms: given that -s is the overwhelmingly most common ending in the plural, the forms that in the nominative singular end in -s are rejected (annos, nubes). This means that in the singular, there are no distinctions between nominative and oblique, and this triggers a loss of the equivalent distinction in the plural (Penny 1993, 117–18). The result is that the oblique forms, originally deriving from the accusative Latin forms, are used as the source for singular and Spanish nouns, meaning that -s is established as the plural marker with all morphological case distinctions already lost (Pidal 1958, 205–9). It is generally accepted that this result was aided by the extension of accusative case to a broader range of syntactic contexts already in Late Latin (Alvar and Pottier 1983, 62–64; Lapesa 1964). That said, there are idiosyncrasic nouns whose singular form preserves the old nominative form in -s, particularly in proper names (Carlos, Marcos, Pablos). This has produced a stressless irregular ending that behaves, for morphological processes, like the more common noun markers -o and -a (cf. Camacho, this volume; Harris 1991). Consider how the diminutive afx -itacts with these endings (cf. Kornfeld, this volume). In (3a) we can see that it appears, linearly, between the root and the noun marker related to gender. As can be seen in (3b), with these proper names in -os, the diminutive separates this sequence from the root, in a way parallel to (3a), which supports the idea that this ending is analysed in Modern Spanish as an irregular noun marker coming from an old nominative form. (3) a. cas-a house-NM b. Carl-os Charles-NM

> >

cas-it-a house-dim-NM Carl-it-os Charles-dim-NM

The historical evolution from Latin to Spanish shows, however, an asymmetry between nouns and pronouns when it comes to case distinctions (Alvar and Pottier 1983, 116–23). As we have seen, in nouns, the morphological case has been totally lost, coming from a reconstructed state where there were only a distinction between nominative and oblique. In pronouns, the situation is diferent in two senses: there are morphological case distinctions in modern Spanish and these distinctions involve at least three distinct cases—four in non-refexive third person pronouns. As in the noun system, Latin had six case distinctions for pronouns that involved some degree of syncretism; in (4), we present fve of these cases, excluding the vocative. (4) Nominative Accusative Genitive Dative Ablative

Sg. ego me mei mihi me

Pl. nos nos nostrum/nostri nobis nobis 165

Antonio Fábregas and Isabel Pujol Payet

Pronouns also combined with prepositions in Late Latin, losing some of these distinctions, but Modern Spanish has kept case marking in these cases, particularly in the singular. Leaving outside the genitive, as these pronouns were reinterpreted as adjectives or determiners, there are three cases for frst and second person singular pronouns: nominative, prepositional and object. The plural versions still distinguish two forms but make no diference between nominative and prepositional. (5) Nom Prepositional Object

1sg yo (a) mí me

2sg tú (a) ti te

1pl nosotros (a) nosotros nos

2pl vosotros (a) vosotros os

The case splits are diferent in third person forms. Third person pronouns, however, distinguish the object function via morphological case, splitting accusative from nominative, and make no distinction between nominative and after a preposition. (6) Nom Prepositional Object (acc) Object (dat)

3sg él (a) él lo le

3pl ellos (a) ellos los les

2.2 Gender: reorganisation of the Latin gender system Spanish nouns can carry a stressless morpheme called the noun class marker (NM), which is more or less directly related to gender information (see Harris 1991; Camacho, this volume). (7) a. cas-a house-NM b. carr-o cart-NM c. clas-e class-NM These noun class markers historically come from the declension classes in Latin (Alvar and Pottier 1983, 72–77). As is well known, Latin had fve declension classes of diferent relative frequency. The noun class marker -a derives from the frst declension marker (rosa, rosae), whose frequency is around 22%—estimated from a search in Lewis’s Latin Dictionary. This class was overwhelmingly feminine, and similarly nouns ending in -a in modern Spanish are also overwhelmingly feminine. The noun class marker -o typically comes from the second declension (with a frequency estimated around 32%); this class was typically masculine—with some exceptions, such as tree names, that were feminine—and correspondingly, the noun marker -o in Modern Spanish is typically masculine. The -e marker, fnally, typically comes from the third declension (estimated at 36% but including diferent morphological shapes), which contained both masculine and feminine nouns. (8) a. Lat. ros-a-m rose-1-acc 166

> Sp.

ros-a rose-NM

Diachronic development of infection

b. Lat. vin-u-m wine-2-acc c. Lat. nub-e-m cloud-3-acc

> Sp. > Sp.

vin-o wine-NM nub-e cloud-NM

Given this general situation, four processes are worth mentioning (see Bustos Tovar 2004, 262; Rodríguez-Pantoja 2004, 121). 1

2

3

4

Change in morphological marking from minoritary declension classes to the more frequent frst or second declension. The ffth declension in Latin, whose frequency is estimated at 0.3%, was typically feminine (rabies, rabiei ‘rage’). Many of these nouns have been reclassifed in the frst declension and carry the -a noun marker in Modern Spanish (cf. rabi-a, ‘rage’, not *rabi-e), with a few losing any class marker (fdes, fdei ‘faith’ > fe). Similarly, some masculine nouns of the Latin fourth declension (5%) have been recategorised in the second declension, with the marker -o (passus, passus ‘step’ > pas-o ‘step’). Reinterpretation of the gender information related to the noun on the base of the exponent used as a noun class marker. In other cases of mismatches between the gender of the noun and the gender information related to the etymological class marker, the solution has been to change the gender of the noun rather than to change the class marker. For instance, as we advanced before, tree names in Latin belonged to the second declension but were feminine (cerasius, cerasii ‘cherry tree’). In these cases, the Spanish equivalent (cerez-o ‘cherry tree’) has been regularised to masculine. Hypercharacterisation of nouns with a class marker. The etymological gender of some nouns can become opaque in the evolution from Latin to Spanish, especially when their ending cannot be associated with a class marker. In these cases, these nouns added a class marker which made them regular from the perspective of gender information. For instance, the feminine pulex, pulicis (accusative pulic-e-m) ‘fea’ assumed the form of pulg-a in Spanish (not *pulgu-e), and the masculine passer, passeris (accusative passer-e-m) ‘bird’ was converted into pájar-o. Similarly, the feminine terms of kinship socrus ‘mother-in-law’ and nurus ‘daughter-in-law’ changed into suegra and nuera, respectively, adopting the feminine class marker in correspondence with their etymological gender. Reaccommodation of neuter nouns in other classes. Latin had three genders for nouns— masculine, feminine and neuter—while Spanish has lost neuter gender in nouns. Neuter nouns thus have been recategorised in Spanish as either masculine or feminine nouns.

Three situations have been indentifed with respect to the reaccommodation of Latin neuter nouns in Spanish. The frst situation is the case of neuter nouns deriving from the syncretic nominative-accusative form in the singular, when this form is characterised by a fnal syllable containing -u. (9) a. Lat. b. Lat. c. Lat. d. Lat.

prāt-u-m feld-2-nom/acc tempus time-3-nom/acc corn-u horn-4-nom/acc caput head-3-nom/acc

> Sp. > Sp. > Sp. > Sp.

prad-o feld-NM tiemp-o time-NM cuern-o horn-NM cab-o head-NM 167

Antonio Fábregas and Isabel Pujol Payet

In these cases, Spanish has recategorised the words as masculine with the noun marker -o (prad-o, tiemp-o, cuern-o, cab-o). Nouns ending in -us in the nominative-accusative singular, where the ending is part of the root, sometimes exhibit the irregular class marker -os in singular within idiomatic constructions (en tiempos de ‘in the time of ’) but are regularised to the singular -o ending in Modern Spanish in a case of possible back-formation (Elvira 2009, 205; 2015, 46). The second way of accommodating neuter nouns from Latin to Spanish involves those nouns that show the nominative-accusative plural form in -a (Elvira 2015, 47). (10) a. Lat. b. Lat. c. Lat.

foli-a leaf-2-nom/acc.pl lign-a log-2-nom/acc.pl oper-a work-3-nom/acc.pl

> Sp. > Sp. > Sp.

hoj-a leaf-NM leñ-a log-NM obr-a work-NM

These nouns have been reinterpreted as feminine, with noun marker -a (respectively, hoja, leña, obra). Interestingly, in some cases, the Spanish equivalents keep some collective meaning from the etymological plural, as it is the case with leña ‘frewood’, which does not accept the plural (*leña-s) and is grammatically a mass noun. In other cases, while the plural marking is accepted, the collective meaning remains in some expressions (la caída de la hoja, ‘the fall of the leaves’), and in yet another group of cases, the plural meaning has been completely lost. The third group of neuter nouns come from a singular third declension form without any -u vowel in the last syllable. Without any noun class marker as a trigger in the etymology, these nouns were classifed sometimes as feminine (mel ‘honey’ > miel; rete ‘net’ > red) and sometimes as masculine (nomen ‘name’ > nombre, sulfur ‘sulphur’ > azufre), with cases where gender is variable even in modern Spanish (mare ‘sea’ > mar, both feminine and masculine). In some of these cases, this process involved addition of the characteristic noun marker (vas ‘glass’ > vas-o ‘glass, masculine’, os ‘bone’ > hues-o). The result of all these changes produces in Modern Spanish a relatively regular gender system where noun classes largely correspond to genders, with few exceptions such as the feminine man-o ‘hand’, coming from the feminine fourth declension manus, manus, which has not undergone gender change (*el mano) or change in the noun class marker (*la mana). Even more puzzling is the case of dí-a ‘day’, masculine ending in -a which comes from a form dies, diei that was attested both in masculine and feminine. Despite getting accommodated as a noun coming from the frst declension, this noun has been fxed in masculine gender.

2.3 Gender information within lexical items A good deal of regularity in gender for nouns ending in -a or -o dissolves for nouns ending in consonants or -e, most of which come from the third declension. Many of these words have vacillated in gender across the history of Spanish. Latin words ending in -or tended to be feminine (Pharies 2002, 442) and in fact were used as feminine during part of the Middle Ages but are mostly now masculine (amor ‘love’, honor ‘honour’, calor ‘heat’, color ‘colour’, but cf. labor ‘work’, which is still feminine). The typical change, from feminine to masculine, is sometimes triggered by morphophonological processes afecting the article (cf. Colina, this volume). Many of the words that move from feminine to masculine in Spanish start with a vowel /a/ or another non-high vowel, a context that favours (in the singular) the allomorph el instead of la.

168

Diachronic development of infection

(11) *la the.f

águila eagle

/

el the.m

águila eagle

Potentially this explains that arte ‘art’ is masculine in singular even if it was feminine in Latin (*la arte), while it can be used as feminine in the plural (bellas artes ‘fne arts’), where the plural -s in the article blocks the context for the allomorph (las artes). Other nouns in this class include árbol ‘tree’, and origen ‘origin’, both masculine coming from feminine Latin nouns. Some of these nouns still vacillate in Modern Spanish (azúcar moreno ~ azúcar morena ‘brown sugar’). Nouns ending in -e have also undergone gender vacillations and gender changes across history, including puente ‘bridge’ (masculine in modern Spanish, attested as feminine even today in some varieties), pringue ‘grease’, attested in both forms, and valle ‘valley’, now fxed in masculine. In summary, then, the changes that nouns have undergone from Latin to Spanish can be summarised as follows: the loss of a proper case system in the nouns had the efect of reinterpreting the declension classes as noun markers that display some association with gender. With few exceptions, the -o ending characteristic of the second declension was reinterpreted as a largely masculine noun class marker, and the -a ending of the frst declension adopted the role of a feminine noun class marker. These two markers helped restructure the system in diferent ways—by adding the marker according to gender, by changing the gender information of the noun and by helping reanalyse neuters as either masculine or feminine. When the markings were not adopted and the noun ends in -e or a consonant, the gender information was more variable, typically moving from feminine to masculine.

3 Issues in adjectival infection Morphologically, Spanish adjectives display two properties: agreement and degree. While the second property is not clearly infectional (see Pastor, this volume, and Kornfeld, this volume, for discussion), we will include it in this section given the questions they present for infection.

3.1 Loss of comparative degree morphology The main diachronic process in the expression of degree is the evolution from a mainly synthetic system, where degree is expressed through sufxes, to an analytic system. Written Latin expressed degree in adjectives and adverbs through sufxation (12). Remember that three degrees are diferentiated: positive (12a), comparative (12b) and superlative (12c) (see Schwarzschild 2008 for a recent overview of degree modifcation). (12) a. long-u-s long-2-nom b. long-ior long-comparative.nom c. long-issim-u-s long-superlative-2-nom Only a few adjectives, due to phonological reasons, rejected the vowel-initial sufxes and used an analytic construction to express the comparative (Allen and Greenough 1903). The adjectives in question are those whose root ended in -e, -i or another vowel.

169

Antonio Fábregas and Isabel Pujol Payet

(13) a. idone-u-s apt- 2-nom b. magis idoneus more apt c. maxime idoneus most apt From Latin to Romance, the process was to move towards a regularly analytic expression of the comparative and superlative degrees (Alvar and Pottier 1983, 80–83); Spanish specifcally uses the adverb más ‘more/most’, which comes from the adverb magis illustrated in (13b). This adverb is also used in grammatically superlative structures in combination with the defnite article (Romero 2013; Loccioni 2018). Regarding the sufx -ísimo, see Fábregas (2020) and Pastor (this volume) for a characterisation as an elative morpheme not directly related to superlative structures. Cases where the comparative sufx -ior has been kept in the Spanish adjective fall into two classes: (i) a few remnants of the synthetic comparative and (ii) cases where the sequence has been kept but deprived of a proper degree expression. The frst class is illustrated by only four adjectives (14), the last two of which partially fall also into the second class and which illustrate cases of suppletion (Elvira 2015, 77): (14) a. Lat.

melior

Sp. >

b. Lat.

peior

Sp. >

c. Lat.

minor

Sp. >

d. Lat.

maior

Sp. >

mejor better peor worse menor smaller mayor bigger

(14a–b) are grammatically comparative in all contexts, as witnessed by the impossibility of combining them with the adverbs muy ‘very’ and más ‘more’ (15), just as in analytical comparatives (16). As in other comparatives, these adjectives accept mucho ‘much’ (17). (15) a. *muy {mejor/peor} very better/worse b. *más {mejor/peor} more better/worse (16) a. *muy {más alto} very more tall b. *más {más alto} more more tall (17) a. mucho {mejor/peor} much better/worse b. mucho {más alto} much more tall The last two of the group have one comparative interpretation (18) but also allow a second reading that is not grammatically comparative, where they allow combination with muy (19, RAE and ASALE 2009). 170

Diachronic development of infection

(18) mucho {menor/mayor} much smaller / bigger (19) a. un problema muy menor a problem very minor b. un hombre muy mayor a man very old Menor ‘minor’ in the non-comparative sense describes little importance or relevance, while mayor ‘old’ describes age. These two uses of the otherwise synthetic comparatives show that in some interpretations, the segment has been kept etymologically but deprived of the original grammatical meaning in Latin. Adjectives that have kept the segment but have lost the degree reading include interior ‘inner’, exterior ‘outer’, inferior ‘inferior’, superior ‘superior’, ulterior ‘ulterior’ and citerior ‘hither’, all of which reject combination with mucho ‘much’ and accept combination with muy ‘very’. The case of the adverb lejos ‘far’ deserves additional comment within the class of etymologically comparative words that have lost the comparative meaning in Spanish. It comes from the neuter gender comparative of laxus ‘wide’, lax-ius (Alvar and Pottier 1983, 317). While the sequence has been kept in Spanish, it has lost its comparative meaning (más lejos ‘farther’, muy lejos ‘very far’, *mucho lejos). However, the ending -os seems to be still interpreted in this word as a segmentable unit, perhaps assimilated into the idiosyncratic -os noun marker discussed in §2.1 earlier. This is suggested by the diminutive (20), where the afx appears between the base and the ending -os. (20) lej-it-os far-dim-NM ‘a bit far’ This contrasts with the cases of preservation of -or, which do not seem to be segmentable in Modern Spanish (e.g., mejor-cito, ‘a bit better’, not *mej-it-or). In fact, note that lej- in (20) can be segmented as a root that appears also in words like lej-ano ‘far’, while there is no comparable behaviour for the potential roots mej-, pe- or may-.

3.2 Reorganisation of the gender marking system Latin had two main classes of adjectives: adjectives with three gender endings (21a), where the masculine followed the second declension and the feminine followed the frst declension, and adjectives with two gender endings (21b), in which an ending form codifed both masculine and feminine adjectives (e.g. fortis) and another ending was used for neuter ones (e.g. forte). Adjectives with two endings followed the third declension. (21) a. bon-u-s, bon-a, bon-u-m good-2-nom, good-1.nom, good-2-neuter b. fort-i-s, fort-e strong-3-nom, strong-3.neuter Adjectives undergo diachronic changes that are parallel to those of nouns, including the loss of case distinctions to end in a system corresponding to etymological accusative forms characterised by -s in the plural and loss of neuter gender forms, directly motivated by the loss of neuter nouns. 171

Antonio Fábregas and Isabel Pujol Payet

In principle, adjectives coming from the three-ending etymological forms in (21a) ended up as gender-variable adjectives characterised by -o in the masculine and -a in the feminine (22), and those coming from two-ending forms (21b) produced gender-invariable adjectives ending in consonant or -e (23) (Alvar and Pottier 1983, 78–80). (22) a. buen-o, buen-a good-m, good-f b. fuert-e strong-AM However, as was the case in nouns, many adjectives also sufered a process of reaccommodation, which in almost all cases involved partial assimilation into the two ending system with feminine gender characterisation through -a. In some of these cases, the feminine gender characterisation was documented at earlier stages of the language and lost in Modern Spanish, while in other cases, the gender marking with -a has been successful. The adjective pobre ‘poor’ in Modern Spanish is gender invariable, as expected from its etymological pauper ‘poor’; however, a few attestations of the feminine form pobr-a are documented until the 16th century (23a). Similarly, Sp. triste ‘sad’, from Lat. tristis, had a form trist-a also documented until the 16th century (23b). In fact, even now the forms pobra and trista are documented in Catalan. (23) a. Crecer muller pobra difcil cosa es. grow woman poor-f difcult thing is ‘To grow as a poor woman is difcult’ [Juan Fernández de Heredia, 1376–1396, Libro de actoridades] b. Iba entre alegre y trista went between happy and sad-f ‘She was a bit happy and a bit sad’ [Luis Milán, 1561, El cortesano] In contrast, the explicit gender marking was systematic—and successful—in adjectives ending in -dor, -ón and -és, already at the end of the Middle Ages. Note that the three endings should have been invariable given the etymology—respectively, -tor, -toris; -o, -onis and -ensis, -ensis. For the first ending, notice that the gender characterisation, despite the homophony in the -or ending, was not extended to comparative adjectives (*mayor-a; see Rifón, this volume for the evolution in the formation of the feminine from -tor, -toris). The gender characterisation only afects the feminine, where -a is added (24), without involving addition of -o in the masculine form (*cartagines-o), something that is coherent with the general idea that feminine is the marked gender value in Spanish (cf. Camacho, this volume), and therefore that the presence of this gender value is more likely to trigger over morphological marking. (24) a. la provincia cartaginés > the province Carthaginian.f ‘the Carthaginian province’

172

la provincia cartagines-a the province Carthaginian-f

Diachronic development of infection

4 Issues of verbal infection The main diachronic developments in verbal infection from Latin to Spanish can be summarised in three processes: the reorganisation of the four Latin conjugation classes into a system with three conjugations that are only partially diferentiated (cf. Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume; Camus, this volume), the preference for analytic forms to mark some aspectual, voice and temporal values, with the consequent reorganisation of the information contained in some of the morphemes inherited from Latin, and the development of some subject agreement morphemes. We will not consider two issues that are covered independently in other chapters of this handbook: the grammaticalisation of some verbs as part of the changes in the temporoaspectual system (see De Benito Moreno, this volume) and the analogical processes that produce specifc patterns of irregularity (see Camus, this volume).

4.1 Reorganisation of the conjugation classes Latin had a system with four conjugation classes that were partially diferentiated through the morphemes used to express tense, aspect and mood. The conjugation classes are superfcially identifed by four diferent values for the theme vowel: -a (25a), long -e (25b), short -e (25c) and -i (25d). (25) a. am-ā-re love-1-inf ‘to love’ b. vid-ē-re see-2-inf ‘to see’ c. duc-e-re lead-3-inf ‘to lead’ d. aud-ī-re hear-4-inf ‘to hear’ Evidence in Late Latin borrowings from Germanic show that the frst and the fourth conjugations were productive (Alvar and Pottier 1983, 172–76; Penny 1993, 166). Germanic raubôn produces robar ‘steal’; rapôn gives rapar ‘shave’ and warnjan produces Old Spanish guarir ‘supply’. The second and the third conjugations were almost never used as a model for new verbs and were much less common: Alvar and Pottier (1983, 178) estimate the number of verbs within these two classes is only 570. Due to these facts and the similarity in their infectional forms, in the Latin spoken in part of Hispania, the two conjugations were merged into one, aided by the changes in vowel quality that made the two conjugations virtually indistinguishable in the present indicative. Spanish, then, reduced the four Latin conjugations to three, where the second conjugation in principle assimilates both the verbs from the second and the third conjugations in Latin. (26) 1 2 3 4

Latin cant-ā-re ‘sing’ deb-ē-re ‘must’ vend-e-re ‘sell’ aud-ī-re ‘hear’

1

Spanish cantar ‘sing’

2 3

deber ‘must’, vender ‘sell’ oír ‘hear’ 173

Antonio Fábregas and Isabel Pujol Payet

Note, however, the asymmetry between the nominal and the verbal system in the diachronic evolution. While the declensions classes of Latin were lost in the noun and have been reinterpreted as simple noun markers that show some relation to gender, the Latin conjugation classes have been kept essentially in the same way in Spanish: Spanish has, then, kept the infectional subparadigms in the verbal domain but not in the nominal domain. This strongly suggests, too, that the status of the noun class markers in Spanish is not identical to the status of the theme vowel within verbs. There are some pieces of evidence that support these asymmetries. For instance, noun markers disappear from the noun when they are used as a base of derivation (27), while theme vowels can be preserved in verbs when derived (28). (27) a. fest-a party-NM b. fest(-*a)-ero party-NM-adj ‘party-lover’ (28) a. cant-a sing-1 b. cant-a-nte sing-1-er ‘singer’ However, as in the noun system, the verbal system also documents reorganisations of the verbs from one to another conjugation class, typically with verbs belonging to the second/third conjugation class becoming verbs in -ar or, much more typically, in -ir. This is, as was the case in the nominal system, presumably due to the higher productivity of the -ar and -ir classes already in Latin. Some examples of this reaccommodation (Penny 1993, 167) are complēre > cumplir ‘achieve’, lucēre > lucir ‘shine’, putrēre > pudrir ‘rot’, ridēre > reír ‘laugh’ (from the Latin second conjugation) and fugere > huir ‘fee’, parere > parir ‘give birth’, petere > pedir ‘ask for’, recipere > recibir ‘receive’ (from the Latin third conjugation). Note that this transference from the -er to the -ir ending happens even in Modern Spanish: the standard tañer ‘strum’ has become tañir for many speakers, partially also due to the extreme coincidence in forms between the Spanish second and third conjugations (see Camus, this volume). Cases of reaccommodation to the frst conjugation are also attested: meiere > mear ‘to pee’. Situations where verbs that in Latin belonged to the frst or fourth conjugations become verbs in -er fall into two groups, both of them marked in some sense. The most common cases in this category are those of verbs in -ire, which at a later stage take the verbal sufx -ecer (Latin -escere; Pena 1980; Dworkin 1985; Pharies 2002, 187). This verbal sufx had an inchoative meaning—that is, it marks a change of state that is not internally caused; see Vivanco, this volume. Several verbs in -ir that had an inchoative meaning took this sufx at a later stage to overtly mark the inchoative meaning. As this verbal sufx, even in Modern Spanish, belongs to the second conjugation, adding this sufx to the verbal base implied classifying the resulting form in the Spanish second conjugation. Importantly, then, this reclassifcation was not triggered by an attraction of verbs to the -er class but rather is the secondary efect of the overt expression of the inchoative meaning through a verbal sufx that happens to carry an -er ending. Some examples of this process, which can still be documented in Old Spanish, are fallir > fallecer ‘die’, fenir > fenecer ‘perish’, cuntir > (a)contecer ‘happen’, bastir > (a)bastecer ‘supply’, or forir > forecer ‘fourish’. Other verbs in -ir in Modern Spanish attempted, without success, the same process, such as seguir > seguecer ‘follow’. 174

Diachronic development of infection

When the addition of a verbal sufx does not intervene, attraction to -er is very rare, but marginally attested. Penny (1993, 166) cites only one example, tussīre > toser ‘cough’.

4.2 Reorganisation of the temporal system The diachronic development of Spanish from Latin in the verbal system, just as was the case of degree expression in adjectives, showed a tendency towards the analytic expression of voice and some temporoaspectual relations. Leaving aside imperative and the non-fnite forms, (29) and (30) list the temporal, aspectual and modal classes of Latin verbs in active. (29) Active forms a. present indicative: amo b. imperfect indicative: amābam c. perfect indicative: amāvi d. future indicative: amābo e. pluperfect indicative: amāveram f. future perfect indicative: amāverō g. present subjunctive: amem h. imperfect subjunctive: amārem i. perfect subjunctive: amāverim j. pluperfect subjunctive: amāvissem Note that this system is divided into perfect and non-perfect forms—for present, past and future. Except the future, all forms have an indicative and a subjunctive form. In Latin, all these forms are expressed synthetically through morphemes. In contrast, the passive forms already in Classical Latin showed a combination of synthetic and analytic expression: the perfect forms were expressed analytically (30), while the non-perfect forms were expressed synthetically (31) (cf. Embick 2000, 2010). (30) a. perfect indicative: amātus sum b. pluperfect indicative: amātus eram c. future perfect indicative: amātus ero d. perfect subjunctive: amātus sim e. pluperfect subjunctive: amātus essem (31) a. present indicative: amor b. imperfect indicative: amābar c. future indicative: amābor d. present subjunctive: amer e. imperfect subjunctive: amārer The Spanish system generalises the analytic expression of passive voice, perhaps through analogy with copulative sentences (altus sum ‘I am tall’), which share not only the infectional properties of the predicate combining with the copulative verb but also the non-agentive meaning of the subject (Penny 1993, 154). Like that not only the perfect passive forms but also the non-perfective ones eliminate the infectional passive sufx -r in favour of a construction with past participle and the copulative verbs. Even more signifcantly, Spanish adopted an analytic construal in two more contexts, both involving the verb habere ‘to have’. To begin with, this verb—as a deontic periphrasis—was used 175

Antonio Fábregas and Isabel Pujol Payet

to express future in substitution of the etymological forms in (29d) (see Vincent 1982, and De Benito Moreno, this volume, for details). Second, and in parallel to the use of analytic passives, the perfect forms developed an analytic version involving the participle and an auxiliary verb, which in unaccusative verbs was also esse ‘to be’ and in transitive verbs was habere ‘to have’, initially keeping its possessive meaning (Menéndez Pidal 1964, 360–61; Pountain 1985; Del Barrio 2016; Molina Rodríguez 2016). The use of haber was initially restricted to transitive verbs with a personal subject that could be interpreted as having some entity in a particular state, with an agreeing participle (e.g., comprada he una vaca ‘bought.f have I a cow’, interpreted as a result periphrasis with the meaning ‘I have a cow that has been bought’). From there, grammaticalisation acted to generalise it to nontransitive verbs and other types of subjects, to the point that in Modern Spanish, it is the only way of expressing perfect aspect. The etymological perfect indicative (amāvi) was substituted by this periphrastic form, as we say, in perfect aspect contexts—where ‘perfect’ must be interpreted in the technical semantic term of denoting the subsequent state following a fnished event, as in I have already eaten. The second aspectual meaning of amavi, the perfective, where it expresses a completed action and not its result—as in I ate and washed the dishes—was not assumed by the periphrastic construction. The result is that the form amavi remains in Spanish as the preterite amé, with a distinct aspectual meaning from he amado. However, the assimilation of uses was complete in the other Latin perfect forms, the pluperfect indicative amāveram (32a), the future perfect indicative amāverō (32b), the perfect subjunctive amāverim (32c) and the pluperfect subjunctive amāvissem (32d), all of which were replaced by the periphrasis with the auxiliary infected in the appropriate forms. Note that, for instance, (32a) allows both perfect and perfective uses in Spanish (García Fernández 2000). (32) a. había amado had.ind loved b. habré amado will.have loved c. haya amado have.sbjv loved d. hubiera amado had.sbjv loved This means that the etymological perfect forms in Latin lost their original role. Two different processes took place here, reaccommodating the forms in diferent roles. The forms amāvissem > amase and amāveram > amara both became past forms of the subjunctive without any perfect aspectual meaning and are currently in a grammatical free distribution in Modern Spanish as two equally grammatical ways of expressing the imperfective subjunctive. The form amara kept some etymological uses as a pluperfect form until Golden Age Spanish—and even today, in some stylistic uses, it can be used as a perfective indicative form, as in El que fuera ministro de economía ‘lit. he that was.sbjv economy minister, He that was economy minister’. As for the forms amāverō and amāverim, the similarity of their paradigmatic forms made them merge into one form that produced the so-called future subjunctive cantare, a form that—outside stylistically marked contexts in Spanish—has a very restricted use in the language.

176

Diachronic development of infection

4.3 Subject agreement markers In this section, we will concentrate only on one aspect of the subject agreement morphemes from Latin to Spanish of particular interest for morphological theory (see Penny 1993, 154–57; Alvar and Pottier 1983, 190–209 for a detailed discussion of the historical facts related to all forms): the extension of an -y increment in some forms. Two situations must be distinguished both due to their etymology and their role in Modern Spanish. The frst one is the presence of the -y morpheme in the so-called existential uses of the verb haber ‘have’, in sentences like Hay cosas ‘There are things’. The -y morpheme etymologically comes from the Latin locative adverb ibi > y and was frequently used in the Middle Ages as a locative adverbial. From a contemporary perspective, this verb is the only one where the -y can be segmented: in auxiliary uses of haber (33a) deprived of any locative meaning, the form is ha, without the descendant of the locative adverbial. In existential uses (33b), where the sentence states the existence of an entity within a location, the morpheme must appear. (33) a. Ha venido. has come ‘S/he has come’ b. Ha-y libros. has-loc books ‘There are books’ Other languages, like Catalan or French, treat this locative component as a clitic (hi és ‘lit. there is’, il y a ‘lit. it there has’, respectively), while Modern Spanish treats this element as an afx. The same increment, although this time without any alternation in Modern Spanish with a form that lacks it, appears in a few irregular frst person singular present indicative morphemes (Penny 1993, 181–86): (34) a. soy am b. estoy am c. voy go.1sg d. doy give.1sg


descripción; suppletion: recibir > recepción, etc.; see RAE-ASALE 2009, 5.2–5.11). The variety of sufxes available in Spanish suggests that there is sufx specialisation of some kind. We will explore restrictions related to argument and event structure features in the next sections. While we focus on the regularities of the nominalisation process, which yields predictable results (educar/educación ‘to educate’/’education’, diseñar/diseño ‘to design’/’design’, aterrizar/ 183

Gabriela Resnik

aterrizaje ‘to land’/’landing’, etc.), there exist, as in other derivational classes, complex nominal forms with no identifable verb bases in the present state of the language (erudición, equitación), though usually a regular process can be attested diachronically (erudición > lat. erudire, equitación > lat. equitare), provided the form is not a loan, as in espionaje > fr. espionnage ‘spying’ > fr. espion ‘spy’ (see RAE-ASALE 2009, 5.1.ñ-p). The possibility of applying diferent nominalisation sufxes to the same base sometimes involves contrastive semantics, as in crecimiento ‘increasing’/’growing’ vs. crecida ‘swelling’/‘rise’ (of river), where -miento conveys the process and -da the result reading, along with more specifc content. It may also be an efect of dialectal variation in the productivity of the sufxes: tiraje and tirada ‘print run’ are diferently distributed across Spanish varieties, as are vuelto and vuelta ‘change’. Dialectal variation also afects the repertory of sufxes for a general semantic function: process/result nominals can be productively formed with -dero in Central American varieties, as noted in Fábregas (2010a), while this sufx only forms instrument/place-denoting nouns in other regions. Just as an (inevitably) imprecise measure of the diference in productivity of ‘process’/’result’ nominalising sufxes, we may consider lexicographical information. Provided we look at it critically, it is an indirect indicator of productivity, as the more frequent the form, the more chances it has to be lemmatised in a dictionary. Using reverse and multiple search tools of Vox Diccionario de Uso del Español de América y España (2003), we obtain the following (decreasing) sufx productivity list: -ción, -miento, -o, -a, -dura/-tura, -e, -do, -da, -aje, -ido. A more elaborate search on a corpus of recent descriptive dictionaries of the diferent Spanish-speaking areas will undoubtedly provide more reliable quantitative information on this topic, usually subject to impressionistic appreciations.

3 Argument structure in nominalisations Analysing the similarities in complement selection between derived nouns and verb bases noted in Chomsky (1970), Grimshaw (1990) makes a crucial distinction between process and result nominals. Grimshaw observes that some complex nominal forms are ambiguous between a process and a result reading; this polysemy is present in many languages, including Spanish, as shown in the following examples with evaluación: (1) a. La evaluación de los candidatos por el comité llevó varias horas. ‘The examination of the candidates by the committee took several hours’ b. Dejé las evaluaciones corregidas sobre la mesa. ‘I left the marked exams on the table’ In (1a), evaluación ‘examination’ denotes a process involving participants and an aktionsart; in Grimshaw’s view, this noun has a complex event structure, comprising two subevents, as is the case with the verb base evaluar ‘examine’, an accomplishment in the Vendler (1967)–Dowty (1979) proposal. In contrast, evaluaciones ‘exams’ in (1b) denotes a set of physical entities and has no event structure nor, consequently, syntactically expressed arguments. Several examples of this kind of polysemy can be found in Spanish: construcción (‘process of building’/ ‘built object’), traducción (‘process of translating’/ ‘translated text’), maquillaje (‘process of making up’/ ‘make up products’), tapizado (‘process of upholstering’/‘upholstery result or fabric’). This phenomenon is especially clear in the examples where a process yields a physical outcome. Some nominalisation processes result in forms with just one meaning (apuñalamiento ‘stabbing’ denotes a process, with no result reading; maldición ‘curse’ has no process meaning), and in others, event-result 184

Derivation and category change (I)

readings may be distributed in diferent sufxes, as noted in section 2, or via root allomorphy (apertura ‘process of opening’/abertura ‘result of opening: hole, window, open space’), though the development and the diferentiation of meanings is subject to dialectal and other kinds of variation. In any case, Spanish nominalisations have the potential, diversely realised in the different sufxes and varieties of the language, for denoting a process related to its base verb as well as the result of that process, either abstract or concrete. The semantic properties of these two types of nominalisations correlate with diferent sets of morphosyntactic properties. Some of these contrasts are present in Spanish nominalisations as well, as noted in Picallo (1999) and Varela (1993). Thus, only process nominals can express an external argument headed by lexical prepositions por or por parte de (2a), while a genitivemarked NP is projected with result nominals (2b), functional preposition de interpreted as being the case marker: (2) a. la construcción del puente por los obreros ‘the building of the bridge by the workers’ b. la construcción de Gaudí ‘the building by Gaudí’ While for Grimshaw (1990), nouns like construcción ‘building’ in (2b) have no argument structure, Picallo (1999)2 points instead to diferences in the syntactic realisation of argument structure in both types of nominals: event nominals have a passive structure (thus the external argument is realised by a por headed PP, as in verbal passives), while result nominals occur in active structures. Yet this contrast in the realisation of the external argument is not strictly correlated with the event/result semantic contrast in all types of nominals in Spanish. As can be seen in (3), some event nominals express its external argument through a genitive-marked NP: (3) La acampada de los estudiantes a la orilla del lago durante un día tuvo lugar en verano. ‘The students’ one-day camping on the lake shore took place in summer’ In (2), the verb base construir ‘to build’ is a transitive verb, while in the example in (3), the verb base acampar ‘to camp’ is intransitive, of the unergative class. In Spanish intransitive nominals, in fact, no diference is observed in the realisation of their only argument. Both the external argument in (3) and the internal argument in the unaccusative or ergative nominals in (4) are equally expressed by genitive-marked DPs: (4) a. la llegada del tren a la estación ‘the train’s arrival at the station’ b. el progresivo derretimiento de los glaciares ‘the progressive melting of the glaciers’ Escandell Vidal (1997) points out that result nominals are not homogeneous either as to argument realisation, as there is an important diference regarding transitive nominals, between those derived from verbs of creation and those derived from other verbs. The contexts in (5) show event nominals composición ‘composing’ and traducción ‘translating’, the process reading forced by the predicate llevar ‘take’ used in a durative sense, with complement años ‘years’ indicating the period. The contexts in (6) show result nominals, the result reading forced by the predicate publicar ‘to publish’: 185

Gabriela Resnik

(5) a. La composición de la sinfonía le llevó años. ‘The composing of the symphony took him/her years’ b. La traducción de Ulises le llevó años. ‘The translating of Ulysses took him/her years’ (6) a. Publicó la composición en 1934. ‘He/She published the composition in 1934’ b. *Publicó la composición de la sinfonía en 1934. ‘He/she published the composition of the symphony in 1934’ c. Publicó la traducción de Ulises en 1945. ‘He/She published the translation of Ulysses in 1945’ In (6b), the Theme argument cannot be expressed, while it is grammatical in (6c). According to Escandell Vidal (1997, 27–29), the Theme argument is absorbed in result nominals derived from verbs of creation such as composición ‘composition’, because the result denoted by the noun is precisely the entity created; thus, it cannot surface as a syntactic argument. In traducción ‘translation’, instead, the result denoted by the nominal does not afect the pre-existing object, that is, the untranslated text. In other types of deverbal nominalisations, restrictions in the realisation of argument structure can also afect the external argument, as is the case with the so-called agentive nominalisations shown in (7). These nominals express their external argument morphologically (‘internal inheritance’, cf. Booij 1988; Gràcia 1995), in the sufxes -dor or -nte; therefore, only the internal argument has syntactic realisation in the transitive nominals in (8): (7) a. trabajador ‘worker’, vencedor ‘winner’, comprador ‘buyer’, portador ‘carrier’ b. caminante ‘walker’, denunciante ‘denouncer’, donante ‘donor’, ayudante ‘assistant’ (8) a. la compradora de la casa ‘the buyer of the house’, los portadores del virus ‘the virus carriers’ b. el denunciante del senador ‘the denouncer of the senator’, el donante del tejido ‘the tissue donor’ Productivity in these nominalisations is restricted by argument structure: the verb base must contain an external argument, the one absorbed in the sufx; therefore unaccusative bases are excluded: *el llegador a la festa, ‘the arriver to the party’, *la cayente del balcón ‘the faller from the balcony’. With verbs like encantar, with two argument structure variants (Me encanta el café ‘I love cofee’ vs. El brujo encantó a la princesa ‘The wizard bewitched the princess’), nouns in -dor originate only in the transitive structure: un encantador de serpientes ‘a snake charmer’. The semantic interpretation of the external argument is not limited to the Agent, but it may be an Experiencer, as in los portadores del virus ‘the virus carriers’ in (8), or an Instrument (licuadora ‘blender’, desinfectante ‘disinfectant’).3 Summarising, in contrast to prefxation (see Gibert-Sotelo, this volume) and verbalisation, nominalisation processes inherit all or part of the argument structure of the verb base. In the case that both the external and the internal argument are syntactically expressed, that is, with transitive event nominals, the structure of the DP resembles that of the passive sentence, with the Agent realised as a modifer, a PP headed by por (parte de). In other cases, intransitive event nominals and result nominals, arguments are realised as genitive DPs. The preservation or inheritance of argument structure in nominalisations is subject to some restrictions: certain result nominals absorb the internal argument and agentive nominalisations absorb the external argument, so that syntactic realisation of either in the respective DPs is ruled out. 186

Derivation and category change (I)

The syntactic expression of arguments with nominalisations may also involve thematic relational adjectives (Bosque and Picallo 1996) and possessive determiners. Thematic adjectives realise the external arguments (Agents) of the nominals decisión ‘decision’ and manipulación ‘manipulation’ in (9a) and the internal arguments (Themes) of contaminación ‘pollution’ and infección ‘infection’ in (9b): (9) a. decisión presidencial ‘presidential decision’/manipulación mediática ‘media manipulation’ b. contaminación hídrica ‘water pollution’/infección ocular ‘eye infection’ In (9a), decisión presidencial is interpreted as decision made by the president and manipulación mediática as manipulation done by the media. In (9b), contaminación hídrica is interpreted as pollution damaging rivers, seas, and so on and infección ocular as an infection afecting the eyes. Bosque and Picallo (1996) suggest a diferent structural position for these adjectives that saturate an argument of the nominal predicate, whereas the same adjectives may be used as modifers with a restrictive—mainly classifcatory—meaning in other DPs, such as palco presidencial ‘presidential box’ or testigo ocular ‘eye witness’. Bosque and Picallo (1996) and Picallo (1999) observe that event nominals do not admit adjective realisation of its internal argument, as shown in (10c), where the event reading is forced by the agentive PP: (10) a. la invasión de Roma por los bárbaros ‘the invasion of Rome by the barbarians’ b. la caza de felinos por trafcantes inescrupulosos ‘the hunting of felines by unscrupulous trafckers’ c. *la invasión romana por los bárbaros/*la caza felina por trafcantes inescrupulosos ‘the Roman invasion by the barbarians’/‘the feline hunting by unscrupulous trafckers’ Possessive determiners also express the external (11b) or the internal argument (11 c) of an event nominalisation: (11) a. la invasión del campo por la hinchada ‘the pitch invasion by the fans’ b. su invasión del campo ‘Their invasion of the pitch’ c. su invasión por la hinchada ‘Its invasion by the fans’ In contrast, as Picallo (1999) observes, there are restrictions with result nominals when the two arguments are present: possessives as external arguments do occur with the internal argument (12b), but possessives as internal arguments are impossible if the external argument is also present (12c): (12) a. la narración de Watson de los casos de Holmes ‘Watson’s narrative of Holmes’ cases’ b. su narración de los casos de Holmes ‘His narrative of Holmes’ cases’ c. *su narración de Watson ‘Its narrative of Watson’ 187

Gabriela Resnik

Escandell Vidal (1997) assumes a sentence-like DP and considers the possessive the structural subject of argument-taking nouns. No restrictions appear in the passive structure of (11c), because the Theme is the only possible subject, as PPs cannot be possessivised. In the active structure of (12c), meanwhile, the Theme is not an appropriate subject if the Agent is present and realised in a genitive marked phrase, that is, a better candidate as structural subject.4 The distinction between event and result nominals correlates to a certain point with the mass/count distinction, thus afecting other morphosyntactic properties such as pluralisation and distribution of determiners. The following examples show that (at least in the simpler cases) event nominalisations behave like mass nouns, difcult to pluralise (13b), whereas result nominalisations denote easily pluralised countable entities (14b): (13) a. la creación de prototipos por el diseñador ‘the creation of prototypes by the designer’ b. *las creaciones de prototipos por parte del diseñador ‘The creations of prototypes by the designer’ (14) a. una nueva creación de la colección otoño-invierno ‘a new creation of the autumn-winter collection’ b. dos/tres nuevas creaciones de la colección otoño-invierno ‘two/three new creations of the autumn-winter collection’ Event nominals only appear in defnite DPs with the defnite article (15a), while result nominals occur in defnite or indefnite DPs and accept a variety of determiners and quantifers (15b): (15) a. la/*una/?esta/*cada construcción de viviendas sociales por el gobierno ‘the/a/this/each building of social housing by the government’ b. la/una/esta/cada construcción de madera ‘the/a/this/each wood(en) building’ In (15a), the demonstrative may be used anaphorically, but not deictically. In contrast, there are no restrictions in the demonstrative value in (15b). Specialisation of nominalising sufxes regarding argument structure seems to be a matter of tendencies rather than strict conditions on the selection of verb bases. The most productive nominalisers, -ción, -miento, vocalic segments and -da (in certain dialects), predictably accept all classes: transitives (degustación ‘tasting’, descubrimiento ‘discovery’, lavada ‘washing’, ajuste ‘adjustment’), unergatives (fuctuación ‘fuctuation’, entrenamiento, ‘training’, frenada ‘jamming of brakes’, paro ‘strike’) and unaccusatives/ergatives (expiración ‘termination’, enfriamiento ‘loss of temperature’, llegada ‘arrival’, suba ‘rise’). Yet productivity is remarkably higher for certain suffxes with certain bases. Both -ción and -miento, for instance, occur mostly with transitive and ergative bases, though this is not necessarily due to argument structure; it could also be an efect of both sufxes being very productive with morphologically complex bases (-ción with bases in -izar or -ifcar, -miento with parasynthetic bases or bases in -ecer).

4 Event structure in nominalisation Deverbal nominalisations denoting events display almost the same aspectual properties as the verb base. In other words, event structure is also wholly or partly inherited in this derivation process or, as Fábregas and Marín (2012) show in a cross-linguistic study, in regular nominalisation 188

Derivation and category change (I)

processes the denotation of the noun is contained in the aktionsart of the base. This can be observed in the fact that event nominals accept the same types of modifers as the base verbs: (16) a. Los estudiantes acamparon en el bosque durante tres días. ‘The students camped in the wood for three days’ b. la acampada de los estudiantes en el bosque durante tres días ‘the students’ camping in the wood for three days’ (17) a. Evaluaron a los candidatos en una hora. ‘They examined the candidates in an hour’ b. la evaluación de los candidatos en una hora ‘The examination of the candidates in an hour’ (18) a. El presidente llegó a las 10:30. ‘The president arrived at 10:30’ b. la llegada del presidente a las 10:30 ‘The arrival of the president at 10:30’ (19) a. Juan se deprimió por su calvicie durante años. ‘John was depressed for years over his bald patch’ b. la depresión de Juan por su calvicie durante años ‘John’s depression over his bald patch for years’ In (16b), compatibility with the durative modifer durante tres días is maintained in the DP, where the noun acampada denotes an Activity in the Vendler (1967)–Dowty (1979) proposal, the same event type as the verb acamparon in (16a). The frame adverbial en una hora occurs with Accomplishments, telic and durative events, as evaluaron a los candidatos in (17a) and evaluación de los candidatos in (17b). The modifer a las 10:30 identifes telic, non-durative events such as llegó (18a) and llegada (18b), both of them Achievements. Finally, the durative modifer durante años occurs with deprimir(se) (19a) and depresión (19b), States in the Vendler (1967)–Dowty (1979) sense, where no dynamicity nor change is involved. The examples in (16)–(19) show not only the preservation of the aktionsart of the verb base but also that temporal modifers maintain their syntactic form in the DP, with diferent preposition heads (durante, en, a). This is a distinctive property of event nominalisations, as has been noted in Grimshaw (1990), Picallo (1991), Escandell Vidal (1997) and Alexiadou (2001) in a variety of languages. As opposed to event nominalisations, result nominalisations reject these modifers (20a) and only accept modifers headed by de (20b) in Spanish, just like any non-eventive noun (20c): (20) a. *una construcción durante/en dos años ‘a building during/in two years’ b. una construcción de madera/de dos pisos/de lujo/de dos años ‘a wooden/two-tier/luxury/two-year building’ c. una casa de madera/un autobús de dos pisos/un hotel de lujo/un coche de dos años ‘a wooden house/a two-tier bus/a luxury hotel/a two-year car’ In (20b–c), modifers have diferent meanings, whereas in (16)–(19), the type of modifer is conditioned by the internal temporal structure of the event-denoting verb or noun. While durante tres días/en una hora indicate duration or limit of the event in (16–17), the modifer de dos años refers to the age of the object denoted by the nouns in (20b–c). The presence or absence of event structure in event and result nominalisations involves other contrasts.5 Predicates like tener lugar ‘take place’, empezar ‘begin’, terminar ‘end’, and so 189

Gabriela Resnik

on select event denoting nouns as subjects (21a–b), so that result nominals cannot appear in this context (21c): (21) a. Empezó/terminó el embalaje de los productos por parte del personal. ‘The packing of the products by the crew started/ended’ b. La llegada de los jugadores tuvo lugar/fue el viernes pasado. ‘The arrival of the players took place/was last Friday’ c. *Empezó/terminó el embalaje de plástico. ‘The plastic packaging started/ended’ Picallo (1991, 1999) points out that some evaluative predicates like ser inexacto ‘be inexact’ are the reverse of the eventive predicates in (21), picking result nominals as subjects: La descripción/ narración fue inexacta (‘The description/narrative was inexact’) assesses the outcome and never the process. Aspectual prepositions en medio de ‘in the middle of ’ and durante ‘during’ require events as complements, which means only event nominalisations (22a) occur in this context: (22) a. El dinero se acabó durante/en medio de la flmación de la película. ‘The money ended during/in the middle of the flming of the picture’ b. El dinero se acabó *durante/en medio de la flmación dañada. ‘The money ended during/in the middle of the damaged flm’ From Grimshaw’s (1990) analysis onwards, aspectual adjectives such as frequent and constant in English have been considered tests for nominal eventivity. Spanish adjectives frecuente and constante trigger the same contrast, as they only modify event (23a–b) but not result nominals (23c–d) when used in singular DPs: (23) a. la edifcación constante de nuevos hoteles ‘the constant building of new hotels’ b. la frecuente salida de trenes a esta hora ‘the frequent departure of trains around this time’ c. *la constante edifcación de piedra ‘the constant stone building’ d. *la frecuente salida principal de la ciudad ‘the frequent main exit of the city’ Other adjectives are the reverse of frecuente/constante, in that they seem to modify result nominals alone: una edifcación sólida/lujosa (‘a solid/luxury building’) can only refer to a building, not to the process of building: *la edifcación sólida/lujosa de hoteles en esta zona ‘the solid/ luxury building of hotels in this area’). Finally, admission of adverbs in -mente by some event nominals seems striking evidence of active verbal morphology in the nominal domain, thus showing the appeal of constructional analyses like Alexiadou’s (2001), which projects two category nodes for event nominalisations. This context is shown in (24a), while (24b) indicates that no adverbs in -mente are admissible with result nominals: (24) a. Sorprende la creación de nuevos modelos constantemente. ‘Constantly creating new models is surprising’ 190

Derivation and category change (I)

b. *Sorprende una famosa creación constantemente. ‘A famous creation constantly is surprising’ Unstressed vocalic sufxes -a, -e and -o (see Camacho, this volume) display the same behaviour as other nominalisers, including cases of polysemy (la cría de ganado ‘cattle breeding’, una vaca con su cría ‘a cow with her ofspring’). Those that denote events are arguments of tener lugar (el ataque a Pearl Harbour por la armada japonesa tuvo lugar en 1941 ‘the attack of Pearl Habour by the Japanese army took place in 1941’), accept aspectual adjectives and ‘verbal’ modifers (el vuelo constante de los aviones ‘the constant fying of airplanes’, la entrega del paquete a las 10/en una hora ‘the delivery of the package at 10/in an hour’) and their argument structure may be realised in the same way as other nominals (la pesca de atún por grandes pesqueras ‘the fshing of tuna by big fsheries’—la pesca atunera por grandes pesqueras ‘tuna fshing by big fsheries’). In their semantic content and syntactic behaviour, they pattern with the rest of the event-denoting nominalising sufxes. Some of the tests shown so far prove difcult to apply in a general scale, because they depend on the aspectual features of the nouns involved. Some contexts—prepositions durante or en medio de—require durative events, such as activities; others—predicates such as tener lugar—exclude non-dynamic events, that is, states (cf. Fábregas and Marín 2012). Certain sufxes form nominals that appear only in a selection of contexts, which suggests that specialisation of derivational morphemes may be linked to aspectual features in nominalisation processes, as seems to be the case with deverbal event nouns in -da, -ido and -dero. Dialectal variation, as we observed in section  2, clearly afects the productivity and the semantic function of the sufxes. In the case of -da, restrictions on the selection of bases difer within Andean and Río de la Plata (RP) varieties, where it is most productive. In both areas, nonetheless, those restrictions seem to be aspectual in nature (against Bordelois 1993), as the sufx excludes non-dynamic verb bases, that is, states6 (*la permanecida/existida/sabida de . . . ‘the permanence/existence/knowledge of . . .’). Additionally, in RP Spanish, most achievements are also excluded: *la marchitada/forecida/envejecida ‘the withering/fowering/ageing’, *la palidecida/ aumentada/empeorada ‘the pale-turning/increasing/worsening’, as well as other types: *la (des) aparecida ‘the (dis)appearing’. In contrast, (des)aparecida, perdida ‘getting lost’, engordada ‘getting fat’ and many others are usual in Andean Spanish (see Mondoñedo 2006). In RP Spanish, the sufx seems non-productive with achievement bases, movement verbs salida ‘departure’, llegada ‘arrival’, caída ‘fall’, and so on being a closed series (Resnik 2013).7 Regarding -ido, it is only productive with semelfactive verb bases, mainly ‘emission’ verbs like ladrido ‘bark(ing)’, chillido ‘shriek(ing)’, zumbido ‘buzz(ing)’; see Lacuesta y Bustos Gisbert (1999, 4567–68), RAE-ASALE (2009, 5.9l). Finally, as Fábregas (2010a) observes, Central American Spanish sufx -dero shows aspectual specialisation: it selects both telic and atelic verb bases (levantadera ‘getting up’, tembladera ‘trembling’), the intensity meaning of the resulting nominalisation indicating iteration (from telic verbs) or high degree (from atelic verbs). Aspectual restrictions may also be found in other types of nominalisations. Laca (1993) observes diferent aspectual values in nouns in -dor: they imply habitual actions, which serves to characterise types of individuals, animate or inanimate (diseñador ‘designer’, fumador ‘smoker’, tostadora ‘toaster’, desfbrilador ‘defbrillator’), or they imply single actions (competidor ‘competitor’, mediador ‘mediator’), which may have a perfective value (ganador ‘winner’). It is possible that this perfective value depends on telicity: nouns formed from achievements (vencer ‘to win’, descubrir ‘discover’) can be paraphrased with a verb in the past tense: vencedor ‘winner’/descubridor ‘discoverer’→ el que venció/descubrió (x) ‘the one who won/discovered (x)’. If the base is an accomplishment, the perfective reading is obtained when a bounded internal argument is 191

Gabriela Resnik

present: la diseñadora del avión ‘the designer of the airplane’ → la que diseñó el avión ‘the one who designed the airplane’ (vs. habitual reading of la diseñadora de aviones ‘the airplane designer’ → la que diseña (habitualmente) aviones ‘the one who (habitually) designs airplanes’, a present-tense paraphrase).

5 Nominalisations and infnitives Event-denoting nominalisations have often been compared with the infnitive, the verbal uninfected form that seems to be semantically equivalent: el cabeceo de Juan durante la clase ‘John’s nodding of in class’ = el cabecear Juan durante la clase ‘John nodding of in class’. While these constructions are semantically similar, they are syntactically diferent. There is another Spanish infnitival construction, el cabecear de Juan durante la clase ‘John’s nodding of in class’, where the infnitive behaves like a noun, sharing syntactic properties with one of the types analysed in sections 3 and 4: result nominals. The diference between the verbal and the nominal infnitival constructions in Spanish can be made clearer applying a few of Bosque’s (1990, 149–52) set of tests. Some of these refer to argument structure realisation, as we have seen in section 3. Nominative (Juan) or genitive (de Juan) subject identify a verbal or nominal construction, respectively. Adverbs in -mente in (25a) are only admissible in verbal as opposed to nominal infnitival constructions, which in turn only accept adjective modifcation, impossible in the verbal structure (25b): (25) a. El caminar pausadamente Juan/*de Juan. ‘John unhurriedly walking’ b. El caminar pausado de Juan/*Juan. ‘John’s unhurried walking’ The typically nominal modifers headed by de, as we saw in (20b–c), are rejected by the verbal infnitive: El salir ayer/*de ayer María ‘Maria going out yesterday’. Verbal infnitives can be passivised (26a), and display modal and aspectual properties in complex verb forms (26b-c): (26) a. el ser invitado Juan/*de Juan por el director ‘John being invited by the director’ b. el haber nacido María/*de María en México ‘Maria having been born in Mexico’ c. el tener que andar repitiendo todo una y otra vez la madre/*de la madre ‘the mother having to repeat everything time and again’ Matters are certainly more complex, as evidenced by the occurrence of the determiner in all the previous examples, an intriguing feature in the verbal structure, explained by diverse proposals. In this chapter, though, it sufces to point out that, while the verbal infnitive construction shares meaning and some types of modifers with event nominalisations, it also involves a more complex functional structure, with structural-case assigning properties and other sentence-like characteristics seen in (26). The nominal infnitival construction, in contrast, shares many syntactic properties with result nominalisations, such as genitive-marked arguments and modifers, and, for a few of them, the possibility of plural forms (saberes ‘knowledge’, deberes ‘duties’). The

192

Derivation and category change (I)

nominal infnitive construction, unlike the verbal infnitive structure, is a very restricted, nonproductive structure in the present state of the Spanish language.

Notes 1 The nature of this vocalic segments is controversial, as they can be considered nominal categorisers and not proper sufxes, which means deverbal nouns in -a/-o/-e have a zero sufx. The direction of the derivational process (V >N or N >V), when the vowels are conceived of as sufxes, is also a matter of debate in some cases. 2 See Picallo (1991) for a formalised proposal of the same phenomenon in Catalan, which posits two different sufxes, in diferent structural positions, for event and result nominals. No signifcant contrast is observed in the morphosyntax of nominalisations in Catalan and Spanish. 3 The locative value (comedor ‘dining room’, recibidor ‘hallway’) is non-productive (cf. Laca 1993, 196). 4 Alternatively, it could be the case that the possessive is always in this structurally high ‘subject’ position in the DP (cf. Cinque, apud Giorgi 1991, for Italian): thus, the possessive and the genitive marked Agent would be in the same position in (12c), rendering the construction ungrammatical. 5 See Resnik (2011) for a full set of aspect related tests, also applied to non-deverbal but event-denoting Spanish nouns such as guerra (‘war’), accidente (‘accident’), huelga (‘strike’) or pánico (‘panic’). 6 The only exception is estada > estar (stage-level copula): la estada de Juan en Lima (‘John’s stay in Lima’). 7 In other areas, where -da is not as productive, Fábregas (2010b) explains distribution of participle-based sufxes -da/-do, as opposed to -miento, in terms of argument structure (specifcally, the type of internal argument).

References Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Booij, G. 1988. “The Relation between Inheritance and Argument Linking: Deverbal Nouns in Dutch.” In Morphology and Modularity, edited by M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregt, and M. Trommelen, 57–73. Dordrecht: Foris. Bordelois, Y. 1993. “Afjación y estructura temática: -Da en español.” In La formación de palabras, edited by S. Varela, 162–79. Madrid: Taurus. Bosque, I. 1990. Las categorías gramaticales. Relaciones y diferencias. Madrid: Síntesis. Bosque, I., and M. C. Picallo. 1996. “Postnominal Adjectives in Spanish DPs.” Journal of Linguistics 32 (2): 349–85. Chomsky, N. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, edited by R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum, 232–86. Waltham: Ginn. Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Escandell Vidal, M. V. 1997. Los complementos del nombre. Madrid: Arco Libros. Fábregas, A. 2010a. “Una nota sobre la variación morfológica: las nominalizaciones en -dera en español.” Sintagma: Revista de lingüística 22: 37–50. Fábregas, A. 2010b. “A Syntactic Account of Afx Rivalry in Spanish.” In The Syntax of Nominalizations Across Languages and Frameworks, edited by A. Alexiadou and M. Rathert, 67–91. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Fábregas, A., and R. Marín. 2012. “The Role of Aktionsart in Deverbal Nouns: State Nominalizations Across Languages.” Journal of Linguistics 48 (1): 35–70. Giorgi, A. 1991. “On NPs, θ-marking and c-command.” In The Syntax of Noun Phrases, edited by A. Giorgi and G. Longobardi, 22–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gràcia, L. 1995. Morfologia Lèxica. L’herència de l’estructura argumental. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia. Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

193

Gabriela Resnik

Laca, B. 1993. “Las nominalizaciones orientadas y los derivados españoles en -dor y -nte.” In La formación de palabras, edited by S. Varela, 162–79. Madrid: Taurus. Lacuesta, R. S., and E. Bustos Gisbert. 1999. “La derivación nominal.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, vol. 3, 4506–94. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Lang, M. 1992. Formación de palabras en español. Morfología derivativa productiva en el léxico moderno. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra. Mondoñedo, A. 2006. “Nombres eventivos en -da en castellano. Estructura morfológica y distribución sintáctica.” Master thesis, Pontifcia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima. Picallo, M. C. 1991. “Nominals and Nominalizations in Catalan.” Probus 3: 279–316. Picallo, M. C. 1999. “La estructura del sintagma nominal: las nominalizaciones y otros complementos argumentales.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, vol. 1, 363–93. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. RAE and ASALE (Real Academia Española/Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española). 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Resnik, G. 2011. “Los nombres eventivos no deverbales en español.” PhD diss., Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. Resnik, G. 2013. “Las nominalizaciones en -ada en el español rioplatense.” In Perspectivas teóricas y experimentales sobre el español de la Argentina, edited by L. Colantoni and C. Rodríguez Louro, 191–205. Madrid: Iberoamericana. Varela Ortega, S. 1993. “Líneas de investigación en la teoría morfológica.” In La formación de palabras, edited by S. Varela, 13–29. Madrid: Taurus. Varela Ortega, S. 2005. Morfología léxica: la formación de palabras. Madrid: Gredos. Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press. Vox Diccionario de Uso del Español de América y España (2003). Barcelona: Spes. CD edition.

194

14 Derivation and category change (II) Josefa Martín GarcíaDerivation and category change (II)

Adjectivalization (Derivación y cambio categorial II: las adjetivalizaciones)

Josefa Martín García

1 Introduction This chapter focuses on the adjectival derivation with sufxes from verb and noun bases. Several types of derived adjectives are recognized from the syntactic and semantic properties that the adjective displays, some of them inherited from the base. Adjectival sufxes, on the other hand, participate in the derivation in diferent ways according to their degree of semantic specifcity. So, it is possible to distinguish the semantically more specifc sufxes from the less specifed ones. Keywords: denominal adjectives; deverbal adjectives; adjectival sufx; inheritance; rivalry Este capítulo se centra en la derivación de adjetivos con sufjos a partir de bases verbales y nominales. Se reconocen distintos tipos de adjetivos derivados a partir de las propiedades sintácticas y semánticas que presentan, algunas de ellas heredadas de la base. Los sufjos adjetivales, por su parte, intervienen en la derivación de distinto modo según su grado de especifcidad semántica, por lo cual es posible distinguir los sufjos más especifcados semánticamente de los menos especifcados. Palabras clave: adjetivos denominales; adjetivos deverbales; sufjos adjetivales; herencia; rivalidad

2 What is adjectivalization? Adjectivalization is the derivation of adjectives from other categories by attaching sufxes (cremoso ‘creamy’), prefxes (inhabitado ‘uninhabited’) (see Fábregas, this volume; Gibert-Sotelo, this volume), and prefxes and sufxes in so-called parasynthetic formations (achocolatado ‘chocolate [colour]’) (see Mateu, this volume). This chapter focuses on the sufxal adjectivalization. The adjectival sufxes combine with diferent categories: verbs (1a), nouns (1b), adverbs (1c), and adjectives (1d):

195

Josefa Martín García

(1) a. exportable export-ble ‘that can be exported’ b. tropical tropic-al ‘tropical’ c. cercano near-ano ‘near’ d. feoso ugly-oso ‘fairly ugly’ Only the frst two of the previous processes are productive in Spanish. The formation of adjectives from adverbs (1c) is reduced to a few adverbs of location (2). The adjectives derived from adjective bases denote tones of the colour indicated by the base (3a) or an intensifcation of the property of the adjective base (3b), the latter being more frequent in American Spanish. (2) a. lejano far-ano ‘remote’ b. delantero in front-ero ‘front’ (3) a. amarillento yellow-ento ‘yellowish’ b. maloso bad-oso ‘fairly bad’ The derivation of adjectives in Spanish thus focuses on two types of productive processes: on the one hand, deverbal adjectivalization (1a), and, on the other, denominal adjectivalization (1b). As is the case in other category changing derivations, the sufxed adjectives have a hybrid nature, as they conserve properties of the bases while presenting characteristics of an adjective. In the case of deverbal adjectives, the verbal character of the participles (see Marín, this volume and the references given there) and the verbal properties of adjectives derived with the sufx -ble (Oltra 2010) or with the sufx -nte (Cano Cambronero 2013) have been pointed out. Regarding denominal adjectives, it has been noted that relational adjectives present characteristics of noun phrases (Fábregas and Marín 2017); therefore, these adjectives could be considered transpositional lexemes, as proposed by Spencer and Nikolaeva (2017) for relational adjectives in English. The hybrid nature of derived adjectives has led several authors to state that these adjectives would be the result of the loss of some properties of the base nouns or verbs (Fábregas and Marín 2017), and consequently there would be diferent degrees of adjectivalization, as suggested by Oltra (2010) for deverbal adjectives, and Spencer and Nikolaeva (2017) for denominal adjectives. Diferent works on the formation of adjectives in Spanish (Rainer 1999; RAE and ASALE 2009; Martín García 2014, among others) have identifed several problems that highlight the complexity of this morphological process. First, some sufxes involved in the adjectivalization (semanal week-al ‘weekly’) can also derive nouns (arrozal rice-al ‘rice feld’), and even the same word can belong to more than one category: un profesional ‘a professional’/un trabajo profesional ‘a professional job’. Second, there are many adjectival sufxes to express very few meanings, although not all sufxes have the same degree of productivity. In this respect, it has been pointed out in some works that the system of adjective-forming sufxes in Spanish is not very economical (FaitelsonWeiser 1993). It is observed that for the same content, there can be several sufxes, such as the meaning of possession ‘that has N’ (4) or the active meaning ‘that V’ (5), among others: 196

Derivation and category change (II)

(4) a. -oso b. -iento c. -izo d. -udo e. -ado (5) a. -dor b. -nte c. -tivo

pecoso freckle-oso ‘freckled’ hambriento hunger-iento ‘hungry’ calizo lime-izo ‘that has lime’ orejudo ear-udo ‘long-eared’ alado wing-ado ‘winged’ agotador exhaust-dor ‘exhausting’ brillante shine-nte ‘shiny’ imaginativo imagine-tivo ‘imaginative’

Third, the same sufx can be attached to nominal and verbal bases to express diferent meanings. For example, the sufx -ario attached to nouns may give rise to relational adjectives (6a) and, to a lesser extent, to qualifying adjectives expressing possession (6b). Combined with verbal bases, the sufx indicates an active meaning (6c): (6) a. planetario planet-ario ‘planetary’ b. millonario million-ario ‘that has a lot of money’ c. incendiario fre-ario ‘that sets fres to’ Consequently, some derived adjectives can also be polysemic: (7) a. chico vergonzoso boy shame-oso ‘boy that feels shame (shy)’ b. novela vergonzosa novel shame-oso-f ‘novel that makes feel shame (shameful)’ Considering these prior issues, the chapter is divided into two sections. Section 3 analyses the properties of the derived adjectives by taking into account the characteristics of the base and establishing the types of formations. Section 4 studies the diferences between the adjectival sufxes through their contribution to the resulting word. The chapter closes with conclusions.

3 Derived adjectives From the formal point of view, most derived adjectives exhibit transparency of the base and of the sufx (8), although in other cases there is allomorphy in the base (9a) in derived words inherited from Latin. There may even be pairs of adjectives in which one form is taken from Latin (9b) and another is built on a Spanish root (9c): 197

Josefa Martín García

(8) a. bancario bank-ario ‘connected with a bank’ b. inundable food-ble ‘that can be fooded’ (9) a. agredir > agresivo to attack attack-ivo ‘aggressive’ b. Lat. oculāris > Sp. ocular ‘ocular’ c. ojo > ojoso eye eye-oso ‘(cheese, bread) that has a lot of eyes’ According to the grammatical category of the base, deverbal adjectives and denominal adjectives can be distinguished. We dedicate the following sections to determining the syntactic and semantic properties of these adjectives.

3.1

Deverbal adjectives

Deverbal adjectives difer from participles (see Marín, this volume) in that they do not entail a resultant state of a previous event but indicate a property that is predicated of a nominal entity, whose characteristics allow it to initiate the action (10a) or to undergo it (10b): (10) a. peinado rejuvenecedor hairstyle rejuvenate-dor ‘hairstyle that rejuvenates’ b. decisión criticable decision criticize-ble ‘decision that can be criticized’ Therefore, these adjectives do not denote an event or a change of state and, according to the form of predication, work on Spanish have distinguished active deverbal adjectives (10a) from passive deverbal adjectives (10b). In the frst case, the modifed noun is the agent or causer of the event denoted in the verb base, and in the second case, it is the patient. Adjectival sufxes can derive a single type of adjectives: for example, -dor, -nte, or -tivo gives rise to active adjectives. In the case of the sufx -ble, the most productive sufx in the formation of passive adjectives, it can also give rise to a few adjectives with active interpretation: agradable (‘that can please’), variable (‘that can vary’). In these formations, the noun modifed by the adjective has the appropriate characteristics to initiate the process indicated in the verbal base: una decisión agradable is a decision that, given its characteristics, can please or be likeable. The active or passive reading of the deverbal adjectives is usually accompanied by other interpretations such as intensity (11a), reiteration (11b), possibility (11c–d), disposition (11e), obligation (11f): (11) a. chico bailón boy dance-ón ‘boy that dances a lot’ b. padres ahorradores parents save-dor-pl ‘parents that usually save’ c. crema rejuvenecedora cream rejuvenate-dor-f ‘cream that (can) rejuvenate’ d. chaqueta lavable jacket wash-ble ‘jacket that can be washed’ e. animal asustadizo animal frighten-dizo ‘animal that frightens easily’ f. comportamiento elogiable behaviour praise-ble ‘behaviour that must be praised’ 198

Derivation and category change (II)

These readings can be grouped into more general semantic types according to the relationship of the modifed noun with the event denoted by the base verb (Fabregas 2016a). In active adjectives, there is a diference between adjectives that indicate that the entity represented in the modifed noun efectively performs the action of the verb and adjectives in which the noun has the characteristics to initiate the action, without entailing that it actually does it. In the frst case, adjectives indicate generic and habitual properties with an aspectual value, as in the examples (11a, b); in the second case, adjectives indicate descriptive properties related to modal values (11c, e). These two values can be expressed with the same sufx, as in the previous ahorrador/ rejuvenecedor pair, but also with diferent sufxes, which makes it possible to diferentiate apparently similar sufxes, as is the case of the sufxes -dor and -nte (Cano Cambronero 2013): (12) a. empresa contaminadora company pollute-dor-f ‘polluting company’ b. sustancia contaminante substance pollute-nte ‘polluting substance’ In (12a), the property is predicated of the noun empresa in the sense that the denoted entity performs the polluting action, so it becomes a characterizing property. In (12b), on the contrary, the predicated property means that the noun sustancia has the characteristics to contaminate, even if this action has not necessarily taken place. In passive adjectives, if participles are excluded as verb forms and therefore with a clear passive and aspectual meaning (cf. Marín, this volume), the rest of the passive deverbal adjectives present a modal reading. Thus, a formation such as lavable (11d) does not entail that the modifed noun (chaqueta) has undergone the action but rather that it has the appropriate characteristics for the washing action to take place. Deverbal adjectives retain several properties of the verbal base. The noun modifed by the adjective is the external argument of the verb in active adjectives or the internal argument in passive adjectives. In consequence, the semantic relationship between the verb and its argument is maintained between the deverbal adjective and the modifed noun. Thus, in a sentence such as El chico baila mucho (‘the boy dances a lot’), chico is the agent of the action, meaning that remains the same in the phrase chico bailón (11a). Deverbal adjectives can inherit a second argument from the base verb. For example, active adjectives can retain the internal argument of transitive verbs (13a) or a prepositional phrase selected by a verb (13b). Similarly, passive adjectives can carry an agent complement (13c) or a prepositional phrase (13d): (13) a. la empresa contaminadora del río the company pollute-dor-f of-the river ‘the river polluting company’ b. una tierra abundante en petróleo a land abound-nte in oil ‘oil-rich land’ c. un código descifrable por matemáticos expertos a code decipher-ble by mathematicians expert-m-pl ‘a decipherable code by expert mathematicians’ d. una norma aplicable a todos los ciudadanos a rule apply-ble to all-m-pl the-m-pl citizens ‘a rule applicable to all citizens’ Along with the argument inheritance, it has also been proposed that deverbal adjectives maintain the aspectual properties of the verbal base, a fact that determines whether the adjective 199

Josefa Martín García

can be quantifed (Kornfeld 2009). Specifcally, unbounded verbs give rise to adjectives that admit degree modifers (14a); by contrast, bounded verbs are the base for non-gradable adjectives (14b): (14) a. un chico muy hablador a boy very speak-dor ‘a boy that speaks a lot’ b. un chico (*muy) ganador de carreras a boy very win-dor of races ‘a boy that wins races a lot’ The unbounded nature of the base verb makes it possible for the deverbal adjectives to develop intensive and repetitive readings: bailón (‘that dances a lot’), hablador (‘that speaks a lot’). The gradability of deverbal adjectives is also favoured by the generic reading (Cano Cambronero 2013) (15a) and by the modal reading (Kornfeld 2009) (15b): (15) a. una empresa muy contaminadora (*del río) a company very pollute-dor-f of-the river ‘a company that pollutes the river a lot’ b. un código muy descifrable a code very decipher-ble ‘a very decipherable code’ In (15a), the degree modifer with an episodic reading of the adjective is not possible, although the base verb with this reading admits quantifcation: contaminar mucho el río (‘to pollute the river a lot’). In (15b), the adjective with the -ble sufx can have a degree modifer, although the base verb does not accept it: *descifrar mucho el código (‘to decipher the code a lot’). In this latter case, the quantifcation of the adjective afects the modal content: the meaning ‘that can be Ved’ can be understood as ‘easy to V’, where the quantifcation is interpreted as ‘very easy to V’ but not as ‘easy to V a lot’ (Kornfeld 2009). On the other hand, deverbal adjectives also admit modifers characteristic of the verbs (Bosque 1999): (16) a. un colchón hinchable poco a poco a mattress infate-ble little by little ‘an infatable mattress little by little’ b. un clima rápidamente cambiante a climate quickly change-nte ‘a quickly changing climate’ However, there are deverbal adjectives that do not preserve the properties of the verbal base. Some admit neither arguments (17a) nor complements with which the verb combines (17b). (17) a. *Una sustancia contaminante del río (vs. La sustancia contamina el río) a substance pollute-nte of-the river ‘a polluting substance of the river’ (‘The substance pollutes the river’) b. *Una bayeta rápidamente absorbente (vs. La bayeta absorbe rápidamente) a cloth quickly absorb-nte ‘a quickly absorbent cloth’ (‘The cloth absorbs quickly’) Considering these diferences in the behaviour of deverbal adjectives, two types of adjectives can be established: eventive adjectives and non-eventive adjectives. The former maintains the argumental and aspectual properties of the verb, while the latter does not exhibit any verbal 200

Derivation and category change (II)

properties. This distinction has led several authors to identify diferent types of the same suffx and diferent types of formations with the same sufx: for example, Oltra (2010) for the sufx -ble or Cano Cambronero (2013) for the sufx -nte. However, as pointed out in Oltra (2010), among derived adjectives, there are diferent degrees of eventivity. As a consequence, a scale can be established ranging from passive participles, with a higher degree of eventivity, to deverbal adjectives that do not have any degree of eventivity, as is the case with -ón formations (18a) and with most of the formations in -tivo (18b), which accept neither arguments nor verbal complements. (18) a. un chico bailón (*de famenco) (*durante toda a boy dance-ón of famenco for all-f ‘boy that dances a lot famenco all night’ b. una persona comunicativa (*de sus planes) a person communicate-ivo-f of his plans ‘a person that communicates his plans’

la noche) the-f night

Between the two extremes, there are other deverbal formations that present verbal and adjectival characteristics, as in the formations in -ble, -nte, and -dor referred to in (13) and (16). The diferent degree of eventivity enables us to diferentiate deverbal adjectives built over the same verb but with a diferent sufx. Thus, in (19a), the adjective ahorrador can carry the internal argument of the verb, a possibility ruled out for the adjective ahorrativo (19b): (19) a. una impresora ahorradora de tinta a printer save-dor-f of ink b. una impresora ahorrativa (*de tinta) a printer save-tiv-F of ink both: ‘an ink-saving printer’ The same applies to passive deverbal adjectives. The diference between the pagadero and pagable formations of (20) is because the former lacks verbal features (20a), as opposed to the adjective in -ble, which maintains the argumental and aspectual properties of the base verb (20b). (20) a. un crédito pagadero (*poco a poco) (*por pequeños inversores) a credit pay-dero little by litte by small-pl investor-pl b. un crédito pagable poco a poco por pequeños inversores a credi pay-ble little by little by small-pl investor-pl both: ‘a credit payable little by little by small investors’ The existence of diferent degrees of eventivity in deverbal adjectives has at least two consequences. First, sufxes can be classifed according to this parameter, and it is possible to speak of more verbal or less verbal sufxes: the sufxes -dor and -ble are more verbal than the sufxes -tivo and -dero, as the examples of (19) and (20) show. Second, the same sufx can present diferent types of eventivity. For example, Oltra (2010) distinguishes two types of -ble: a sufx that gives rise to adjectives with eventive features (referred to as “potential adjectives”), which accept the agent complement and verbal complements, and another sufx that derives non-eventive adjectives (referred to as “evaluative adjectives”), which do not admit any type of complement. Even the same adjective can have a double meaning (21): 201

Josefa Martín García

(21) a. un comportamiento aceptable a behaviour accept-ble ‘an acceptable behaviour’ b. un precio aceptable por todos los vendedores a price accept-ble by all-m-pl the-m-pl seller-pl ‘a price acceptable by all sellers’ The adjective aceptable is ambiguous. In (21a), it is an evaluative adjective with the meaning of ‘good’ and lacks eventivity. The same adjective in (21b) has verbal features, so it takes a complement and can be paraphrased as ‘that can be accepted’.

3.2 Denominal adjectives Denominal adjectives establish a relation between the base noun of the formation and the noun modifed by the denominal adjective. According to the relationship between the two nouns, two types of adjectives have been distinguished: qualifying adjectives and relational adjectives (cf. Bosque 1993 for the characteristics of these adjectives in Spanish). The former denotes properties applied to the entities they modify in order to describe them. These properties are constitutive of the referent of the base noun, and, in turn, are used to characterize the referent of the modifed noun. Relational adjectives, on the other hand, classify the entities denoted in the modifed noun and establish diferent types of relations with it. In this case, the referent of the base noun is related to the modifed noun as a participant. Since base nouns can be understood according to their constitutive properties or according to their relationship with the modifed noun, it is possible to establish diferent readings of denominal adjectives (Rainer 1999; RAE and ASALE 2009; Martín García 2014; Fradin 2017; among others). Qualifying adjectives can denote possession (22a), resemblance (22b), cause (22c), and tendency (22d): (22) a. grasiento grease-iento ‘greasy’ b. cristalino crystal-ino ‘crystalline’ c. angustioso anguish-oso ‘distressing’ d. futbolero football-ero ‘football-loving’ As for the possession reading, denominal adjectives can express alienable possession (22a) or inalienable possession (dentudo tooth-udo ‘toothy’). In these cases, the base noun is constituted as the possessed entity and the noun modifed by the adjective is the possessor: comida grasienta ‘greasy food’. The referent of the base noun can be a physical entity (dentudo, grasiento) or a state, in which case the possessor is interpreted as an experiencer: chico vergonzoso ‘embarrassing boy’. Denominal adjectives of possession can denote abundance, referring to the quantity or size of the entity expressed by the base noun: añoso ‘with many years (aged)’, orejón ‘with big ears (bigeared)’. Likewise, adjectives can denote shortage, although it is unproductive in Spanish: rabón ‘with a short tail (bobtail)’. The lack of possession is expressed through parasynthetic processes (descamisado ‘without shirt’) (see Mateu, this volume), and there are very few cases with the suffx -ón (pelón ‘without hair’).

202

Derivation and category change (II)

In the semantic category of resemblance (22b), the base noun is interpreted regarding its most prototypical properties, which are predicated of the noun modifed by the denominal adjective. For example, in agua cristalina ‘crystalline water’, the characteristics of the crystal (transparency, brightness) are attributed to the noun agua. The properties that defne the referent of the base noun can refer to the aspect (varonil ‘manly’), to the colour (cobrizo ‘copper coloured’), to the texture (sedoso ‘silken’), to the form (circular ‘circular’), to the favour (vinagroso ‘vinegary’), to the sound (metálico ‘metallic’). This reading also includes the adjectives that express manner. Thus, adjectives derived from proper nouns denote characteristic properties of that noun: quijotesco ‘that behaves as Don Quijote’, cervantino ‘typical of Cervantes’. The denominal adjectives that express cause (22c) are formed with a base noun that describes the result of the causal relation between the two nouns. For example, in situación angustiosa ‘distressing situation’, the base noun angustia is the result, and the modifed noun is the causer: ‘situation that causes anguish’. Finally, in the relation of tendency (22d), the referent of the modifed noun is a human entity that experiences the liking or inclination towards what is represented in the base noun: chico futbolero ‘boy that likes football’. As for relational adjectives, the base noun is the participant in the relation that is established with the noun modifed by the adjective. Specifcally, the base noun can be interpreted as agent (23a), possessor (23b), patient (23c), place (23d), time (23e), among other notions: (23) a. protesta sindical protest union-al ‘union protest’ b. problema bancario problem bank-ario ‘banking problem’ c. ajuste salarial adjustment salary-al ‘salary adjustment’ d. fauna marina fauna sea-in-f ‘marine fauna’ e. cena navideña dinner Christmas-eñ-f ‘Christmas dinner’ In (23a), the base noun denotes the agent or initiator of the action expressed in the modifed noun, which is an event nominalization. The same relation can occur with nominal bases indicating causes: erupción volcánica ‘volcanic eruption’. Ethnic adjectives are very productive as modifers of deverbal nouns of action (investigación japonesa ‘Japanese research’), as is also the case with the adjectives derived from anthroponyms, which have creators of a work of art as referent: novela cervantina ‘novel written by Cervantes’. In (23b), a possession relation is established, but unlike the possession relation expressed by qualifying adjectives (22a), the base noun is interpreted as the possessor, even in the whole-part relationship: acento silábico ‘syllabic stress’. In the third possibility represented in example (23c), the base noun is the patient of the action denoted in the modifed noun, usually an event nominalization. In example (23d), the base noun is interpreted as a place. These bases can establish diferent semantic relations with the modifed noun. Thus, they can denote the origin, as in ethnic adjectives (empresa americana ‘American company’) or the location, in which case the base noun can be interpreted as ground (fauna marina ‘marine fauna’) or as fgure (zona escolar ‘school zone’). In (23e), the base noun denotes a time in which the entity represented in the modifed noun is situated. This relation can also occur with adjectives derived from anthroponyms, whose referents are famous people who have defned an era: vestido isabelino ‘dress from the time of Queen Elizabeth II’.

203

Josefa Martín García

The semantic interpretations mentioned previously are not exclusive of a particular adjective, but the denominal adjectives usually present more than one reading depending on the noun they modify. For example, the adjective cervecero is a relational adjective in (24a), with a patient interpretation. In (24b), on the contrary, the adjective is a qualifying adjective with the meaning of tendency: (24) a. exportación cervecera export beer-er- f ‘beer export’ b. hombre cervecero man beer-er-m ‘man that likes drinking beer’ As with deverbal adjectives, denominal adjectives also retain certain properties of their base. They can inherit the arguments (25a), the preposition selected by the noun (25b) or the verbal mode in the case of the clausal arguments (25c): (25) a. ansioso de poder longing-oso of power ‘eager for power’ b. alérgico a la penicilina allergy-ico to the-f penicillin ‘allergic to penicillin’ c. deseoso de que comiencen las vacaciones desire-oso of that begin.sbjv.3.pl the-f-pl holidays ‘eager for the holidays to begin’ Nevertheless, argument inheritance is often sensitive to the distinction between individuallevel predicates and state-level predicates. Adjectives with double interpretation only accept arguments when they are interpreted as state-level predicates and combine with estar (26a, b). As individual-level predicates, they combine with ser and exhibit other semantic values (26c, d): (26) a. Juan {está/ *es} orgulloso de que la economía vaya bien. Juan be.3.sg pride-oso of that the-f economy go.sbjv.3.sg well ‘Juan is proud that the economy is going well’ b. Los concursantes {están/*son} ansiosos de aventuras. The-masc-pl participants be.3.pl longing-oso-pl of adventures ‘The participants are eager for adventures’ c. Juan es orgulloso. ‘Juan is arrogant’ d. Los concursantes son ansiosos. ‘The participants are anxious’ Adjectives with a single interpretation as individual-level predicates keep the arguments: (27) a. Juan es alérgico a la penicilina. ‘Juan is allergic to penicillin’ b. Juan es partidario de prohibir el plástico. ‘Juan is in favour of banning plastic’ Denominal adjectives also inherit the bounded feature of the base noun, which determines that the adjective admits the degree quantifcation (Kornfel 2009). Thus, if the noun is countable and therefore is bounded, the corresponding denominal adjective rejects the degree modifers (28a). On the contrary, denominal adjectives derived from uncountable or unbounded nouns accept these quantifers (28b):

204

Derivation and category change (II)

(28) a. *ajustes adjustment b. ajustes adjustments

muy salariales very salary-al-pl ‘very salary adjustments’ muy angustiosos very anguish-oso-pl ‘very distressing adjustments’

However, this characterization apparently does not hold in examples such as (29). An adjective derived from a countable noun can be quantifed (29a), and conversely, an uncountable noun can be the base for an adjective that does not support degree quantifers (29b): (29) a. árbol muy añoso tree very year-oso ‘very aged tree’ b. exportación (*muy) cervecera export very beer-er-f ‘(very) beer export’ The relationship between the bounded character of the base noun and the possibility that the denominal adjective can be quantifed is linked to the diference between qualifying adjectives and relational adjectives. The former denotes properties that are inherent to the base noun, and consequently, since the degree quantifers have an impact on these properties, they can be graded. Relational adjectives, on the other hand, entail a relation in which the base noun is taken as a participant and, as a countable and defned entity, cannot be graded. This observation makes it possible to explain why the same adjective can or cannot be graded depending on how the base noun is interpreted. For example, adjectives derived from anthroponyms cannot be graded in their relational reading, since the proper name is a countable noun (30a). However, if that same adjective denotes the most characteristic properties of that proper noun, that is, it is a qualifying adjective, quantifcation is possible (30b). (30) a. novela (*muy) cervantina novel very Cervantes-in-f ‘novel written by Cervantes’ b. novela muy cervantina ‘novel written in the style of Cervantes’ If we take the base noun into account, the examples in (29) also fnd a satisfactory explanation. In (29a), the noun año is bounded but is interpreted in plural with an unbounded quantifcation (‘that has many years’) in the denominal adjective añoso. Consequently, the degree modifer acts on the number of referents of the base noun. The formation of (29b) represents the opposite case. The base noun is not bounded but in the derived adjective shows a bounded reading (‘export of the beer’) that blocks quantifcation. The indicated characteristics of the relational adjectives are expected if these adjectives keep the same meaning of the base and behave as nominal phrases (Fábregas and Marín 2017). In contrast to denominal qualifying adjectives, relational adjectives could be understood as a transposition of the base noun, as proposed by Gamełko (1975) and Spencer and Nikolaeva (2017).

4 Adjectival sufxes: restrictions and properties The adjectives discussed in the previous sections highlight at least two facts: 1) the same suffx can create adjectives of diferent types with diferent syntactic and semantic characteristics; 2) the same derived adjective can present a double behaviour. Besides, it should be noted that there are a huge number of sufxes for the expression of a few meanings, so several sufxes can

205

Josefa Martín García

provide the same content. In view of this evidence, two solutions can be proposed to account for the characteristics of derived adjectives. On the one hand, the properties of the adjective are determined by the base, in such a way that the sufx only marks the category because it lacks its own features. On the other hand, the adjectival sufx provides semantic content to the derived adjective. The frst solution has been given mainly to explain the relational adjectives, which present the same meaning of the nominal base, and the sufx only marks the category. However, some authors, such as Fradin (2017), extend this explanation to all denominal adjectives. The second solution is more convenient for some deverbal sufxes, which provide the adjective with content that does not exist in the verbal base, fundamentally modal and intensive meanings. If we consider these two solutions, it is possible to distinguish two types of adjectival sufxes: semantically unspecifed sufxes and semantically specifed ones. Unspecifed sufxes select bases of diferent categories and have fewer constraints, which makes them very productive. In addition, since they have no meaning, these sufxes may appear in derived adjectives of diferent types and with diferent readings. This group includes the sufx -oso, which can combine with diferent bases: nouns (cremoso ‘creamy’), verbs (apestoso ‘stinking’), adverbs (despacioso ‘slow’), and adjectives (verdoso ‘greenish’). Furthermore, it gives rise to several classes of derived adjectives (Martín García 2007): deverbal adjectives with active interpretation (31a); denominal relational adjectives (31b); denominal qualifying adjectives expressing possession (31c), resemblance (31d), cause (31e), or tendency (30f). (31) a. lugar apestoso place stink-oso ‘stinking place’ b. sistema nervioso system nerve-oso ‘nervous system’ c. pan aceitoso bread oil-oso ‘oily bread’ d. pelo sedoso hair silk-oso ‘silken hair’ e. ciudad ruidosa city noise-os-f ‘noisy city’ f. hombre chismoso man gossip-oso ‘gossipy man’ The same adjective can have more than one meaning. For example, the adjective nervioso can be a relational adjective as in (31b), but it can also be a qualifying adjective with the meaning of possession (hombre nervioso ‘nervous man’). Consequently, the function of this sufx is to relate the base noun to the noun modifed by the adjective, without providing any meaning (Martín García 2007). From a syntactic perspective, it has been proposed that -oso be a relational head, closer to prepositions than to adjectival sufxes (Fabregas 2016b). In addition to -oso, other adjectival sufxes are not semantically specifed: for example, -ero, -al, or sufxes that form ethnic adjectives. These sufxes productively give rise to relational adjectives and have a smaller distribution than that of the sufx -oso. Thus, the sufx -ero can combine with nouns (aceitunero ‘olive-ero’), with adverbs (delantero ‘front’), and even with prepositions (trasero ‘back’), in order to create productively relational adjectives (industria aceitunera ‘olive industry’) and qualifying adjectives expressing tendency (festero ‘party-loving’). However, although they are unspecifed sufxes, it is possible to observe certain trends that diferentiate the processes of adjectivalization. For instance, the sufx -oso is more productive

206

Derivation and category change (II)

in the formation of qualifying adjectives and -al (and its allomorph -ar) forms mostly relational adjectives, as evidenced by the musculoso (‘muscled’)/muscular (‘muscular’) pair. Among qualifying adjectives, -oso is more productive when it expresses possession and resemblance. On the other hand, the semantically more specifed sufxes bring specifc content to the resulting adjective and have more constraints. Derived adjectives, in turn, develop fewer semantic interpretations. Within this group, the deverbal sufx -ble is severely constrained, so it selects mostly verbal bases with an internal argument and an originator (Oltra 2010). The sufx provides a modal value to the derived adjective (falsifcable ‘that can be forged’), content that the base verb lacks. The sufxes -dor and -nte are also specifed sufxes and have hard constraints: they combine with verbs that carry an external argument initiating the process (32a) or the state (32b): (32) a. trabajo motivador job motivate-dor ‘motivating job’ b. lámpara colgante lamp hang-nte ‘hanging lamp’ Generally, deverbal sufxes are semantically more specifed than nominal sufxes, which may explain why the number of deverbal sufxes is smaller than that of denominal sufxes and why deverbal sufxes have more constraints and a smaller distribution. However, between the semantically least specifed sufxes and the most specifed ones, there are other sufxes which have diferent degrees of specifcity regarding the semantic content. Thus, the adjectival suffx -ón can combine with verbal bases (llorón ‘that cries a lot’) and with nominal bases (barrigón ‘that has a big belly’), providing the derived adjective with the same intensifying content. In denominal formations, this sufx resembles the sufx -udo, and both give rise to pairs such as barrigón/barrigudo with similar basic meanings. The sufx -udo only takes part in the formation of qualifying adjectives of inalienable possession, intensifying the size of the referent of the base noun and providing a pejorative value; therefore, -udo is more specifed than -ón. Consequently, the specifcity of the sufxes is related to constraints, productivity, and sufx distribution. If these variables are considered, as well as the variation in the formation of adjectives, it is possible to notice several trends that display a certain systematicity of the adjectivalization in Spanish. Therefore, any proposed classifcation of adjectival sufxes must consider the rivalry between sufxes, the productivity of each process, and the variation in all its dimensions.

5 Conclusions Derived adjectives have a hybrid nature because they keep some properties of the bases while exhibit the characteristics of the adjectives. The inheritance of the properties of the base comes in diferent degrees so that it is possible to recognize diferent types of adjectives. In deverbal adjectives, the adjectives that retain more properties of the verbs take arguments and verbal complements, a possibility ruled out for the less verbal adjectives. In denominal adjectives, relational adjectives show more nominal characteristics than qualifying adjectives, which conditions their syntactic behaviour. On the other hand, the adjectival sufxes are divided into two general types according to the semantic content they bring to the formation. The semantically more specifed sufxes have more constraints and provide semantic features that are absent in the base; the less specifed sufxes, on the contrary, have a wider distribution, are less constrained, and, in the most extreme cases, only provide the category to the adjectival formation.

207

Josefa Martín García

References Bosque, I. 1993. “Sobre las diferencias entre los adjetivos relacionales y los califcativos.” Revista Argentina de Lingüística 9: 9–48. Bosque, I. 1999. “El sintagma adjetival. Modifcadores y complementos del adjetivo. Adjetivo y participio.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, dirs. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 217–310. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Cano Cambronero, M. Á. 2013. “La interfaz sintaxis-semántica en el dominio argumental de las formaciones deverbales en -nte.” PhD diss., Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid. Fábregas, A. 2016a. “Deconstructing the Non-Episodic Readings of Spanish Deverbal Adjectives.” Word Structure 9: 1–41. Fábregas, A. 2016b. “¿Puede ser el sufjo -oso un elemento relacional?” Revista de Investigación Lingüística 19: 173–97. Fábregas, A., and R. Marín. 2017. “Problems and Questions in Derived Adjectives.” Word Structure 10: 1–26. Faitelson-Weiser, S. 1993. “Los sufjos formadores de adjetivos en español moderno: valores genéricos y valores específcos.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 41: 19–53. Fradin, B. 2017. “The Multifaceted Nature of Denominal Adjectives.” Word Structure 10: 27–53. Gamełko, M. 1975. “Sur la classifcation semantique des adjectifs sufxes.” Lingua 36: 307–24. Kornfeld, L. 2009. “Adjetivos derivados y cuantifcación: la herencia de rasgos aspectuales en español.” Revista de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística 39: 153–76. Martín García, J. 2007. “La defnición de las palabras derivadas: los adjetivos en -oso.” In Refexiones sobre el diccionario, edited by Mar Campos Souto et al., 253–63. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. Martín García, J. 2014. La formación de adjetivos. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Oltra, I. 2010. “On the Morphology of Complex Adjectives.” PhD diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona. RAE and ASALE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Rainer, F. 1999. “La Derivación Adjetival.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, dirs. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 4595–643. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Spencer, A., and I. Nikolaeva. 2017. “Denominal Adjectives as Mixed Categories.” Word Structure 10: 79–99.

208

15 Derivation and category change (III) Olga BatiukovaDerivation and category change (III)

Verbalization

(Derivación y cambio categorial III: verbalización)

Olga Batiukova

1 Introduction This chapter deals with verbalization as a productive word formation process in Spanish. We frst present the main empirical facts about derived verbs (with a special focus on the selectional properties of the verbalizing sufxes and the syntactic and semantic properties of the derivatives) and then review analytical and theoretical issues related to verbalization. Keywords: verbalization; category-changing derivation; verbalizer; argument structure; aspect Este capítulo trata sobre la verbalización como un proceso productivo de formación de palabras en español. Presentamos primero los datos empíricos sobre los verbos derivados (con especial atención a las propiedades selectivas de los sufjos verbalizadores y las propiedades sintácticosemánticas de las palabras derivadas) y luego resumimos los problemas teóricos y analíticos relacionados con la verbalización. Palabras clave: verbalización; derivación heterogénea; sufjo verbalizador; estructura argumental; aspecto

2 Delimitation of the concept Verbalization is a word formation process whereby verbs are derived from bases belonging to other syntactic categories. This defnition corresponds to a narrow conception of verbalization, which diferentiates between verbalization proper and verbal derivation: the former involves category change, thus excluding category-preserving derivation, that is, verbs derived from other verbs. Consequently, we will not be dealing with evaluative and aspectual sufxes or interfxes (e.g., cantar ‘sing’ – cant-urr-e-ar ‘sing softly to oneself ’, pisar ‘step on something’ – pis-ot-e-ar ‘trample’; see Ohannesian, this volume) and prefxes (hacer ‘make, do’ – des-hacer ‘undo’, escribir ‘write’ – re-escribir ‘rewrite’, producir ‘produce’ – co-producir ‘co-produce’; see Gibert Sotelo, this volume). Parasynthesis is introduced in Mateu (this volume). 209

Olga Batiukova

Sufxation is by far the most important device used in category-changing verbal derivation. The following sufxes are used in Spanish, listed in order of productivity (see Pena 1993): -a(theme vowel), -e-a-, -iz-a-, -ifc-a-, and -ec-e-. In direct derivation (derivación inmediata), the theme vowel -a- is added directly to the base, as in comisión ‘commission, assignment’ – comision-a-r ‘to commission’ or remo ‘oar’ – rem-a-r ‘row’. In indirect derivation (derivación mediata), the theme vowels -a- and -e- are preceded by a sufx or interfx, as in verano ‘summer’ – veran-e-a-r ‘to summer’, español ‘Spanish’ – español-iz-a-r ‘make Spanish’, denso ‘dense’ – dens-ifc-a-r ‘densify’, and amarillo ‘yellow’ – amarill-ec-e-r ‘turn yellow’. A synchronic approach to word formation will be followed in this overview. For the sake of coherence, we will be avoiding alluding to verbs derived in Latin or from Latin bases (e.g., agonizāre – agonizar, carescĕre – carecer), but in a number of cases, such verbs will be used for illustrative purposes if they can be reinterpreted as derived from a Spanish base, as in angustia–angustiar (Lat. angustiāre), amargo–amargar (Lat. amaricāre), or verde–verdecer (Lat. viridescĕre).

3 Empirical aspects of verbalization in Spanish In this section, we review the main empirical facts about derived verbs. We frst look into the selectional properties of verbalizing sufxes (section 3.1) and then focus on the core syntactic and semantic properties of the verbs derived with three of them: -e-a-, -iz-a-, and -ec-e(section 3.2). Section 3.3 deals with alternating corradical verbs.

3.1 Selectional properties of verbalizing sufxes Sufxes are usually assumed to be the morphological head of the derived word: they are marked for a syntactic category, which they pass on to the derived word; they select for bases of a specifc morphophonological makeup, syntactic category, or categories; and, within these categories, they often impose additional requirements (e.g., selecting for verbs with a specifc argument structure confguration or adjectives classifed as either relational or qualifying). Whether they are endowed with a stable and uniform meaning is a more complex issue, which we address in sections 3.2 and 4. Without purporting to be exhaustive, Table  15.1 sums up basic selectional properties of Spanish verbalizing sufxes (based on Pena 1980, 1993; Rainer 1993; Rifón 1997; Serrano Dolader 1999; Beniers 2004; RAE and ASALE 2009, Chapter 8). For the sake of completeness, we include paraphrases defning their meaning, which we will return to in section 3.2. As elsewhere in this chapter, ‘N’ and ‘A’ refer to the syntactic category of the base word, noun or adjective. The last column contains references for a more in-depth study of each of the verbalizers.

3.2 Semantic and syntactic properties of the derived verbs What syntactic and semantic changes does the base undergo as a result of verbalization? In Spanish, verbs are mostly derived from nouns and adjectives, and bases of other categories are not that common: adverbs (adelante ‘ahead’ – adelantar ‘bring forward, pass’), pronouns (tú ‘you’ – tutear ‘address as tú’), interjections (aúpa ‘up!’ – aupar ‘lift up, bring to power’), onomatopoeias (croar ‘croak’, bufar ‘hiss’), and phrases (en sí mismo ‘in oneself ’–ensimismarse ‘become engrossed’). The transition from a nominal category to a verbal one crucially involves the notions of aspect and event structure: nouns and adjectives usually refer to the semantic types entity and property, respectively, and verbs typically denote events, whose temporal properties are encoded 210

N A N A

become A/N, cause to become A/N, be A/N, be about to become A/N, generate N

-ec-e-

N A

N A

cause to become A/N, become A/N, put N onto, put into N, generate N

happen N (once/repeatedly), bring about N (once/repeatedly), act using N, emit sound with N, exert impact with N, put N onto, be A/N, act in manner A/N, have the color A/N, be A/N-ish, become A/N, be about to become A/N cause to become A/N, become A/N, put N onto, put into N, act in manner A/N, act as N, generate N, reason or express oneself in manner A/N, {bring about/ subject to} N, hold relation N between

Syntactic category cause to become A/N, cause to be in state N, N become A/N, be A, be in state N, {bring about/ A subject to} N, happen N, act using N, act as N, put N onto, put into N, generate N

Meaning of the derived Vs

-ifc-a-

-iz-a-

-e-a-

-a-

Sufx

Table 15.1 Core selectional properties of verbalizing sufxes in Spanish

Deverbal Ns ending in -ma, -ta, -sis: aromatizar, despotizar, dializar Denominal and deadjectival Ns ending in -ía: agonizar, memorizar Simple Ns: carbonizar Deverbal As ending in -ble, -il: contabilizar, movilizar Denominal As ending in -(a)ico, -al (-ar, -il), -(a/i)no: acuatizar, centralizar, velarizar, civilizar, castellanizar Simple As: suavizar Latin A and N bases: dulcifcar, petrifcar Spanish Ns: cosifcar, tarifcar Spanish As: intensifcar, rarifcar Deverbal Ns ending in -or: favorecer Deadjectival Ns ending in -ez(a): fortalecer Denominal As (mainly three or more syllable) ending in id-o/a: aridecer

Deverbal Ns ending in -ción (-zón, -sión, -tión), -men, -mento, -ncia: ambicionar, examinar, documentar, conferenciar Deadjectival Ns ending in -icia, -idad (-itad), -ura: avariciar, debilitar, adulzurar Deverbal As ending in -u-o/a: individuar Denominal As ending in -ent-o/a: cruentar Denominal and deverbal Ns ending in -an(a), -ón(a): charlatanear, bribonear Denominal As ending in -os-o/a: curiosear Simple or derived but strongly lexicalized N/A: bromear, glotonear

Properties of the base Morphophonological type

Malkiel (1941, 1989), Dworkin (1985), Elvira (2001), Kaufeld (2007), Pascual (2013)

Pharies (2002), Lindsay (2012), Krinková (2016)

Rebollo Torío (1991), Múgica (2006), Martínez Linares (2012), Fábregas (2015), Batiukova (2016)

Rifón (1994), Martín García (2007), Oltra-Massuet and Castroviejo (2014), Mangialavori Rasia and Múgica (2019)

Oltra-Massuet (1999), Harris (1999), Arregi (2000), RAE and ASALE (2009, §§1.5, 4.3), Alcoba (2012), Bermúdez-Otero (2013), Fábregas (2017), Mijangos and Zacarías Ponce de León (2017)

References

Derivation and category change (III)

211

Olga Batiukova

through the category of aspect (whether morphologically explicit or not). As shown further on (§§3.2.1–3.2.3), derived verbs can express a variety of aspectual meanings. The properties of the event denoted by the verb have a direct bearing on its capacity of being combined with other words in context, that is, its argument structure. Causative verbs (e.g., militarizar ‘militarize’), for instance, are viewed as consisting of two subevents and involving two participants: there is a causing subevent (the act of militarizing something), where the Agent participant acts on the Theme or Patient participant, and a resulting subevent, where the state of the Theme or Patient is changed (it becomes militar ‘military’). By contrast, event structures not involving change of state (processes and states, such as remar ‘row’ or escasear ‘be in short supply’, etc.) or involving a simple (non-caused, spontaneous or inchoative) change of state (e.g., palidecer ‘go pale’, calentarse ‘get warm’) require just one compulsory argument (Theme, Patient or Experiencer). Robust correlations between the properties of the base (in particular its syntactic category and semantic type) and the meaning of the derived verb can be traced. Most deadjectival verbs are either causative or inchoative, with the base referring to the resultant state of the Theme argument: as a result of the event of militarizing (militarizar), the Theme becomes military; the event of warming (calentar) leads to the Theme getting warm; and so on. Finer-grained distinctions between diferent groups of adjectives also fnd their way into the verbal semantics. Adjectives denoting gradual properties can give rise to change-of-state readings where the degree of change can be expressed as either incremental (and defned relative to some previous state) or absolute (and defned relative to the highest possible degree or a contextually defned degree). The verbs in (1) can have both interpretations: (1) a. Ana limpió la casa. ‘Ana cleaned the house’. = made it {clean/cleaner} b. La banda amenizó la festa. ‘The band made the party {enjoyable/more enjoyable}’. c. Ana humedeció el bizcocho. ‘Ana moistened the sponge cake’. = made it {moist/moister} Non-gradable adjectives yield verbs with absolute interpretation (2a) unless the base is reinterpreted as gradable (2b): (2) a. Por fn legalizaron el aborto. ‘Abortion was fnally legalized’. = was made {legal/*more legal} b. Ana redondeó la silueta. ‘Ana rounded the silhouette’. = made it {round/more round} As for noun bases, they are usually integrated into the verbal meaning by referring to the eventuality or state of afairs that the predicate as a whole describes (if they are typed as event) or to one of its participants (when typed as entity; see Cifuentes Honrubia 2010; Lavale Ortiz 2013). The latter situation is very frequent, and several productive interpretations can be singled out: in cepillo ‘brush’ – cepillar ‘to brush’ and vara ‘stick’ – varear ‘knock down with a stick’, artifact-denoting bases refer to the instrument used to perform the action; in piloto ‘pilot’ – pilotar ‘to pilot’ and espónsor ‘sponsor’ – esponsorizar ‘to sponsor’, human-denoting bases refer to the agent of the verbal predicate; in costa ‘coast’ – costear ‘sail along the coast’, the base encodes the motion path; and so on. Similarly to adjectival bases, entity-denoting nouns can encode specifc properties by referring to the defning features of the entity. Names of animals and 212

Derivation and category change (III)

people are a case in point: zorrear (from zorro ‘fox’) encodes the mode of behaving attributed to foxes (‘act with canniness’); zapaterizar (from Zapatero, former Spanish prime minister) is usually associated with promotion of civil rights; and so on. The aspectual properties of verbs derived from event nominals are determined by the meaning of these nominals, which is most apparent when just the theme vowel is added to the base: brincar ‘to jump’ (from brinco ‘jump’) and golpear ‘hit’ (from golpe ‘blow’) are semelfactives (they can refer to a single action of jumping or hitting or to a complex event made up of several instances of such an action), entrevistar ‘interview’ and lobotomizar ‘lobotomize’ are accomplishments, and batallar ‘battle’ and all the meteorological verbs (nevar ‘snow’, llover ‘rain’, etc.) are processes. Verbs derived from state-denoting nouns usually encode change of state followed by a new state (angustiar ‘make someone to be in the state of anxiety’, calmar ‘cause to become calm’) or have stative meaning (angustiar ‘be the cause of someone’s anxiety’, estresar ‘be the cause of someone’s stress’, ambicionar ‘have an ambition’, armonizar ‘be in harmony’). These correlations back up a compositional approach to verbalization, whereby the meaning of the derived verbs is largely determined by the meaning of the base and the sufx. We will put special emphasis on these systematic correlations because they lie at the core of word-formation studies. However, we cannot go as far as claiming that verbalization is a fully compositional process. As elsewhere in word formation, derived verbs are subject to sense specialization or lexicalization, and their meaning is only partially predictable from the meaning of their parts: for example, the verb varear ‘knock down with a stick’ mentioned previously is used to describe a very specifc situation, the harvesting of olives and almonds, rather than any kind of ‘hitting with a stick’ event. Furthermore, verbal meaning is amenable to being specifed or modulated in context, as shown by the contrast between individualizar el signifcado ‘pin down the meaning’ and individualizar el tratamiento ‘customize the treatment’ and similar meaning variations, which range from very subtle to robust. We now go on to introduce three of the Spanish verbalizers to illustrate the most productive uses and robust meaning oppositions: the iterative sufx -e-a-, the causative -iz-a-, and the inchoative -ec-e-. For reasons of space, we will not be dealing with the theme vowel -a-: it is often viewed as the default way of deriving verbs, which gives rise to all kinds of meanings and syntactic confgurations (see section 4; references in Table 15.1; and Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume). Nor will we discuss -ifc-a-, since this causative sufx is not productive in Spanish and most existing -ifcar verbs were inherited from Latin (see Vivanco, this volume, and references in Table 15.1).

3.2.1 -e-aWhat diferentiates -e-a- from the other verbalizers is that it is used for deriving pluractional verbs, which refer to a sequence of identical and repeated (sub)events. Although verbs derived with other sufxes can occasionally display these meanings, -e-a- is typically used for coining new pluractional verbs. Pluractional meanings include semelfactivity, iterativity, habituality, and frequentativity. As mentioned, semelfactive predicates express a single occurrence of events that tend to happen in sequences. When used to express repetition, these verbs always describe (sub)events framed within the same situation: (3) a. Juan golpeó la puerta {una vez/insistentemente}. ‘Juan knocked on the door {once/insistently}’. 213

Olga Batiukova

b. Bromeó {sobre Juan/sin parar}. ‘She {made a joke about Juan/joked non-stop}’. c. Parpadeó {una vez/repetidamente}. ‘She blinked {once/repeatedly}’. Semelfactive and iterative -ear verbs derived from event nouns mean ‘bring about N {once/ repeatedly}’ or, for zero-valent meteorological verbs, ‘happen N {once/ repeatedly}’: golpe – golpear (3a), vuelta ‘turn’ – voltear ‘to turn’, relámpago ‘fash of lightning’ – relampaguear ‘be fashing the lightning’, and so on. In these cases, the base noun identifes a single event repeated within the iterative macroevent. Some verba dicendi [such as bromear in (3b)] and motion verbs derived from names of body parts [parpadear in (3c)] also have semelfactive meaning. However, other verbs from the same semantic groups often resist the semelfactive interpretation: chispear ‘drizzle’, chismear ‘gossip’, and tararear ‘hum’, for instance, can only be interpreted iteratively or as processes. With these verbs, the adverbial modifer una vez means ‘on one occasion’ and not ‘one single time’. In the group of iterative verbs expressing sound emission and also with hitting and shooting verbs, the base very often refers to the instrument that emits sound or exerts the impact (‘emit sound with N’, ‘exert impact with N’): campana ‘bell’ – campanear ‘ring the bells’, tambor ‘drum’ – tamborear ‘to drum’, hacha ‘ax’ – hachear ‘cut with an ax’, martillo ‘hammer’ – martillear ‘to hammer’, bomba ‘bomb’ – bombear ‘to bomb’, torpedo ‘torpedo’ – torpedear ‘to torpedo’. Note that in the two last cases (bombear and torpedear), a diferent instance of the same kind of weapon is used in every repetition of the same act. A similar distributive efect is observed in gotear ‘drip, leak’ and silabear ‘pronounce syllable by syllable’. Object-denoting bases are also found in the locatum verbs, where they encode the Figure transferred onto the referent of the direct object (‘put N onto something’): forear ‘embellish with fowers’, cobrear ‘cover with copper’, platear ‘silver-plate’, and laquear ‘lacquer’. These, however, do not have an inherent iterative interpretation. A large group of -ear verbs is derived from bases, usually categorized as both adjectives and nouns, that refer to human qualities deemed negative (including physical handicaps) and to people who possess these qualities: baboso ‘slimy’ – babosear ‘drool over’, chulo ‘cocky’ – chulear ‘abuse or outsmart’, cojo ‘lame’ – cojear ‘be lame, limp’, fanfarrón ‘bragger’ – fanfarronear ‘brag’, gorrón ‘scrounger’ – gorronear ‘scrounge’, holgazán ‘idler’ – holgazanear ‘laze around’, vagabundo ‘hobo’ – vagabundear ‘drift around, be a hobo’, and so on. Their meaning can be paraphrased as ‘(usually) act in manner N/A’ or ‘be N/A’. Although these verbs may refer to habits or persistent qualities, they only encode habitual events in the appropriate context: compare (4a), expressing a habitual event, with (4b), which is not habitual. Unlike iterative events associated with semelfactives, which occur on the same occasion, habitual events refer to acts carried out in diferent situations. These repeated acts become a habit with the agent and one of its characteristic properties during a given period of time (Bertinetto and Lenci 2012). (4) a. Suele gorronear los cafés a sus amigos. ‘He usually scrounges cofee of his friends’. b. Gorroneó una cerveza a su jefe. ‘He scrounged a beer from his boss’. Verbs derived from names of animals are diferent in that, rather than referring to one specifc property, they can invoke any attribute typically associated with an animal, for instance, its 214

Derivation and category change (III)

way of moving (‘move like a N’: serpiente ‘snake’ – serpentear ‘meander, wind’, gato ‘cat’ – gatear ‘crawl’, perro ‘dog’ – perrear ‘do twerking’) or its psychological behavior (‘exhibit a behavior typical of a N’: cotorra ‘parrot’ – cotorrear ‘chatter’; zángano ‘drone’ – zanganear ‘laze around’; zorro ‘fox’ – zorrear ‘act with canniness; prostitute oneself or use prostitutes’). Verbs derived from color names (amarillo ‘yellow’ – amarillear ‘turn yellow, look yellow’; azul ‘blue’ – azulear ‘turn blue, look blue’; negro ‘black’ – negrear ‘turn black, look black’; verde ‘green’ – verdear ‘turn green, look green’) have an interesting set of related meanings, which are specifc to this group. They can be used statively (with the meaning ‘have the color N/A’ or ‘be N/Aish’), as in (5a), and also inchoatively (with the meaning ‘become A’), as in (5b). Related to the inchoative meaning is the preparatory phase interpretation, also called imminential: ‘be about to become N/A’. Most of these verbs are intransitive (5a,b), but some can occur in transitive constructions, for instance, the causative sense of blanquear in (5c). Causative meaning is also encoded by other deadjectival -ear verbs: redondear ‘round’, sanear ‘clean up’, and so on. (5) a. Ya las canas blanquean en él . . . ‘His hair is already showing white’. [Libro de Oseas, ch. 7] b. Mi cabello blanqueó, ya mi vida se va. ‘My hair turned white and my life is coming to an end’. [J. Solís, “En mi Viejo San Juan”] c. El dentista me blanqueó los dientes. ‘The dentist whitened my teeth’. In many -ear verbs, the meaning of the base is associated with the lower end of some scale: the intensity scale for actions (as with hojear ‘leaf through’) and adjectival properties (‘be A-ish’: amarillear, verdear), and the continuity or regularity scale for actions (e.g., motion verbs cabecear ‘toss one’s head from time to time’ and callejear ‘hang out on the street’ encode discontinuous or irregular events).

3.2.2 -iz-a-Iz-a- is one of the most productive Spanish verbalizers. It is widely used to derive technical terminology and formal vocabulary in general (e.g., motorizar ‘motorize’, palatalizar ‘palatalize’, obstaculizar ‘obstruct’, vigorizar ‘invigorate’), as well as domain-neutral vocabulary (colonizar ‘colonize’, civilizar ‘civilize’, neutralizar ‘neutralize’, etc.). The basic meaning of -iz-a- is causative or causative-resultative (‘cause to become N/A’), as in civilizar and neutralizar just mentioned, and also agilizar ‘speed up’, esterilizar ‘sterilize’, vulgarizar ‘vulgarize’, españolizar ‘make Spanish’ (and, similarly, arabizar ‘Arabize’, sovietizar ‘sovietize’, etc.), and many others. As pointed out in §3.1, causation involves adding a causative subevent to the state denoted by the base noun or adjective and introducing an Agent or Cause argument, as in (6a). The inchoative reading emerges when the transition to a new state happens spontaneously and its internal cause is the entity undergoing change of state, as in (6b). Some verbs have just the inchoative interpretation, for example, malignizarse in (6c). (6) a. El chef cristalizó el azúcar. ‘The chef crystallized the sugar’. b. La miel (se) cristaliza cuando tiene poca agua. ‘Honey crystallizes when it has very little water’. 215

Olga Batiukova

c. El pólipo se malignizó. ‘The polyp became malignant’. Nouns denoting a location (or an object that can be construed as referring to a location) can give rise to the locative interpretation ‘put something into N’, for example, hospitalizar a un paciente ‘hospitalize a patient’. Object and substance-denoting base nouns sometimes yield locatum verbs (‘put N onto something’): polinizar los cultivos ‘pollinate the crops’, señalizar una carretera ‘signpost the highway’, vitaminizar una bebida ‘enrich the drink with vitamins’, and so on. The internal constituency of the afected argument is also alluded to when the base denotes inherent minimal parts of an object or substance: atomizar el combustible ‘atomize the fuel’, micronizar una partícula ‘micronize a particle’, and so on. All locative -izar verbs are transitive. -Iz-a- is associated with two kinds of agentive interpretation: ‘act in a N/A manner’, with bases denoting human properties (vandalizar ‘vandalize’, mentorizar ‘to mentor’, esponsorizar ‘to sponsor’), and ‘reason or express oneself in manner N/A’, where the base refers to abstract properties (frivolizar ‘treat lighty’, moralizar ‘moralize’) or entities created as a result of the event (teorizar ‘theorize, form a theory’, teologizar ‘theologize, theorize theologically’). The verbs in the latter group are intransitive, and they denote prototypical processes with base nouns expressing continuous objects: (7) {Polemizaron/teorizaron} {durante dos horas/*en dos horas}. ‘They {debated/theorized} {for two hours/*in two hours}’. By contrast, the former group is transitive and it seems to involve change, but not of the kind found in causative-resultative examples: the property that defnes the Agent is not transferred to the Theme (so, a sponsored team does not become a sponsor), and telicity tests give negative results: (8) Juan {mentorizó/esponsorizó} el equipo {durante dos décadas/*en dos décadas}. ‘Juan {mentored/sponsored} the team {for two decades/*in two decades}’. The base nouns of hidrolizar, metabolizar, and lobotomizar (hidrólisis ‘hydrolysis’, metabolismo ‘metabolism’, and lobotomía ‘lobotomy’) denote events carried out by the Agent on the Theme (‘subject someone to N’). The verbs inherit the argument structure of their bases [‘lobotomy of Theme (y) by Agent (x)’ – ‘Agent (x) lobotomizes Theme (y)’, ‘metabolism of Theme (y) by Experiencer (x)’ – ‘Experiencer (x) metabolizes Theme (y)’], but the arguments that can be left unexpressed with the nouns become compulsory with the verbs: (9) a. El yoga estimula el metabolismo (de los nutrientes por parte del organismo). ‘Yoga stimulates the metabolism (of the nutrients by the organism)’. b. El organismo metaboliza *(los nutrientes). ‘The organism metabolizes *(nutrients)’. A small group of -izar verbs are stative, with bases referring to abstract relations (‘hold relation N between x and y’): armonía ‘harmony’ – armonizar ‘harmonize’, simpatía ‘sympathy’ – simpatizar ‘sympathize’, sintonía ‘tuning, harmony’ – sintonizar ‘be in tune with’, símbolo ‘symbol’ – simbolizar ‘symbolize’. Here as well, the arguments of the base noun become compulsory with the verb:

216

Derivation and category change (III)

(10) a. Logró la armonía (entre el cuerpo y el alma). ‘She achieved harmony (between the body and the soul)’. b. Aquí la sobriedad armoniza *(con la elegancia). ‘Here sobriety harmonizes *(with elegance)’.

3.2.3 -ec-eAs a stand-alone sufx, -ec-e- currently has very low, near-zero productivity, and many of the verbs derived in previous periods fell into disuse: callecer ‘become callused’, faquecer ‘weaken’, magrecer ‘become thin’, noblecer ‘honor, make noble’, and so on. It appears much more frequently in parasynthetic constructions: en-x-ec-e- (enloquecer ‘go crazy, drive crazy’, (en)noblecer ‘honor, make noble’, (en)tallecer ‘sprout’, etc.) and, to a lesser extent, a-x-ec-e- (amodorrecer ‘get sleepy or drowsy’, anochecer ‘get dark’). -Ec-e- inherited the inchoative meaning from the Latin -sc-e/o-. Indeed, most -ecer verbs mean ‘enter state N/A, become N/A’, where the base refers to the property spontaneously acquired by the Experiencer or Theme subject or to the kind of entity that the subject becomes. Many participate in the causative-inchoative alternation, with or without being pronominalized: aridecer(se) ‘make arid, become arid’; blanquecer ‘whiten, become white’; fortalecer(se) ‘strengthen, become stronger’; humedecer(se) ‘moisten, get moist’; and so on. Most deadjectival -ecer verbs readily admit incremental interpretation: fortalecer means ‘make strong’ or ‘make stronger’ and similarly for aridecer, humedecer, and all the verbs derived from color adjectives. Denominal verbs dentecer ‘teethe’, forecer ‘blossom’, frutecer ‘bear fruit’, hojecer ‘put on leaves’, orinecer ‘rust’, pimpollecer ‘sprout, become covered in buds’, tallecer ‘sprout’, and others meaning ‘produce or engender N(s)’ also display an incremental reading of a kind. They are usually defned as inchoative, but they denote the beginning of a process [see (11a) and the progressive form in (11b)] rather than the entry into a new state (cf. De Miguel and Fernández Lagunilla 2000). As a result of this process, the amount of N (fowers, fruit, leaves, rust, etc.) is growing progressively and can eventually reach some upper limit, as in (11c). (11) a. Mi cactus foreció {ayer/durante tres días}. ‘My cactus blossomed {yesterday/for three days}’. b. Mi cactus estuvo foreciendo durante varios días. ‘My cactus blossomed [lit. was blossoming] for a few days’. c. Nuestro eucalipto foreció {mucho/abundantemente/completamente} el año pasado. ‘Our eucalyptus blossomed {a lot/profusely/completely} last year’. = had many fowers/came to full fower As with other sufxes, a number of -ecer verbs do not conform to the predominant (inchoative or causative-inchoative) pattern. Plastecer ‘fll with plaster’ is a locatum verb, and it denotes an accomplishment rather than an inchoative event. Languidecer ‘be languid’ and favorecer ‘be fattering’ are stative. Fosforecer ‘be luminous without heat, as phosphorus’ is stative as well, and its meaning is difcult to account for compositionally.

3.3 Alternating corradical verbs Selectional constraints holding between verbalizing sufxes and the bases do not operate in a one-to-one fashion: each sufx selects for more than one base type, and quite often the same 217

Olga Batiukova

base is compatible with two or more sufxes. In the latter case, we fnd alternating verb forms, which are motivated semantically, geographically, diachronically, and contextually. As described in sections 3.2.1-3.2.3, diferent verbalizers often share some of the meanings and are opposed by other meanings: causativity is preferably encoded by -iz-a- and -ifc-a-, pluractionality is expressed by -e-a-, and non-pronominalized inchoative verbs can be found in all groups. In view of this, it is not surprising that two derived verbs can have partially overlapping meanings. For example, chascar and chasquear both mean ‘click’, but chasquear is preferably used for iterative events. The same holds for martillar – martillear ‘hammer’, hachar – hachear ‘cut with an ax’, and other instrumental verbs, but not for anclar – anclear ‘anchor’, where this opposition is neutralized. In pairs of color verbs, such as verdear – verdecer, both verbs have inchoative meaning (‘turn green’), but only the -ear form also refers to the state (verdear ‘be green[ish]’). There is a signifcant amount of dialectal variation as far as verbal alternations are concerned. -E-a- is very frequent in Latin American Spanish: forms such as liderear (=liderar ‘lead’), pedacear (=despedazar ‘tear to pieces’), and barajear (=barajar ‘shufe [in card games]’) are used mostly or exclusively in that area. Semantically similar corradical verbs often difer with respect to the kind of arguments they choose. This sort of selectional specialization is apparent in the pair electrifcar – electrizar ‘electrify’ and many others: aculturar – culturizar ‘bring culture to’, ampliar – amplifcar ‘extend, amplify’, fecundar – fecundizar ‘fertilize’, sanar – sanear ‘cure, fx’, and so on. Both electrifcar and electrizar express the idea of providing something with energy, but electrifcar selects for artifact-denoting direct objects such as valla ‘fence’, raíles ‘rails’, vehículo ‘vehicle’ with the added meaning ‘in order to make it work’, whereas electrizar is often combined with cuerpo ‘body’ as well as some names of body parts (pelo/cabello ‘hair’, piel ‘skin’). Per the norm, new verbs must not be derived if the existing form has the needed meaning. For example, -iz-a- should not be used if there is an equivalent -ar form, as in concretar – concretizar ‘specify’ or legitimar – legitimizar ‘legitimize’. A similar kind of alternation takes place in verb pairs with diferent but etymologically related bases, as in infuir > infuencia > infuenciar or recibir > recepción > recepcionar, where the noun (infuencia ‘infuence’ and recepción ‘reception’) is derived from a verb (infuir ‘to infuence’ and recibir ‘receive’) and is used in turn as the base of another verb (infuenciar and recepcionar). Newly derived verbs are considered necessary when they difer in meaning from the original verbs (as in fundir ‘melt’ – fusionar ‘fuse, merge’) or acquire specialized meanings (e.g., recepcionar describes formal acts of transfer, as in recepcionar la {solicitud/mercancía} ‘receive the {application/merchandise}’).

4 Analytical and theoretical issues Here we review some of the analytical and theoretical challenges pertaining to word formation in general (points 1 and 2 subsequently) as well as issues specifc to verbalization (points 3–5). 1

218

Meaning of verbalizers and compositionality of verbal meaning. As with afxes in general, there is a whole set of issues associated to the semantics of the verbalizers. Since the same sufx often appears in verbs that only have in common their syntactic category, it only seems fair to wonder whether it has any meaning at all. Stances on this issue range from denying that sufxes have independent meaning and attributing all the regularities to syntactic structure or encyclopedic knowledge (as in [neo]constructionist approaches), to putting forward lexical entries with minimal semantic defnitions for these morphemes (as in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar). A possible solution lies in focusing on the compositional aspects of both morphological and syntactic meaning. At the morphological

Derivation and category change (III)

2

3

4

5

level, this involves identifying the general semantic contribution of the sufxes and the relevant properties of the base (such as its syntactic category, semantic type, and aspectual and argument structure features, as done in this chapter). At the syntactic level, meaning variability must be analyzed by looking at how derived words interact with their immediate context. The base and direction of derivation. It is believed that morphologically complex and semantically specifc lexemes are derived from words with a more simple morphological structure and a more general meaning. As in other processes of word formation, establishing directionality in verbalization is challenging when there are no overt marks of derivation, as in the case of event nouns and the respective verbs. The verb is usually assumed to be the base (caza is ‘the event of cazar [hunt]’ and ‘hunted for animal’, anhelo is ‘the event of anhelar [long for]’, etc.), but for odio ‘hatred’ and odiar ‘hate’, the semantic defnition suggests the opposite direction (odiar is ‘feel odio’). For deseo ‘wish’ and desear ‘to wish for’, the general trend seems to hold (deseo is ‘event of wishing and the wished-for thing’), but from the diachronic perspective, the noun is the base. In a synchronic analysis, cases are challenging where deletion of a part of the base (by truncation or haplology) must be posited in order to account for the semantic relation between the base and the derivative: hidrólisis – hidrolizar, agonía – agonizar, idéntico – identifcar, and so on. Theoretical status of verbalizers. There is ongoing debate on the syntactic vs. lexical encoding of verbalizers and the information they contribute. In lexicalist approaches (e.g., Plag 1999; Lieber 2004), verbalizing sufxes are lexical items, and their lexical entry includes their syntactic category as well as event and argument structure specifcations. In constructionist approaches, since Larson 1988 and Hale and Keyser 1993, this information is encoded in diferent layers of syntactic phrase structure: the outer layer (vP) corresponds to the causing subevent and introduces the Agent subject, and the inner VP encodes the resultant subevent and accommodates the Theme argument undergoing change of state. The theme vowel. There is no general agreement on whether the theme vowel is a derivational or an infectional morpheme or on its role in infection and word-formation processes. Among the properties it shares with derivational morphemes is its ability to change the syntactic category of the base and to appear before derivational sufxes (dese-a-r ‘wish, desire’–dese-a-ble ‘desirable’, dese-a-dor ‘eager to’). Unlike derivational morphemes, it does not express any conceptual content, and it also difers from infectional morphemes because it does not encode any grammatical features. However, it places the verb within a conjugation class, thus signaling what infectional morphemes it must be combined with in a phrase. If we assume that the theme vowel is an infectional morpheme, the process involved in the derivation of amargo – amargar or estrés – estresar must be considered conversion, since infectional morphemes cannot alter the syntactic category of the base. In view of this unique set of properties, some scholars choose to make theme vowels morphologically and syntactically prominent by assigning them specifc functions (typically within category-giving projections, as in Oltra-Massuet 1999), while others downplay their grammatical contribution and list them in the lexicon as mere instructions for morphological assembly of infected words, with no consequences for syntax and semantics (Blevins 2006). Verbalization and incorporation. Verbalization is often cited in connection with incorporation, originally posited for polysynthetic languages, since in both processes, a nominal stem is incorporated into a new complex verb and is stripped of its infectional markers (case, number, determiners, etc.). This has often led researchers to consider incorporation and verbalization to be instances of the same syntactic process of head movement (Baker 2003; Hale and Keyser 1993). However, they difer in signifcant ways, of which we will 219

Olga Batiukova

only mention one. In incorporation, a noun stem is combined with a verb to form a new verb resulting in descriptions of name-worthy activities, such as ‘town-go’ or ‘log-split’ (cf. Mithun 2000). In verbalization, by contrast, the noun is combined with a verbalizing suffx, which can never appear alone or word-initially: alfombrar un cuarto ‘carpet a room’ can certainly be paraphrased as ‘cover a room with carpet’ or ‘carpet-cover a room’ but, unlike cover, the verbalizer -a- cannot appear without the base noun.

References Alcoba, S. 2012. “Tema verbal, vocal temática y el afjo -ción.” In “Assí como es de suso dicho”: estudios de morfología y léxico en homenaje a Jesús Pena, edited by M. Campos Souto et al., 1–34. San Millán de la Cogolla: Cilengua. Arregi, K. 2000. “How the Spanish Verb Works.” Paper presented at the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. University of Florida. http://home.uchicago.edu/_karlos/Arregi-theme.pdf. Baker, M. C. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Batiukova, O. 2016. “Restricciones léxico-semánticas y mecanismos composicionales en la morfología derivativa: el caso de -iza(r).” In Cuestiones de morfología léxica, edited by C. Buenafuentes, G. Clavería, and I. Pujol, 101–65. Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana—Vervuert. Beniers, E. 2004. La formación de verbos en el español de México. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2013. “The Spanish Lexicon Stores Stems with Theme Vowels, Not Roots with Infectional Class Features.” Probus 25 (1): 3–103. Bertinetto, P. M., and A. Lenci. 2012. “Pluractionality, Habituality and Gnomic Imperfectivity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, edited by R. Binnick, 852–80. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Blevins, J. P. 2006. “Word-Based Morphology.” Journal of Linguistics 42 (3): 531–73. Cifuentes Honrubia, J. L. 2010. Clases semánticas y construcciones sintácticas: alternancias locales en español. Lugo: Axac. De Miguel, E., and M. Fernández Lagunilla. 2000. “El operador aspectual se.” Revista española de lingüística 30 (1): 13–43. Dworkin, S. N. 1985. “From -ir to -ecer in Spanish: the loss of OSp. de-adjectival -ir verbs.” Hispanic Review 53 (3): 295–305. Elvira, J. 2001. “Sobre la distribución columnar de la fexión incoativa medieval.” Cahiers d’Études Hispaniques Médiévales 24: 167–79. Fábregas, A. 2015. “Sobre el sufjo -iza(r) y sus propiedades internas.” Lengua y Habla 19: 166–87. Fábregas, A. 2017. “Theme Vowels Are Verbs.” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 39: 79–89. Hale, K., and S. J. Keyser. 1993. “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harris, J. 1999. “Nasal Depalatalization no, Morphological Wellformedness sí; The Structure of Spanish Word Classes.” In Papers on Syntax and Morphology, Cycle One, edited by K. Arregi et al., 47–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Kaufeld, C. 2007. “Old Spanish -ir/-ecer Verb Variation: Tracing the Extension of -ec- through the Lexicon.” Bulletin of Spanish Studies 84 (8): 965–87. Krinková, Z. 2016. “Verbos terminados en -ifcar desde una perspectiva diacrónica: un análisis preliminar de corpus.” Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philologica 3: 103–17. Larson, R. K. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3): 335–91. Lavale Ortiz, R. M. 2013. “Verbos denominales causativos en español actual.” PhD thesis, Universidad de Alicante, Alicante. Lieber, R. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

220

Derivation and category change (III)

Lindsay, M. 2012. “Rival Sufxes: Synonymy, Competition, and the Emergence of Productivity.” In Mediterranean Morphology Meetings, edited by G. Booij, A. Ralli, and S. Scalise, vol. 8, 192–203. University of Cagliari, Cagliari. Malkiel, Y. 1941. “Atristar–Entristecer: Adjectival Verbs in Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan.” Studies in Philology 38 (3): 429–61. Malkiel, Y. 1989. “On the Divergent Development of “Inchoatives” in Late Old Spanish and Old Portuguese.” In Studia linguistica et orientalia memoriae Haim Blanc dedicata, edited by P. Wexler, A. Borg, and S. Somekh, 200–18. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Mangialavori Rasia, M. E., and N. Múgica. 2019. “Desde la interfaz léxico, sintaxis, signifcado: los derivados por sufjo -ear.” Revista Digital Internacional de Lexicología, Lexicografía y Terminología 2: 55–70. Martín García, J. 2007. “Verbos denominales en -ear: caracterización léxico-sintáctica.” Revista Española de Lingüística 37: 279–310. Martínez Linares, M. A. 2012. “Aznarizar, zapaterizar  . . . En torno a verbos formados sobre nombres propios con el sufjo -izar.” Lingüística Española Actual 34 (2): 247–74. Mijangos, V., and R. Zacarías Ponce de León. 2017. “Tratamiento de la fexión verbal en español a partir del modelo de Palabra y Paradigma.” Borealis 6 (2): 207–31. Mithun, M. 2000. “Incorporation.” In Morphology. An International Handbook on Infection and Word Formation, edited by G. Booij et al., 916–28. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Múgica, N. 2006. “La interfaz léxico-sintaxis-semántica en la derivación con sufjo -izar.” Signo y seña 15: 245–66. Oltra-Massuet, I. 1999. “On the Notion of Theme Vowel: A New Approach to Catalan Verbal Morphology.” MS thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Oltra-Massuet, I., and E. Castroviejo. 2014. “A Syntactic Approach to the Morpho-Semantic Variation of -ear.” Lingua 151: 120–41. Pascual, J. A. 2013. “El recurso a la Filología en las explicaciones morfológicas. A propósito de la lematización de algunos verbos en -ECER.” In Formación de palabras y diacronía, edited by I. Pujol, 79–90. La Coruña: Universidad de La Coruña. Pena, J. 1980. La derivación en español. Verbos derivados y sustantivos verbales. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Pena, J. 1993. “La formación de verbos en español: la sufjación verbal.” In La formación de palabras, edited by S. Varela Ortega, 217–81. Madrid: Taurus Universitaria. Pharies, D. 2002. Diccionario etimológico de los sufjos españoles. Madrid: Gredos. Plag, I. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. RAE and ASALE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Rainer, F. 1993. Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rebollo Torío, M. A. 1991. “Izar.” Anuario de estudios flológicos 14: 405–11. Rifón, A. 1994. “La habitualidad e iteratividad en la derivación verbal española.” Verba 21: 183–206. Rifón, A. 1997. Pautas semánticas para la formación de verbos en español mediante sufjación. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Serrano-Dolader, D. 1999. “La derivación verbal y la parasíntesis.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, dirs. I. Bosque and V. Demonte, vol. III, 4683–756. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.

221

16 Sufx evolution in derivation Antonio RifónSufx evolution in derivation

Four cases from Latin to Spanish (La evolución de la sufjación derivativa: cuatro casos desde el latín al español)

Antonio Rifón

1 Introduction This chapter seeks to show the main processes in the historical evolution of Spanish sufxes. Given that the scope is very broad, it will be limited to the verbal sufxes that encode the verb actants and, within these, to the heirs of the Latin sufxes -tor/is, -torius/a/um, -bilis and -icius. We will cover the infuence of the initial state, Latin, loan processes, reanalysis, competition of sufxes and cultisms. Keywords: evolution of sufxes; diachrony; loans; competition of sufxes Este capítulo trata de mostrar los principales procesos en la evolución histórica de los sufjos del español. Dado que el ámbito es muy amplio, nos limitaremos a los sufjos deverbales que codifcan los actantes del verbo y dentro de estos a los herederos de los sufjos latinos -tor/is, -torius/a/um, -bilis e -icius. Atenderemos a la infuencia del estado inicial, el latín, y a procesos de préstamo, reanálisis, competencia de sufjos, cultismos. Palabras clave: evolución de sufjos; diacronía; préstamos; competencia de sufjos

2 Basic facts about the history of derivational processes The purpose of this chapter is to show the main processes in the historical evolution of Spanish sufxes. Given the complexity of the feld of study, it will only include a sample of sufxes whose history has been infuenced by these processes. Starting from four Latin sufxes—-tor/ris, -torius/a/um (cf. Resnik, this volume, for nominalisations), -bilis, -icius/a/um (cf. Martín García, this volume, for adjectivalizations)—we will study their situation in Latin, the sufxes that have resulted in Spanish and the main evolution processes. Then, we will briefy analyze their relations with other sufxes. For this analysis, we will focus on bibliographic references with tested hypothesis, but, in addition, all types and tokens of the derivative words have been retrieved from CORDE (‘Real Academia Española–CORDE’ n.d.) and CREA (‘Real Academia Española–CREA’ n.d.), which has enabled the periodization of the formations and supported both our own and 222

Sufx evolution in derivation

external arguments with quantitative measures. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the nature and length of this chapter, these have been moderately used.

3 The Latin sufx -tor/oris and the Spanish sufxes -dor/a, -(t/s)or/a 3.1 Latin The Latin sufx -tor/oris is attached to the passive past participle stem of the verbs (ădōrātum → ădōrātor, aggressus → aggressor; cf. Marín and Fábregas, this volume, for participles), seldom to substantives (portus → portĭtor) to create nomina agentis (agent) substantives, which could denote occupation/profession (aedĭfĭcātor) and people who usually or sporadically perform the verbal action (ădōrātor, adventor). In Late Latin, its capacity to build active adjectives was expanded (Fruyt 1990). To this general situation, it should be added, on the one hand, that the sufx maintains the same alternations as the Latin passive past participle stem (-t-/-s-) and, on the other, that its feminine form is irregular, -trix/icis (victor–victrix; gĕnĭtor–gĕnĭtrix).

3.2 Results in Spanish In Spanish, the sufx -tor and its feminine form -trix resulted in four sufxes: 1 2 3 4

-dor (Romance sufx, masculine form). -(t/s)or (Classical sufx[es]). -driz (Romance sufx, feminine form). -triz (Classical sufx, feminine form).

From a semantic perspective, the situation is also complex, given that, in Spanish, some meanings cannot be explained by Latin inheritance. Table 16.1 Meanings created by sufxes -dor/a and -(t/s)or/a. Only the most productive and interesting ones for sufx evolution are included Agent A person who V (base) arador (1119), afigidor (1552) // llantor (1230), reboltor (1236), contentor (1234) // confesor (1230), defensor (1236) Professional/rank or dignity One whose ofce it is to V (base) acomendador (1141), pescador (1141), pisador (1141), tesedor (1141) // pesqueritor (1213), tintor (1250), cantor (1225) // visor (1214), provisor (1219), asesor (1250) Instrument/tool A instrument/tool for V (base) rascador (1330), pasador (1350), podadora (1380)// cobertor (1267) Instrument/device A device for V (base) agramador (1792), aislador (1862), trasplantador (1833), cosechador (1833) Instrument/machine A machine that V (base) alternadora (1870), tritruradora (1902), agujeadora (1889)// locomotora (1845) Place The place where V (base) obrador (1247), dormidor (1256)//reftor (1220) Active adjective One who // anything that // something which lidiador (1140), bullidor (1140), durador (1256) Relational adjective Of or pertaining/belonging improvisador (1884), creador (1825) Source: Prepared by the author

223

Antonio Rifón

Therefore, in addition to a general assessment of the evolution of the results of this Latin sufx, we will explain the evolution of its feminine form, and how the Instrument, Place and Relational meanings, which did not originate in Latin, emerged.

3.3 Evolution Table 16.2 includes the number of derivative words created each century, from 1100 through 1999. For interpreting it, we should bear in mind that these are absolute frequencies and that the weight of each century in the corpora (CORDE and CREA) varies from century to century. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the sufx -dor/a is fully settled from the beginning and has a stable progression, whereas -(t/s)or/a is, at the beginning, less settled and fuctuates more. Furthermore, the feminine form -triz is not very productive. In order to better understand such a complex situation, we could place the main sufx events on a timeline (Figure 16.1). Figure 16.1 shows two phases in the creation of meanings: one at the beginning, when most meanings are created, and another one in the 19th century, when the Instrument—device and machine—and Relational meanings are created. Furthermore, the center of the fgure shows the resolution of the feminine formation and the disappearance of the sufxes -driz and -doría, the combination of, as we will review later, -dor and -ía. The next section covers the analysis of these data: frst, the issue with the feminine form and its solutions; second, the new meanings for the sufx -dor/a; third, some notes on the evolution of the classical variants; and fnally, some interesting aspects of its relation with other sufxes. Table 16.2 Quantitative evolution of derivative words from sufxes -dor/a, -(t/s)or/a and -triz CENTURY 12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

17th

18th

19th

20th

-dor/a

58

533

258

657

556

306

107

506

1859

-sor/a

0

19

6

19

20

13

10

13

52

-tor/a

2

18

19

69

24

12

8

33

101

-triz

2

3

5

10

16

12

5

28

43

Source: Prepared by the author

Figure 16.1 Timeline of suffxes derived from the Latin suffx -tor. The dates are documented, but always approximate Source: Prepared by the author

224

Sufx evolution in derivation

3.3.1 The formation of the feminine form The Latin feminine form of the sufx -tor was -trix, which resulted, in Spanish, in -triz or -driz. The romance result -driz created only a few words—consejadriz (1417), nodriz (1230), pecadriz (1236), emperadriz (1236)—which did not last beyond the 15th century. The classical variant -triz still exists nowadays but has modifed its feld of action. Broadly speaking, there are two stages: one up to the 17th century and a second one from the 19th century. In the frst one, the words are retrieved from Latin—meretriz (1218), emperatriz (1129), pecatriz (1236), progenitriz (1450). In the 19th century, a wave of technical terms emerged. These, although based on Latin words, come from technical French or English vocabulary— generatriz (1837), locomotriz (1842), bisectriz (1861), obturatriz (1870). Likewise, at the end of this stage, new derivative words are created from romance bases—encueratriz (1985), aviatriz (1986), consolatriz (1995), fornicatriz (2002)—always with connotative character. This situation resulted in the emergence, particularly during the frst stage, of two feminine forms, a situation where either one prevails over the other or becomes specialized—actor// actora (1449)/actriz (1665). During the second stage, words are very specialized, and often both masculine and feminine forms have diferent scopes—generatriz (1837), locomotriz (1842). An example: directriz (1797) can be considered the feminine form of director in mano directriz, but gender relation is not as obvious when talking about “la directriz” as the line where the gender has been consolidated. In view of this specifc situation, the sufx -dor lost a productive feminine form, and the speakers provided three solutions (Pascual Rodríguez and Sánchez González de Hierro 1992; Morales Ruiz 1998; Rainer 2019): 1 2

3

To use the masculine form as a feminine form (reyna pecador, fermosa pecador), a short-lived solution that can be documented up to the 14th century. To use the feminine form of the sufx -dero/a as a feminine form of -dor. This second solution is benefted by four factors: the Latin hypercharacterization of the feminine form is maintained, the tasks associated to women are diferentiated and often associated with negative nuances, the infuence of professional sufxes is collected in -ero/a and a sufx under the pressure of -ble is reused. To create a regular feminine form -dora, a solution that, although it emerges at the end of the 13th century—texidora (1257)—is not widely used until the end of the 15th century and beginning of the 16th century.

The coexistence of these three solutions results in the appearance of word groups with several possibilities, such as fornicador (1250)/fornicadora (1400)/fornicadera (1400)/fornicadora (1400); afeitador (1400)/afeitadera (1495)/afeitadora (1589); pecador (1140)/pecador (feminine) (1200)/ pecadora (1293)/pecatriz (1236)/pecadriz (1236).

3.3.2 New meanings The Latin sufx created agent nouns, usually professional and, to a lesser extent, active adjectives; therefore, the meanings Instrument, Place and Relational of the Spanish sufx -dor cannot be attributed to Latin inheritance. To explain the emergence of the frst one, three hypotheses are presented. First, the result of a metaphoric or metonymic extension. But a metaphoric or metonymic proposal should have taken place in Latin, and there are no data confrming this extension; neither does it exist in other Romance languages; therefore, the Latin does not seem to be the origin. 225

Antonio Rifón

The second one suggests an ellipsis of the substantives modifed by the adjectives ending in -dor/a (Pharies 2002, 170). This could be feasible if, before the emergence of instrumental derivatives, a sufcient number of instrumento rascador–type constructions could be documented. Nevertheless, the instrumental derivatives surface suddenly, without undergoing the adjective phase—rascador (1330). Once the two previous options have been ruled out, the third one gains momentum. This hypothesis (Rainer 2004, 2011) explains the onset of the instrumental meaning through loans of instrumental derivatives from Catalonian language. We should bear in mind that, in Latin, the instrument nouns could be created through the sufx -torius, which resulted in Spanish in the sufx -dero/a, whose meaning was inherited from Latin—majadero (1250), doladera (1240), cocedero (1244). The situation in related languages, such as Catalonian or Provençal, was diferent: the sufxes -tor and -torius phonologically merged, and their result created both agent and instrument nouns. These Catalonian instrumental substantives ending in -dor, derived from the Latin -torius, entered the Spanish language and were reinterpreted as derivative words by -dor, a Spanish sufx originated in the Latin -tor, not in the Latin -torius. This leads, after some doubtful cases in the 13th century—taiador (1250)—to clear instrumental cases in the 14th century—rascador (1330), pasador (1350), podadora (1380). The explanation for the expansion of the instrumental meaning also contributes to explain the extension to the location meaning (Malkiel 1988)—obrador (1247), dormidor (1256). That said, the Catalonian loan may explain the frst cases, but not the wave of instrumental derivatives from the 19th century. The new devices and machines from the Industrial Revolution created many new words, in most cases loans or adaptations from French and English languages. The new feminine substantives ending in -dora to name instruments surface, as indicated by Rainer (2009), almost exclusively from the 19th century. The emergence of these words can be explained by the interaction of two processes: loan and ellipsis. On one hand, substantives are borrowed from other languages and end up generating a new derivative pattern. On the other hand, the substantives of syntagms such as “machine + -adora” are elided and syntagms that can also be originated by a loan. Last is the modern emergence of the relational meaning (Rainer and Wolborska-Lauter 2012; Tsutahara 2016). The adjectives formed by -dor usually have an active character and adapt well to the paraphrase “one who/anything that V”. But, towards the mid-19th century, new constructions do not adapt so adequately. Examples such as “talento improvisador” (1884) or “facultad creadora” (1825) do adapt to the paraphrase “talent for improvisation” or “faculty for creation”.

3.3.3 The evolution of -(t/s)or/a At the beginning, these sufxes appear in legal Latin texts, where it is doubtful whether the author is using an existing Latin word—sucessor, defenssor, imperator, apreciator—or creating a new Latin or Spanish word—succesores, confessor, debitores—which can be located in Spanish texts together with romance words—acutor, octor. This attachment to Latin lasts throughout most of the evolution period. This tendency does not end until the 19th century and, mostly, 20th century, when many technical words surface. These replicate the Latin pattern but using Spanish stems: transducir → transductor, transponer → transpositor, impactar → impactor, predecir → predictor.

226

Sufx evolution in derivation

This Latin feature often causes gaps in lexical families, because the stem verb has not been borrowed or inherited. This way, a cell of the derivational paradigm is empty and, as a consequence, in some cases, the verb is recovered over the noun in -(t/s)or/a—asesor → asesorar, doctor → doctorar; although this is not very frequent with -(t/s)or, it does prevail when based on an action substantive ending in -ción—afcionar, sancionar, obsesionar, convulsionar (Pena Seijas 2008; Pena Seijas and Campos Souto 2009).

3.4 Relations with other sufxes Once the competition with the sufx -dero/a over the feminine form and the instrumental meanings has been covered, we can now briefy explain the competition with other agent noun creating sufxes and mention the combination of sufxes -dor and -ía.

3.4.1 Competition with other agentive sufxes The modern series blogueador/a–bloguero/a–bloguista–bloguer/blogger or surfeador/a–surfero/a– surfsta–surfer are only a small sample of the competition between the Spanish sufxes that create Agents, to which we could incidentally add the emergence of the English sufx -er. While the sufxes -ero/a and -ista create substantives from substantives, when there is a possibility of a verbal stem, the sufx -dor/a may surface. Regarding the English sufx -er, its evolution shall be closely watched. Up to now, from Spanish stems, it has only created words with pejorative nuances (mierder, gilipoller, hijoputer, estúpider) but could eventually become independent, like the English sufx -ing (puenting).

3.4.2 Combination of -dor+-ía The combination of -dor+ía shares some similarities with -ero/a+-ía/-ío, but, unlike these, which generate the sufxes -ería and -erío, has not clearly become independent. In the combination -dor+ía, the -o- can be closed and create -duría without compelling phonological reasons. Malkiel (1979) suggests the phonotactic reasons of the Spanish morphemes and the infuence of the derivative words ending in -uría as possible explanations. Nevertheless, the closure is not automatic: -doría/-duría coexist from the beginning, although the frst one is less frequent, and it almost disappears, except for a few cases, from the end of the 15th century—dictadoría (1379–1400)/dictaduría (1471–), mercadoría (1237–1502)/mercaduría (1250–), corredoría (1370–1396)/correduría (1421–). Whereas it is not usually considered an independent sufx, some derivative words ending in -duría are hardly linked to -dor/a or -ura stems—peinaduría (1979), calladuría (1982), portavozaduría (1995). These are only a few, and this formation has not completely taken hold.

4 The Latin sufx -torius/-a/-um and the Spanish sufxes -dero/a y -(t/s)orio/a 4.1 Latin The combination of the sufx -ius/-a/-um, which created relational adjectives, and the sufx -tor/-is created, in Latin, the sufx -torius/-a/-um, which presented the same variations as -tor/-is when combined with some verbal stems: dēscensōrĭus, possessōrĭus.

227

Antonio Rifón

Its derivatives, adjectives, had as their main meaning the relational agent from verbal stems (captātōrĭus). It could also create cause nouns (vŏmĭtōrĭus), and some derivatives resulted in location meanings (cēnātōrĭum, cŏquīnātōrĭus, ōrātōrĭus) and, in Late Latin, instrumental meanings (punctōrĭum, scalptōrĭum).

4.2 Results in Spanish Formally, the Latin sufx produces three results—four if two classical results are considered: 1 2 3

-dero/a (Romance sufx) -duero/a (Romance sufx) -(t/s)orio/a (Classical sufx[es])

Table 16.3 shows the diferences between the classical sufx -(t/s)orio/a and the Romance suffx -dero/a. The frst one is more attached to Latin patterns, while -dero/a detaches from them, being more productive in meanings such as Place and Instrument. This table also includes a diference between active adjectives (“something which V”) and utility adjectives (“something which serves to V”), given that these are very close to the instrumental meaning. The meaning Activities is also included, considering that -(t/s)orio/a is also used to create nouns for arts and disciplines, both as substantive oratoria (1427), and as adjective that modifes the substantive arte: arte destilatoria (1592)/amatoria (1592). Table 16.3 Meanings created by sufxes -dero/a and -(t/s)orio/a; only the most productive and interesting ones for sufx evolution are included Agent A person who V mandadero (1140), ayudadera (1379) Instrument A instrument/tool for V majadero (1236), doladera (1240), cocedera (1244) // lavatorio (1300), destilatorio (1583) // rasorio (1493) Action The action of Ving adjutorio (1200), exauctorio (1200) // desposorio (1146), responsorio (1236) Intensive action The action of Ving (intensive) bandadero (1373), ciscadera (1554), cherriadera (1589), enjuagadero (1875), calladera (1896) Activities The activity of V/The art of V oratoria (1427), arte destilatoria (1592) // arte pulsoria (1427), camsoria (1454) Place The place where V embalsadero (1135), cebadero (1189), oradero (1230) // natatorio (1200), oratorio (1254), dormitorio (1256) // diversorio (1454) Active adjective One who // anything that // something which V pausadero (1157), encendedero (1200), valecedera (1218) // purgatorio (1228), negatorio (1250) // persuasorio (1420) Active/utility adjective Something which serves to V lavatorio (1275) // compulsorio (1483) Potential pasive Capable of being Ved/that may or can be Ved echadero (1129), sanadero (1257), apalpadero (1260), acercadero (1260) Relational adjective Of or pertaining/belonging S/V purgatorio (1293), senatorio (1385), amatorio (1548)//cisoria (1423), sucesorio (1485) Source: Prepared by the author

228

Sufx evolution in derivation

4.3 Evolution Like in the previous section, Table 16.4 shows its quantitative evolution, and Figure 16.2 its timeline. Table 16.4 shows that -dero/a presents a regular growth until the 16th century, followed by an abnormal decline due to the ferce competition with other sufxes. The sufx -(t/s)orio/a maintains a normal evolution, marked by its limited productivity caused by its classical nature. The great concentration of dots (Figure 16.2) in the initial area indicates that the sufxes are settled since the origins of the Spanish language, although a slight delay is noticed for -(t/s) orio/a as compared to -dero/a. The same happened to -(t/s)or/a, due to its classical nature and its use in Latin texts. Two other aspects stand out: the right area of the sufx -dero/a shows dots indicating a decline in some meanings. In the 19th century, the meaning Intensive Action grows. Next, we will cover the disappearance of the sufx -duero/a and then focus on analysis of some of the meanings assigned to -dero/a and the issues with the derivatives from -(t/s)orio/a.

4.3.1 The sufx -duero/a The sufx -duero, a regular result of the Latin sufx in Spanish, was short lived mainly because of the pressure of the sufx -ero/a. Only 12 derivatives are documented, from the 12th century through the beginning of the 14th century, although there are some cases of asedaduera in 1500. All of them are hapax or have a couple of tokens, with only valeduero/a slightly standing out.

Table 16.4 Quantitative evolution of derivative words from sufxes -dero/a and -(t/s)orio,a CENTURY 12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

17th

18th

19th

20th

-dero/a

7

99

64

206

111

90

15

55

178

-sorio/a

1

4

5

35

14

5

5

8

17

-torio/a

0

23

29

149

86

83

54

72

301

Source: Prepared by the author

Figure 16.2

Timeline of suffxes derived from the Latin suffx -torius. The dates are documented but always approximate 229

Antonio Rifón

4.3.2 The meanings of -dero/a The Latin sufx -torius does not express an agent. In fact, it was formed by the sufx -tor, which did express it. Three situations infuence the emergence of the agent meaning in that sufx. First, Latin already had adjectives that could provide an active interpretation (illuminatorius). Second, the feminine form of the sufx, as previously explained, is used to complement the sufx -dor, which did not have one. And third, there is a convergence between this sufx and the sufx -ero/a that creates agent nouns, particularly professional ones. The sufx -ero/a comes from the Latin -arius and had similar functions as -torius, among them relational adjectives and nouns of professions and places. This resulted in their convergence, not only semantic but also formal, in those cases where the base of -ero/a ended in -d-. In some cases, an -ero/a derivative can be reanalyzed as -dero/a, either because that segmentation is easier or because its base is lost. For instance: mandadero existed in Latin mandātārĭus, but it is simpler to refer to mada(r) + -dero. Other instances include those where there is an increment between base and sufx: -ad-, such as viñadero/vinnadero (1141), panadero (1245), lennadero (1266), which against viñero (1740), panero (1263), leñero (1589) are more difcult to interpret and ft the -dero interpretation. But the contribution of the sufx -ero/a was not enough for its growth, given the strength of -dor. The meaning Action could be documented every century in isolated cases, but it is from the second half of the 19th century when its Intensive meaning grows. Considering the creation of derivative words every 25 years, starting from the second half of the 19th century—1850–74, 2 cases; 1875–99, 7; 1900–24, 7; 1925–49, 10; 1950–74, 16; 1975–99, 34—we can consistently see an increase in every period. Within those formations, the feminine forms prevail— embestidera (1896), calladera (1896), besadera (1885), preguntadera (1924), chingadera (1950), reunidera (1977), vomitadera (1980)—as well as the creations in America.

4.3.3 Derivational bases of the classical sufx -(t/s)orio/a The issues with the bases of the sufx -(t/s)orio/a are partly the same as those with the classical sufxes -(t/s)or/a and -(t/s)ivo/a. We will focus now only on some of the issues when acknowledging the derivative base from a diachronic perspective. The relational adjectives created by this or other sufxes are not substantive-relational but verb-relational. These are the two possible derivational bases: action substantive, usually ending in -(c)ión or -(s)ión (Rainer and Wolborska-Lauter 2012, 310), and the classical verbal stem. In the frst case, a derivative like adulatorio would have a paraphrase like “of or pertaining to S(ción) (adulación)”, while in the second case, the paraphrase would be less natural: “of or pertaining to V (adular or al adular)”. The decision between one and the other depends on the consideration of the relation with the base: if we consider that the base will be included in the paraphrase, the frst one seems more appropriate, but in the case that we consider that an elision process for the sufx -ción would be necessary for that purpose, which is not very common in the Spanish language, probably the second option would be more appropriate, given that the action sufx collects the main semantic values of the verb. Formal aspects do not help, because both the action sufxes and the ones we are covering now have the classical stem as their base; for instance, resolutorio (1490) would provide the same solution whether eliding the action sufx in resolución and subsequently adding -torio or adding it to the classical stem resolu(t). The same thing happens with the Romance stems: from a purely formal perspective, alucinatorio (1904) can result both from alucinación and from alucinar.

230

Sufx evolution in derivation

However, if the frst solution is suggested, the nominal base, the cases when the derivative word is both a relational and an active adjective shall be explained. For instance, adulatorio’s base would be the action substantive adulación in “arte adulatoria” (1598), but it seems difcult to derive an active meaning from that base, like in “palabras adulatorias” (1427). It does not seem an appropriate solution either to suggest two bases, a nominal one and a verbal one, with the second one more etymologically in line.

4.4 Relation to other sufxes Once the relation between -dero/a and -ero/a has been covered, the focus shifts to their competition with other sufxes, which has been devastating. First, it competes with -dor/a over the agent meaning, active adjective and instrument, and it loses the three battles, because the creation of the frst two is clearly owned by -dor/a, and regarding the creation of instrument nouns, -dero/a declines after 1600. For instance, we have documented 19 new derivatives with that meaning in the 20th century, most of them referring to recipients, against 29 in the 15th century. This sufx also did not come out well from its competition with -ble, which beat it in the potential passive meaning feld. Only a few words in -dero/a are documented from the end of the 15th century—holladero (1579), usadero (1904), conquistadero (1905)—and all of them are ephemeral. Therefore, excluding survivors such as perecedero or duradero, this was another lost battle.

5 The Latin sufx -(b)ilis and the Spanish sufx -ble 5.1 Latin The ending -li- could create denominal relational adjectives after long vowels (pŭĕrīlis, rēgālis) and deverbal adjectives after short vowels (ăgĭtābĭlis) (Miller 2006, 127, 223). Among these are three formations: -ilis, tilis, -bilis (Jenks 1911, 24–25) all of them with passive meaning. The sufx-bilis attached to the verbal stem of infectum to create adjectives with passive meaning (accūsābĭlis, cōgĭtābĭlis, compărābĭlis), usually from transitive verbs; active meaning with intransitive verbs (crēdĭbĭlis, căpābĭlis) and some causal (terrĭbĭlis, horrĭbĭlis) and instrumental (data operam adiutabilem) meanings (Hanssen 1889; Val Álvaro 1981). Two Latin features infuence the Spanish derivation structure. On one hand, whereas -bilis usually attaches to the present verbal stem in a regular way (admira-re → admīrā-bĭlis), in Late Latin, it also attaches to past participle forms (fexĭbĭlis, accessĭbĭlis, dīvīsĭbĭlis) (Cooper 1895, 97). On the other, some haplology cases take place when added to bases with -b- (habere → habi-bilis → habilis), bringing together sufxes -bilis and -ilis.

5.2 Results in Spanish The sufx -bilis is transferred to Spanish with a single result: -ble. The Spanish sufx -ble attaches to the verbal stem modifying its linking vowel depending on the conjugation: -a- for the frst conjugation (aceptar → aceptable) and -i- for the second and third conjugations (acaecer → acaecible, absorber → absorbible). But, like in Latin, it also attaches to the inherited classical stem from the Latin past participle (admitir/admis- → admisible, dividir/divis- → divisible).

231

Antonio Rifón

Its meanings have not widely varied. Like in Latin, its main meaning relates to potential passive—concordable (1208), razonable (1208). Less often, other meanings are added, such as active, derived from intransitive verbs—convenible (1196), semejable (1196), perdurable (1215); causal—espantable (1200), temorible (1200) and a few derivatives from nouns—saludable (1236), favorable (1255), alcaldable (1978).

5.3 Evolution Its quantitative evolution (Table 16.5) shows that, during the frst stages of the language (12th century) it is not very productive, but it soon gains momentum and is still growing today. Next, we will focus on two important aspects in the evolution of this sufx: the division between synchrony and diachrony and the new denominal meanings.

5.3.1 The division between synchrony and diachrony Although this could be applied to previous sufxes, we will analyze the division between synchrony and diachrony with this one (see Bosque, this volume). The grammar of the Real Academia Española and the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2009) diferentiates two groups of derivatives: the frst one includes the ones that can be synchronically considered derivatives, and the second one includes those that, even though they were synchronically considered derivatives in Latin, do not currently fall into that category. The latter include at least three cases: First: Latin inherited derivatives for which the base verb has not been inherited or has been rarely used. For instance, formidable (1490), from Latin formīdābĭlĭs, is formed from formīdāre, but the Spanish stem verb formidar is only documented once in 1650. The Latin verb and its derivatives are documented in the 15th century, but only formidable and formidante were transferred to Spanish. Afable, from Latin afabilis, is a similar case, which had already lost its verbal base in Latin (Corominas and Pascual 1984). Second, loans from other languages where the verb has not been borrowed. An example would be cunable (1973), created from a non-verbal base but from the reanalysis of incunable (1855), a French loan (1802) taken from Latin incūnābŭla (Corominas and Pascual 1984). Third, semantic change. The most cited case is amar → amable, but apacible (1400) is more complex: it has been related to paz but historically comes from phonetic variations of aplacible (1350 to 1592), derived from the verb aplacer. This distance from its original stem has caused it, through reanalysis, to be related to paz and therefore has modifed its meaning (Corominas and Pascual 1984). It is difcult, then, to understand the synchrony without the diachrony, which also proves the inheritance of Latin adjectives ending in -bilis and created from past participles. This derivation duality has created double derivatives, one from the infnitive stem—admitible (1632),

Table 16.5 Quantitative evolution of derivative words from sufx -ble CENTURY -ble

12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

17th

18th

19th

20th

2

103

130

415

163

123

129

229

1102

Source: Prepared by the author

232

Sufx evolution in derivation

distendible (1926), veíble (1260)—and another from the classical stem—admisible (1712), distensible (1909), visible (1237). Additionally, into this category also fall those where the haplology from Latin -bilis has had efects, for instance, from docibilis, docible (1499) and from docilis, dócil or mueble, from mōbĭlis (movibilis) following historic phonetic regulations, classical variation móvil and regular Romance movible (1227).

5.3.2 Derivatives from nouns Up to this point, we have mostly used verbs as bases, but derivatives from nouns also exist. These are only a few, isolated cases such as varonible (1293), caballerible (1385), clubable (1896), in a formation that has lately been productive to refer to persons who may be elected or appointed for a position (presidenciable [1940], alcaldable [1978], vicepresidenciable [1996]), probably from papable (1769).

5.4 Relation to other sufxes The high productivity of this sufx is partly due to its competition with other sufxes. This has pushed its specialization in the meaning “capable of being V(ed)”, a very productive meaning that has created very transparent formations. But -ble had other meanings that have been reduced by the competition with other sufxes. This competition has led to the marginalization of the other non-productive meanings, for instance, the causal lacrimable (1376), espantable (1200), temorible (1200), temible compete with derivative words in -oso/a—lacrimoso (1500), espantoso (1350); stative such as convenible, semejable in -nte—conveniente, semejante; active such as cansable (1419), blasfemable (1402). This leads to the specialization of the sufx, which is soon only productive in the potential passive meaning (Val Álvaro 1981).

6 The Latin sufx -icius and the birth of a sufx: -dizo/a So far, we have covered Spanish sufxes that came directly from Latin. But new sufxes were created in Spanish, for instance, -ería and -erío, combining -ero/a+-ía/-ío, or the failed attempt of -duría. We will focus now on the birth of the sufx -dizo/a from applying the sufx -icius to participle bases. The Latin sufx -icius/a/um had several functions. One of them was to attach to adjectives to form possessive or relational adjectives. From there, it evolved to include participle derivatives. This Latin sufx has resulted in several sufxes, among them -izo/a. The sufx -izo/a created relational, possessive and similarity adjectives (inviernizo, estercolizo, terrizo) but, as in Latin, is also attached to verbs to create derivative words with potential passive meaning, to which the nuance “ease” is added—quebradizo (1280), mudadizo (1402), apretadizo (1499)—and some active meanings—huidizo (1218), caedizo (1251). Table  16.6 shows how, during the 13th and 14th centuries, the formation with -dizo/a gained momentum, but, from the 16th century, it declined, due to the pressure of the sufx -ble, which dominated the formation of passive potential adjectives, marginalizing -dizo/a in the meaning “capable of being V(ed) easily”. While these formations came from participle +-izo/a, they soon became independent from the participle and used the verbal stem as a base. In order to analyze this, we should take the second conjugation with participles ending in -ido but with many derivative words in -edizo— corredizo (1140), venedizo (1240), vendedizo (1230), movedizo (1251). However, the independence 233

Antonio Rifón Table 16.6 Quantitative evolution of derivative words from sufx -dizo/a CENTURY -dizo/a

12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

17th

18th

19th

20th

4

40

26

47

24

13

3

13

27

Source: Prepared by the author

from the participle is not total, which leads to two variants: one with verbal stem as a base, and another with participle stem as a base—corridizo (1928), uenjidizo (1452), moujdiza (1402). The frst solution prevails over the participle: out of the 29 verb derivatives in -er, 2 only have -idizo, 9 have both, but only in 2 of them does -idizo prevail, which proves that this sufx became independent from the participle early.

7 Conclusions This brief overview of the evolution of Spanish sufxation has tried to show, with a small group of sufxes, the main factors that guide the evolution of the system: initial conditions, loans, suffx competition, reanalysis, phonetic evolution and social and technological changes. The main conclusion is that analyzing Spanish morphology is difcult without considering its historical evolution. The borders between synchrony and diachrony are, at the very least, difuse.

References Cooper, F. T. 1895. Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius: An Historical Study of the Development of Vocabulary in Vulgar and Late Latin, with Special Reference to the Romance Languages. New York: Olms Verlag. Corominas, J., and J. A. Pascual. 1984. Diccionario Crítico Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico. 6 vols. Biblioteca Románica Hispánica 7. Madrid: Gredos. Fruyt, M. 1990. “La plurivalence des noms d’agent latins en ‘-tor:’ Lexique et Sémantique.” Latomus 49 (1): 59–70. www.jstor.org/stable/41535561. Hanssen, F. 1889. “Die Aktivbedeutung Der Adjektiva Auf Bilis Im Archaischen Latein.” Philologus 41: 274–90. Jenks, P. R. 1911. A Manual of Latin Word Formation for Secondary Schools. New York and Chicago: DC Heath & Company. Malkiel, Y. 1979. “Medieval Roots of the Spanish Derivational Model sabid-or ~ sabid-uría.” Romance Philology 33 (1): 102–16. www.jstor.org/stable/44942052. Malkiel, Y. 1988. “Las peripecias españolas del sufjo latino -ōriu, -ōria.” Revista de Filología Española 68 (3–4): 217–56. Miller, D. G. 2006. Latin Sufxal Derivatives in English and Their Indo-European Ancestry. Oxford Linguistics. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Morales Ruiz, C. 1998. “La evolución de los sufjos-dor y-dero: un caso de amalgama morfológica para la expresión del género.” Estudi General 17: 145–71. Pascual Rodríguez, J. A., and M. N. Sánchez González de Hierro. 1992. “Una forma particular de amalgama morfológica: notas sobre la historia de -dor y -dero en español.” In Estudios flológicos en homenaje a Eugenio de Bustos Tovar II, edited by J. A. Bartol, 675–98. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Pena Seijas, J. 2008. “El cambio morfológico en el interior de las series de derivación.” Revista de Investigación Lingüística 11: 233–48. 234

Sufx evolution in derivation

Pena Seijas, J., and M. Campos Souto. 2009. “Propuesta metodológica para el establecimiento de familias léxicas en una consideración histórica: el caso de ‘hacer’.” Cuadernos del Instituto Historia de La Lengua 2: 21–52. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3037274.pdf. Pharies, D. 2002. Diccionario etimológico de los sufjos españoles. Madrid: Gredos. Rainer, F. 2004. “Del nombre de agente al nombre de instrumento y de lugar en español: ¿cuándo y cómo?” Iberoromania 59 (1): 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1515/IBER.2004.97. Rainer, F. 2009. “El origen de los nombres de instrumento en-dora del español.” Vox Romanica 68: 199–217. Rainer, F. 2011. “The Agent-Instrument-Place ‘Polysemy’ of the Sufx -tor in Romance.” Language Typology and Universals 64 (1): 8–32. https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2011.0002. Rainer, F. 2019. “The Beneft of the Pan-Romance Perspective: A New Attempt to Solve the tecedor/ tecedeira puzzle.” Word Structure 12 (1): 127–51. https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0141. Rainer, F., and J. Wolborska-Lauter. 2012. “El uso relacional del sufjo -dor/-dora en español y su relación con el francés.” Romanische Forschungen 124 (3): 303–24. https://doi.org/10.3196/003581212802834832. Real Academia Española–CORDE. n.d. http://corpus.rae.es/cordenet.html. Real Academia Española–CREA. n.d. http://corpus.rae.es/creanet.html. Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva Gramática de La Lengua Española: Morfología Sintaxis I, vol. 1. 3 vols. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Tsutahara, R. 2016. “El uso relacional de los derivados adjetivales con los sufjos -dor y-nte—sus semejanzas y diferencias—.” Hispánica 60: 1–25. Val Álvaro, J. F. 1981. “Los derivados sufjales en -ble.” Revista de Filología Española 61: 185–98.

235

17 Prefxation Elisabeth Gibert-SoteloPrefxation

(Prefjación)

Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo

1 Introduction This chapter* aims at ofering an overview of the properties that defne prefxes as a class and, at the same time, at acknowledging the diferences that emerge among the elements classed as prefxes. To this end, their function and semantics are explored, as well as their structural behaviour. On the basis of the distinction between internal and external prefxes, it is hypothesized that prefxes, as a heterogeneous class, cannot be uniformly analysed as adjuncts or as heads. It is concluded that what unifes prefxes as a class is their relational nature. Keywords: prefxes; grammatical functions; semantic classes; adjuncts; heads Este capítulo pretende ofrecer un resumen de las propiedades que defnen a los prefjos como clase y, a la vez, poner de relieve las diferencias existentes entre los elementos clasifcados como prefjos. A tal fn, se exploran las funciones y el signifcado de estas unidades, así como su comportamiento estructural. Partiendo de la distinción entre prefjos internos y externos, se plantea que los prefjos, en tanto que clase heterogénea, no deberían recibir un análisis uniforme como adjuntos o como núcleos. Se concluye que la característica compartida por todos los prefjos es su naturaleza relacional. Palabras clave: prefjos, funciones gramaticales, clases semánticas, adjuntos, núcleos

2 Some basic issues Prefxation can be defned as a morphological process by means of which a morpheme (the prefx) is attached to the left of a base, be that base an independent word (des-leal ‘disloyal’, sobredosis ‘overdose’, re-admitir ‘readmit’) or a bound root (con-currir ‘get together’, dis-currir ‘pass by’) (Varela and Martín García 1999; RAE and ASALE 2009, Chapter 10). Following the current trend in word-formation studies, this chapter assumes that prefxes are afxes, that is, bound morphemes that operate on other morphemes and which occupy a fxed position within the word (Fábregas and Scalise 2012, 8). The left position of prefxes allows distinguishing them from sufxes, which attach to the right of the base (discuti-ble ‘debatable’, carbon-izar ‘carbonize’, compara-ción ‘comparison’). Apart from this surface criterion, though, it is difcult to fnd other exclusive properties of prefxes (see Fábregas this volume). 236

Prefxation

If the distinction between prefxes and sufxes poses certain problems, the diference between prefxation and compounding is not free from discussion. In fact, prefxation has traditionally been considered a particular case of compounding (Menéndez Pidal 1904; Alemany Bolufer 1919). This is so because a signifcant number of prefxes correspond to independent prepositions (entre-piso ‘storey between two others’, con-vivir ‘live with’). However, many prefxes cannot be identifed with current Spanish prepositions (des-hacer ‘undo’, post-bélico ‘postwar’), and others cannot be related to these elements by any means (in-feliz ‘not happy’, tri-ciclo ‘tricycle’). This has led many researchers to conclude that prefxation is a derivative process rather than one of compounding (Brea 1976; Varela and Martín García 1999; Montero Curiel 1999; Varela 2005; RAE and ASALE 2009). The distinction between prefxation and compounding, though, is blurred when dealing with Greco-Latin bound elements such as flo- (flo-sofía ‘philosophy’), logo- (logo-maquia ‘logomachy’), or neo- (neo-clásico ‘neoclassical’). It is not the aim of this chapter to deal with the delimitation of derivation and compounding (see Mendívil-Giró this volume). For the problematic cases, the following two guidelines are adopted: (i) neoclassical stems can appear either at the beginning or at the end of words (cf. flo- and logo-: fló-logo ‘philologist’, angló-flo ‘anglophile’, logo-pedia ‘speech therapy’), whereas prefxes systematically appear at the beginning of words (cf. neo-: neo-logismo ‘neologism’, neo-rrural ‘neorural’); (ii) if an element can give rise to a new word when combined with a derivative sufx, then it is identifed with a stem (cf. hídr-ico ‘hydric’, graf-ismo ‘graphics’), not with a prefx (cf. *neo-ismo, *mega-dad) (for these and other criteria, see Varela and Martín García 1999, 4997; Rio-Torto 2014). The chapter is organized as follows. After this basic introduction to prefxation (section 2), section 3 explores the parallelisms between the functions performed by prefxes and those carried out by certain grammatical categories. Section 4 delves into the heterogeneous semantics of Spanish prefxes. Section 5 addresses their impact on syntax. The morphosyntactic status of these units is discussed in section 6. Finally, section 7 summarizes and concludes the chapter.

3 Function One of the properties of prefxes usually highlighted in the literature is that they seem to act as members of one of the following grammatical categories: prepositions, adverbs, and adjectives (Varela and Martín García 1999; RAE and ASALE 2009, §10.2b–§10.2e). Hence, some have a behaviour parallel to a prepositional head, others exhibit a function similar to that of an adverbial modifer, and a few can be identifed with adjectival uses. As will be shown subsequently, prefxes can be seen as prepositional (§3.1), adverbial (§3.2), or adjectival (§3.3) depending on the type of interaction they establish with the base.

3.1 Prefxes that act as prepositions Several prefxes act as prepositions at the word level. The clearest cases are the ones that have a prepositional counterpart in current Spanish (cf. a/a-, en/en-, con/con-, contra/contra-, entre/ entre-, sin/sin-, sobre/sobre-, tras/tras-). The following two examples allow comparing constructions containing full PPs (1a, 2a) with the corresponding prefxed constructions (1b, 2b): (1) a. contra el sentido against the sense b. contra-sentido against-sense ‘nonsense’, ‘foolishness’ 237

Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo

(2) a. volar sobre fy over b. sobre-volar over-fy

la the la the

ciudad city ciudad city

Even though the prepositional constructions are similar to the prefxed ones, they are not completely equivalent. In (3a), the preposition contra scopes over the whole DP el sentido de la justicia ‘the sense of justice’, whereas the prefx contra- only scopes over the base sentido ‘sense’ in (3b) (but see §5.3 for cases in which a prefx scopes beyond the word limits). Besides, the prefxed construction contrasentido allows for a lexicalized meaning, ‘nonsense/foolishness’ (1b), that the related PP rejects (1a). In (4), the sum of the verb volar ‘fy’ and the PP sobre la ciudad ‘over the city’ (4a) shows an aspectual nature diferent from the sum of the prefxed verb sobrevolar ‘overfy’ and the DP la ciudad ‘the city’ (4b) (cf. §5.2): (3) a. Esta this b. *Esta this

ley law ley law

(4) a. #El the b. El the

avión plane avión plane

va goes va goes

contra el against the contra-sentido against-sense

voló sobre few over sobre-voló over-few

la the la the

sentido sense de la of ciudad city ciudad city

de of justicia.

en in en in

tres three tres three

la the

justicia. justice

the

justice

horas. hours horas. hours

Other prefxes with a preposition-like behaviour lack a prepositional counterpart, although they are etymologically related to Latin or Greek prepositions: sub-suelo ‘undersoil’ (cf. Latin sub- ‘under’), intra-muscular ‘intramuscular’ (cf. Latin intra- ‘within’), super-poner ‘superimpose’ (cf. Latin super- ‘above’), exo-esqueleto ‘exoskeleton’ (cf. Greek exo- ‘outside of ’), des-mold-ar ‘remove from mould’ (cf. Latin de- ‘from’, ex- ‘out of ’, and dis- ‘apart’), and so on (for a diachronic approach to prefxation, see Pujol Payet this volume). Varela and Martín García (1999, §76.2.1.1) point out that prepositional prefxes typically combine with nouns or denominal adjectives, that is, with bases whose root can easily be identifed with a spatial entity. This is so because, as noticed by Fábregas (2010, 56), prepositional prefxes act as semantic relators that establish a Figure-Ground relationship (Talmy 2000) between two (explicit or implicit) entities: viaje transoceánico ‘trip [Figure] across the sea [Ground]’, subsuelo ‘soil [Figure] beneath surface [Ground]’. Prepositional prefxes also occur with verbs. In these cases, a Figure–Ground relationship is established between the arguments of the resulting verb or between an argument and the verb root: el barco circunnavegó la isla ‘the ship [Figure] sailed around the island [Ground]’, el tren descarriló ‘the train [Figure] went of the rails [Ground]’.

3.2 Prefxes that act as adverbs Prefxation can also be used to perform adverbial functions such as negation, intensifcation, gradation, or temporal modifcation. Some adverbial prefxes coexist with the related adverb: cuasi-perfecto ‘almost perfect’ (cf. casi ‘almost’), no-fcción ‘nonfction’ (cf. no ‘not’). Others have an adverbial origin: in-modifcable ‘unmodifable’ (cf. Proto-Indoeuropean *n- ‘not’). The most numerous ones, though, are prepositional prefxes (§3.1) that work as adverbial-like elements when afxed to certain adjectival or verbal bases. As shown in (5c), the adverbial value of 238

Prefxation

inferiority (lower degree) displayed by sub- emerges when the locative prepositional meaning ‘under’ (5a, 5b) is used to evaluate an event: (5) a. sub-título under-title ‘subtitle’ b. sub-rayar under-line c. sub-alimentar under-feed By the same token, the basic prepositional use of re- to encode the spatial notion of back position (6a) or backward directionality (6b), when applied to verbs, usually derives into the temporal-aspectual notion of going back to a previous event (6c), and this iterative meaning turns into intensifcation when applied to adjectives (6d): (6) a. re-botica back-room b. re-fuir back-fow ‘fow back’ c. re-intentar back-try ‘retry’, ‘try back’, ‘try again’ d. re-seco back-dry ‘very dry’ Similarly, pre- has the original prepositional function of placing an entity before another (7a) but may be used as a temporal modifer when combined with certain verbs (7b) or participles (7c): (7) a. pre-dorsal before-dorsal_region ‘predorsal’ b. pre-ver before-see ‘foresee’ c. pre-cocinado before-cooked ‘pre-cooked’

3.3 Prefxes that act as adjectives In some cases, prefxes modify the bases they combine with in a way similar to that of qualifying adjectives: neo- characterizes the noun colonialismo ‘colonialism’ as new (8a), seudo- characterizes the noun ciencia ‘science’ as false (8b), and mini- characterizes the noun desfle ‘fashion show’ as small (8c): 239

Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo

(8) a. la globalización . . . no es otra cosa sino un neo-colonialismo. the globalization not is other thing but a new-colonialism ‘globalization is nothing but a neocolonialism’. [CREA: 1996. Mexico] b. No podemos permitir que en nuestros hospitales se haga allow that in our.pl hospitals se do.prs.sbjv.3sg not can.1pl seudo-ciencia. false-science ‘We cannot allow pseudoscience in our hospitals’. [CREA: 2004. Spain] un mini-desfle c. la empresa de calzados . . . armó the company of shoes mounted a small-fashion_show ‘the shoe company organized a small fashion show’. [CREA: 2003. Bolivia; apud RAE and ASALE: §10.12ñ] A characteristic shared by all the adjectival prefxes used to qualify is that they only combine with nouns (9a) or relational (and hence denominal) adjectives (9b). Qualifying adjectives (9c) and verbs (9d) systematically reject these prefxes (Fábregas 2018, 176). In fact, if the function of qualifying adjectival prefxes is to qualify over nouns, then it is expected that they select (de)nominal bases: (9) a. falda skirt b. colonial colonial c. generoso generous d. construir build

-

mini-falda mini-skirt neo-colonial neo-colonial *paleo-generoso paleo-generous *maxi-construir maxi-build

A reduced number of prepositional prefxes show adjective-like behaviour when used with certain nominal bases. Such is the case of super- ‘over’, which, on the basis of its basic prepositional locative meaning, may develop an adjectival use and characterize the referent of the nominal base as big or preeminent: supermercado ‘supermarket’, supermujer ‘superwoman’. Special attention must be paid to the prefx ex-, which has developed a specifc adjectival function— close to the one performed by the temporal adjective former—to express that the occupation or condition denoted by the base is no longer valid: (10) a. ex-ministro ‘ex-minister’ b. ex-director ‘ex-director’ c. ex-estudiante ‘ex-student’ d. ex-marido ‘ex-husband’ Finally, there is a group of prefxes used to quantify. They are considered a subtype of adjectival prefxes by Varela and Martín García (1999, §76.5.6.1), since they behave like numerals or indefnites. These are elements like bi- ‘two’ in bisílabo ‘two syllabled’ (numeral) or pluri- ‘several’ in plurinacional ‘from several nations’ (indefnite). Some of these prefxes can work as adverbs depending on the base they take. Hence, whereas bi- is adjectival in (11a), the same prefx is 240

Prefxation

adverbial in (11b), where it basically means ‘twice’. The adverbial function comes out because the base anual ‘annual, yearly’ has temporal meaning: (11) a. un a b. una a

avión bi-motor plane two-engined celebración bi-anual celebration twice-yearly

Quantifying prefxes also show great tendency to combine with nouns (12a, 13a) or denominal (namely relational) adjectives (12b, 13b), since nominal elements admit numeral (12) or indefnite (13) quantifcation. Accordingly, qualifying adjectives (12c, 13c) and verbs (12d, 13d) are generally excluded: (12) a. ángulo ‘angle’ b. dimensional ‘dimensional’ c. atractivo ‘attractive’ d. escribir ‘write’

-

tri-ángulo ‘with three angles’ tri-dimensional ‘with three dimensions’ *tri-atractivo ‘three times attractive’ *tri-escribir ‘write three times’.

(13) a. tarea ‘task’ b. nacional ‘national’ c. agradable ‘nice’ d. cocinar ‘cook’

-

multi-tarea ‘multitask’ pluri-nacional ‘plurinational’ *{multi-/pluri-}agradable ‘several times nice’ *{multi-/pluri-}cocinar ‘cook several times’

As observed by Fábregas (2018), adjectival prefxes are heterogeneous, but they share the basic function of modifying the nominal or denominal base they attach to.

4 Semantics Another salient property of prefxes is that they can encode a wide range of meanings. Following the semantic classifcations proposed in Varela and Martín García (1999, §76.5), RAE and ASALE (2009, §10.2g), and Iacobini (2019), this section distinguishes nine semantic classes of prefxes in Spanish: spatial (§4.1), temporal (§4.2), aspectual (§4.3), refexive (§4.4), gradative (§4.5), negative (§4.6), attitudinal (§4.7), quantifying (§4.8), and qualifying (§4.9). The diferent meanings that the prefxes of each semantic class can express are summarized in Table 17.1.

4.1 Spatial prefxes Among these nine semantic classes, the most basic is the spatial one. In fact, all the prefxes that show prepositional behaviour (§3.1) have a basic spatial semantics. The prefx en- (cf. the Spanish preposition en ‘in’) is such a case. It encodes position in or on when combined with a few verbal bases (a non-productive process in current Spanish; cf. en-cerrar ‘shut in’, en-cubrir ‘cover up’) and, especially, when added to nominal bases to create verbs by means of parasynthesis (cf. en-carcel-ar ‘jail’, en-terr-ar ‘bury’, en-sill-ar ‘saddle’). The locative meaning of entrance into an enclosure is reinterpreted as entrance into a state when en- combines with adjectival bases or abstract nouns in parasynthetic formations (cf. en-gord-ar ‘fatten’, en-amor-ar ‘make fall in love’) (on parasynthesis, see Mateu this volume). This is in accordance with the localist hypothesis (Gruber 1965; Jackendof 1990; Talmy 2000, among others), which states that spatial expressions are typically used to represent more abstract, non-spatial relations (e.g., change of state). 241

Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo Table 17.1 Semantic classes of prefxes Spatial

Temporal Aspectual Refexive Gradative

Negative

Attitudinal Quantifying Qualifying

‘in/on’ ‘inside’ ‘outside’ ‘over’ ‘below’ ‘between’ ‘(in) front (of)’ ‘back, behind’

enintra-, endoextra-, exosobre-, supersub-, infra-, hipoentre-, interante-, pre-, contratras-, re-, retro-, pos(t)-

‘around’ ‘together with’ ‘on this side of’ ‘beyond’ ‘through’ ‘to’ ‘from’ Anteriority Posteriority Iteration Reversion Refexivity Maximum degree Minimum degree Medium degree Contradiction Contrariety Privation Opposition Support Exact quantity (numerals) Indefnite quantity Size Diference/similarity Novelty/antiquity Falseness

circun-, perico(n)cisultratra(n)s-, per-, diaades-, de-, dis-, exante-, pre-, expos(t)redesautoextra-, hiper-, re-, requete-, super-, sobre-, archi-, ultrasub-, infra-, hiposemi-, entre-, medio-, cuasino-, inin-, desa(n)-, in-, des-, sinanti-, contraprouni-, mono-, bi-, di-, tri-, deca-, semi-, milimulti-, pluri-, polimacro-, micro-, maxi-, mini-, mega-, superhetero-, homo-, iso-, equi-, paraneo-, paleo(p)seudo-

Other spatial notions encoded by prefxes are those of position inside (cf. intra-muros ‘within city walls’ or endo-venoso ‘within a vein’), position outside (cf. extra-muros ‘outside city walls’ or exo-sfera ‘exosphere’), position between (cf. entre-piso ‘between two foors’ and inter-lineal ‘between the lines’), position above (cf. sobre-falda ‘overskirt’ and super-poner ‘superimpose’), and position below (cf. sub-suelo ‘undersoil’, infra-scrito ‘undersigned/undermentioned’, and hipo-centro ‘hypocenter’). The idea of front position is expressed by ante- (antecámara ‘anteroom’) and pre- (predorso ‘pre-dorse’), whereas the prefx contra- encodes front opposition (contraluz ‘from a position opposed to the light’). To encode back position or backwards directionality, the prefxes tras- (trastienda ‘back room’) and pos(t)- (postónico ‘after the tonic syllable’) can be used, as well as the less productive re- (refuir ‘fow back’) and retro- (retrocarga ‘loaded at the breech’). The unproductive prefxes circun- and peri- express position or motion around a 242

Prefxation

location (cf. circunnavegar ‘sail around’, circunsolar ‘around the sun’, pericardio ‘membrane around the heart’). The comitative meaning of the prefx co(n)- must also be considered a spatial notion, as far as it expresses symmetrical relationships between two entities that are (physically or abstractly) in the same place: coautor (‘co-author’), convivir (‘live together with’). To encode relative proximity, Spanish has inherited the Latin prefx cis-, which is found in a few words (cismontano ‘on this side of the mountains’, cisandino ‘on this side of the Andes’, cisalpino ‘on this side of the Alps’), and to encode relative distance or ‘location beyond’, it has inherited the prefx ultra- (ultramontano ‘on the other side of the mountains’, ultramar ‘overseas’, ultraderecha ‘far right’). The spatial notion of ‘direction through’ can be expressed using tra(n)s- (cf. trasatlántico ‘across the Atlantic’, transportar ‘carry across’), per- (percutáneo ‘through the skin’, perseguir ‘pursue’), or dia- (diatópico ‘that changes through space’). The prefxes a-, des-, de-, dis-, and ex- also show directional meaning. The former is used to express directionality towards a goal. It is found afxed to certain verbs (afuir ‘fow to’, allegar ‘move up to’, atraer ‘attract’) or adverbs (adentro ‘towards the inside’, adelante ‘towards the front’), but it is only productive with nominal or adjectival bases in cases of verbal parasynthesis (aterrizar ‘land’, acampar ‘camp’, alunizar ‘land on the moon’, abaratar ‘cheapen’) (Varela and Martín García 1999, §76.5.1.2). As in the case of en-, parasynthetic formations prefxed with a- can encode change of place (amartizar ‘land on Mars’), as well as change of state (abovedar ‘give the shape of a vault’). As for des-, de-, dis-, and ex-, they express origin (deadjetival ‘coming from an adjective’) or egression from a source (descarrilar ‘derail’, derrocar ‘oust’, dislocar ‘put out of place’, excavar ‘dig out’). The most productive of them is des-, which occurs in parasynthetic denominal verbs to codify exit from a place (desterrar ‘expel from one’s land’, desviar ‘detach from the right track’) or removal of a located object (deshojar ‘strip the leaves of’, desnarigar ‘remove the nose’). Spatial prefxes tend to combine with (de)nominal bases, since nouns can be easily conceived of as locations—or Grounds—(intercostal ‘between the ribs’, extramuros ‘outside city walls’, sobreático ‘housing located above an attic’, transoceánico ‘across the sea’, alunizar ‘land on the moon’) or as located objects—or Figures—(endoesqueleto ‘skeleton inside the body’, exoparásito ‘parasite outside the host’, infraestructura ‘underground structure’, ensillar ‘saddle’, despiojar ‘remove lice’). Less productive is the addition of a spatial prefx to a verbal base. In this last case, the verb is interpreted as a motion event and the prefx specifes its directionality (sobrevolar ‘fy over’, refuir ‘fow back’, anteponer ‘put ahead of ’, contraatacar ‘counterattack’).

4.2 Temporal prefxes A few prefxes are used with the values of anteriority or posteriority in time. Prefxes typically expressing temporal anteriority are ante-, pre-, and ex-. Ante- develops this meaning when combined with certain verbs (antepagar ‘pay in advance’), with temporal adverbs (anteayer ‘the day before yesterday’, anteanoche ‘the night before last’), and with nouns or denominal adjectives denoting time periods or events that occur in a particular time (antevíspera ‘day before the eve’, antenupcial ‘before the wedding’). Similarly, the anteriority reading of pre- is understood to place an event early in time when the prefx takes verbal bases (preanunciar ‘announce in advance’, prejuzgar ‘judge in advance’) or (de)nominal bases that allow for a temporal reading (precampaña ‘period before the campaign’, predemocrático ‘prior to the establishment of democracy’). Ex- encodes cessation of a given status or occupation and typically combines with nouns that denote conditions or occupations in order to specify that they are no longer valid (exmujer ‘ex-wife’, exnovio ‘ex-boyfriend’, expresidente ‘ex-president’). In contrast with its spatial homonym (excarcelar ‘release from prison’), temporal ex- is a separable prefx (ex ministro de sanidad ‘former minister of health’). 243

Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo

The prefx pos(t)- expresses temporal posteriority in combination with nouns or denominal adjectives denoting events or time periods (posguerra ‘time period after a war’, posoperatorio ‘postoperative’), as well as with adjectives related to social or cultural movements that took place in a particular period (posclásico ‘postclassical’, posmoderno ‘postmodern’).

4.3 Aspectual prefxes Des- and re- are very productive in verbal derivation in order to encode, respectively, the aspectual values of reversion and iteration. Des- reverses the directionality of the event codifed by the verbal base in order to go back to a previous (opposite) state: deshacer ‘undo’, desatar ‘untie’, desvestir ‘undress’. Re- expresses the repetition of the event, which results in the restitution of a previous state: reutilizar ‘reuse’, readmitir ‘readmit’, reexaminar ‘re-examine’. In fact, some studies have argued that des- and re- do not target events but the resultant states of these events, which explains why reversative des- and iterative (or, more precisely, restitutive) re- always involve telic change of state events (see, among others, Rodríguez Rosique 2013; Gibert-Sotelo 2018 for des-, and Marantz 2007 for English re-). The reversative (des-) and restitutive (re-) values are obtained when the basic spatial semantics of these prefxes is applied to the eventive domain. Hence, from the basic idea of motion away (desviar ‘deviate’), the egressive meaning of state reversal is obtained (deshacer ‘undo’), and from the basic notion of backwards motion (refuir ‘fow back’), the reingressive meaning of state restitution can easily emerge (repoblar ‘repopulate’) (cf. Grossmann 1994).

4.4 Refexive prefxes Auto- ensures the refexive interpretation of the refexive verbs (autodestruirse ‘self-destruct’), nouns (autorretrato ‘self-portrait’), and adjectives (automóvil ‘self-propelled’) to which it attaches. Crucially, auto- does not change the argument structure of its bases by turning, for instance, non-refexive verbs into refexive ones. Rather, auto- reinforces the refexive character of already refexive verbs (cf. *autodestruir vs. autodestruirse). See Felíu (2003) for a morphosemantic study that relates this prefx to collective co- (cf. coeditar ‘coedit’) and reciprocal inter- (cf. interconectar ‘interconnect’), the three of them considered to afect the semantic interpretation of the arguments of the base.

4.5 Gradative prefxes An important number of prefxes can be used to quantify or evaluate over degrees. It has been largely noted that these gradative uses are derived from most basic, spatial values (RAE and ASALE 2009, §10.9), which is expected given the localist hypothesis. In fact, prefxes typically signalling a higher position on space—that is, super-, sobre-, and hiper- —are productively employed to signal a high position on a degree scale. Super- shows this use when afxed to property-denoting adjectives (superlista ‘very smart’, superbueno ‘extremely good’, supertriste ‘very sad’) and manner adverbs (superbien ‘very well’, supermal ‘very bad’) but also when the bases are nouns that allow evaluating a certain property related to them (superordenador ‘a very good computer’, supercasa ‘a very well equipped house’). As for sobre-, it has acquired a connotation of ‘excess’, and accordingly it typically signals a point beyond the higher limit of the scale. In this use, sobre- combines with verbal bases (sobrealimentar ‘overfeed’, sobrecalentar ‘overheat’, sobrevalorar ‘overvalue’) but also with nouns of measurement (sobredosis ‘overdose’, sobrepeso ‘overweight’) and with denominal adjectives so as to express that the properties of a given entity 244

Prefxation

surpass the limits of its class (sobrenatural ‘which exceeds the natural’). Finally, hiper- is partially productive in the encoding of excess in scientifc and technical vocabulary, where it combines with nouns (hiperglucemia ‘hyperglycaemia’), verbs (hiperventilar ‘hyperventilate’), and adjectives (hiperactivo ‘hyperactive’). The maximum degree on a scale can also be expressed with the prefx ultra-, which indicates ‘situation beyond’, a meaning that, when applied to scalar adjectives, is understood as a degree that exceeds the limits of the scale: ultrasensible ‘extremely sensitive’, ultrafamoso ‘extremely famous’. The prefx extra-, which denotes ‘situation outside’, also encodes ‘degree beyond the limits’ when afxed to adjectives: extragrande ‘extremely big’. The prefx re- can be used to express intensity or high degree, especially with adjectival bases (reseco ‘very dry’, rebueno ‘very good’) but also with verbal ones, in which the aspectual iterative meaning that this prefx typically encodes (cf. §4.3) is reinterpreted as intensifcation (reconcentrar ‘concentrate more/ make more concentrated’, repeinar ‘comb carefully’). In this intensive use, re- has developed the reinforced form requete- (requeteguapa, ‘very beauty’, requetepronto ‘very soon’). Finally, a prefx specialized in the encoding of maximum degree is archi-, mainly attested with adjectival bases: archiconocido ‘very well known’, archimillonario ‘richer than a millionaire’. Prefxes with the meaning of ‘inferior position’—that is, sub-, infra-, and hipo-—are productive on the expression of low degree on a scale. Sub- combines with verbal bases to specify that an action has been developed on a degree below what is expected (subalimentar ‘underfeed’, subestimar ‘underestimate’) and with nominal or denominal bases to express that an entity lacks the necessary characteristics to belong to a class (subgénero ‘minor genre’, subprofesional ‘subprofessional’) or that it occupies a position subordinated to another on a hierarchy (subdelegado ‘subdelegate’, subdirectora ‘deputy director’, subespecie ‘subspecies’). Infra- takes verbal (infravalorar ‘undervalue’), nominal (infravivienda ‘substandard housing’), and denominal adjectival bases (infrahumano ‘subhuman’) to express minimum degree. Hipo- combines with nouns (hipotermia ‘hypothermia’) and denominal adjectives (hipocalórico ‘low-calorie’) in technical speech (cf. RAE and ASALE 2009, §10.9t–§10.9w). The prefxes semi-, cuasi-, medio-, and entre- may encode medium degree. Semi-, whose original meaning is ‘half ’, productively attaches to adjectival bases to denote properties partially satisfed (semitransparente ‘partially transparent’, semidesértico ‘almost desert’) or states not fully achieved (semidormido ‘half asleep’). Cuasi- ‘almost’ is productive with relational (i.e., nongradable) adjectives and nouns to express a reality close to the one that they denote (cuasimatrimonial ‘quasi-marital’, cuasidelito ‘quasi-crime’). When medio ‘halfway’ works as a prefx, it shows a parallel behaviour to entre-, the basic meaning of which is ‘position between’ (cf. §4.1): they basically take verbal or adjectival bases to express that an event is partially developed (medio soñar ‘half-dream’, entreoír ‘half-hear’), that a result is not fully achieved (medio enamorado ‘half in love’, entreabrir ‘open half-way’), or that a property does not fully hold (medio oscuro ‘darkish’, entrecano ‘greyish’) (Fábregas 2014).

4.6 Negative prefxes There are three (semi)productive ways of encoding morphological negation in Spanish: no- prefxation, in- prefxation, and des- prefxation. No- prefxation is mainly attested in journalistic speech (Montero Curiel 1999, §4.1.4). Nois afxed to nouns that denote events (no comparecencia ‘non-appearance’), states (no existencia ‘nonexistence’), or properties (no efectividad ‘non-efcacy’) and also to adjectives (no humano ‘nonhuman’), especially to deverbal ones (no identifcado ‘non-identifed’, no transferible ‘nontransferable’). As for the type of negation codifed through no-, this prefx mainly expresses 245

Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo

contradictory negation (Varela and Martín García 1999, §76.5.3.2), that is, the type of opposition that excludes any middle term, and so the prefxed and the non-prefxed predicate cannot be simultaneously false, as illustrated subsequently:1 (14) a. #Un a b. #La the

ser que being which tarjeta no card not

no es humano not is human es transferible, is transferable

ni no humano. nor non-human. pero tampoco no transferible. but neither non-transferable

In- is the prefx typically used in Spanish to negate predicates. It is only compatible with adjectival or acategorial bases, its addition to nouns or verbs being systematically rejected (Brea 1976; Montero Curiel 1999, 166–71; RAE and ASALE 2009, §10.10i; Gibert-Sotelo 2017b, §5.2.1). Hence, even though some nouns and verbs show this prefx, they are not cases of inprefxation but nouns or verbs derived from in- prefxed adjectives or related to them: imparcialidad ‘impartiality’ (cf. imparcial ‘impartial’), incapacitar ‘incapacitate’ (cf. incapaz ‘incapable/ unable’), incomunicar ‘leave someone isolated’ (cf. incomunicado ‘isolated’) (Gibert-Sotelo 2017b, 197–201). In- combines with adjectives but imposes a crucial restriction: it only admits gradable adjectival bases. For this reason, in- is ungrammatical with relational (i.e., non-gradable) adjectives: ( *in)mental ‘unmental’, ( *in)médico ‘unmedical’, ( *in)solar ‘unsolar’ (Scalise 1984; Bosque 1993; Varela and Martín García 1999). The adjectives that most productively combine with inare the ones sufxed with -ble: inexplicable ‘inexplicable’, indudable ‘unquestionable’, incansable ‘untiring’, inmodifcable ‘unmodifable’, and so on. Depending on the type of base, the resulting prefxed adjective can be conceived of as its contrary or as its contradictory (Gibert-Sotelo 2017b, §5.4.2). Contrary readings (i.e., readings that allow for a middle term between the prefxed and the non-prefxed adjective) emerge when in- combines with simple adjectival bases (infeliz ‘unhappy’, inútil ‘useless’). Contradictory readings are mainly obtained with productive patterns—that is, with -ble adjectives—and with bases that imply absolute degree, such as certain adjectival passive participles (im-pagado ‘unpaid’) or perfective adjectives (in-activo ‘inactive’) (see Jespersen 1917; Zimmer 1964; Horn 1989 for similar observations concerning un- and in- prefxation in English). The prefxed and the non-prefxed adjective can be simultaneously negated in contrary readings (15a), whereas in contradictory readings they cannot (15b): (15) a. No soy ni not I.am neither b. #Este texto no this text not

feliz ni in-feliz. happy nor un-happy es traducible, pero tampoco is translatable but neither

in-traducible. un-translatable

In a limited number of cases, in- is afxed to acategorial roots to form gradable adjectives of privative semantics that encode the lack of the entity referred to by the base (a pattern that has been directly inherited from Latin): imberbe ‘beardless’, implume ‘featherless’, incoloro ‘colourless’, indoloro ‘painless’. Des- has been shown to possess a basic meaning of detachment from a source (§4.1) that, when applied to the eventive domain, can give rise to the aspectual notion of event (or state) reversal (§4.3). The same prefx can also show negative meaning when embedded in nondynamic constructions. In particular, des- has negative meaning in adjectives and in nondynamic verbs: desleal ‘disloyal’, deshonesto ‘dishonest’, desagradar ‘dislike’, desaprobar ‘disapprove’. In these contexts, des- never gives rise to contradictory readings but only to contrary ones, which is expected given the basic spatial semantics of this prefx. Thus, when the meaning of 246

Prefxation

detachment from a source is applied to stative predicates, it is understood as opposite position on a degree scale (Gibert-Sotelo 2017b). In fact, a negative verb such as desagradar ‘dislike’ not only encodes the negation of agradar ‘like’, but it rather identifes the very opposite state of agradar, that is, the state placed the farthest on a degree scale, and the same holds for an adjective such as descortés, which does not just mean ‘not courteous’, but the very opposite property, that is, ‘rude’ (see Rodríguez Rosique 2011 for a pragmatic account of similar contrasts). Since agradar and desagradar are opposite contraries, they allow for a middle term on the scale in which they are simultaneously false (16a), and the same holds for cortés and descortés (16b): (16) a. Tu corte de pelo ni me agrada ni me des-agrada. your haircut neither I.dat like neither I.dat dis-like ‘Neither do I like your haircut nor I dislike it’. b. Andrés no es cortés conmigo, pero tampoco es des-cortés. Andrés not is courteous with.me but neither is dis-courteous ‘Andrés is not courteous to me, but he is not rude either’. [Gibert-Sotelo 2017b, 278, (113a), (113b)] Des- is also attested in a reduced group of nouns, and in this context, it encodes privation, that is, the absence of the reality denoted by the root: desgana ‘lack of appetite’, deshonor ‘dishonour’. Crucially, this use is the non-dynamic counterpart of the dynamic uses attested in denominal verbs such as desplumar ‘strip the feathers of’, which encode an event of removal that results in the lack of the entity expressed in the root (cf. §4.1). Other prefxes that convey privation are a(n)- and sin-, the former with nouns (asimetría ‘asymmetry’) or relational (denominal) adjectives (asexual ‘asexual’, atonal ‘atonal’) and the latter with nouns (sinsentido ‘senseless’, sinfín ‘endless’). Interestingly, these two prefxes can create adjectives out of nouns: analfabeto ‘illiterate’ (cf. alfabeto ‘alphabet’), apétalo ‘apetalous’ (cf. pétalo ‘petal’), sinvergüenza ‘shameless’ (cf. vergüenza ‘shame’) (on the [in]ability of prefxes to bring about category change, see Fábregas this volume).

4.7 Attitudinal prefxes A reduced group of prefxes are used to specify the attitude taken towards something: pro-, anti-, and contra- (RAE and ASALE 2009, §10.11). Pro- combines with nouns (proamnistía ‘proamnesty’) or denominal adjectives (progubernamental ‘pro-government’) in order to encode a favourable attitude towards their denotation. Anti- takes nominal and adjectival bases so as to expresss opposite attitude (antiaborto ‘antiabortion’, antiparlamentario ‘anti-parliament’) but also to encode prevention or cancellation (antitranspirante ‘antiperspirant’, antigripal ‘anti-fu’). As for contra-, its basic meaning of physical opposition (§4.1) is used to counteract the efect of the action designated by the base when added to certain verbs (contradecir ‘contradict’) or deverbal nouns (contraespionaje ‘counterespionage’), and to counteract the function or efect of the realities denoted by other nominals (contraveneno ‘antidote’), which has allowed opposite-attitude values to arise (contrarreforma ‘counter-reformation’). Quite interestingly, pro- and anti- can work as separable particles, taking bare NPs as complements and showing a behaviour parallel to that of prepositions: pro derechos humanos ‘pro human rights’, anti cadena perpetua ‘anti life sentence’ (cf. §5.3). Besides, these two prefxes seem to change the category of the base in some cases, giving rise to adjectives out of nouns: chaleco antibalas ‘bulletproof vest’, manifestaciones proamnistía ‘pro-amnesty demonstrations’; however,

247

Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo

these prefxed forms can be considered nouns in apposition—that is, nouns that modify another noun—rather than adjectives (Martín García 2005).

4.8 Quantifying prefxes Some prefixes show quantifying semantics (cf. §3.3). Within this class, prefixes expressing exact quantity can be distinguished from prefixes encoding indefinite quantity. The former have the semantics of numerals and typically combine with (de)nominal bases: mono-plaza ‘single-seating’, tri-fásico ‘three-phase’. The latter are affixed to (de)nominal bases as well but have the semantics of indefinite adjectives and, accordingly, encode a plurality of elements without specifying the exact quantity: multi-tarea ‘multitask’, pluriempleo ‘exercise of several jobs’, poli-facético ‘with multiple faces’. Quantifying prefixes also show a tendency to turn nouns into modifiers: avión bi-motor ‘two-engined plane’ (cf. *avión motor ‘engine plane’), jersey multi-color ‘multicolour jersey’ (cf. *jersey color ‘colour jersey’) (cf. Martín García 2005).

4.9 Qualifying prefxes Finally, a class of prefxes should be distinguished which specify a property linked to the noun underlying the bases they attach to (basically nouns or relational adjectives; cf. §3.3). Prefxes of this type may specify the size of the underlying noun (macro-festa ‘big party’, mini-empleo ‘small job’); its novelty (neo-cristianismo ‘neo-Christianity’) or antiquity (paleoclima ‘ancient climate’); its falseness (seudo-científco ‘pseudoscientist’); and even its (dis) similarity, that is, whether it specifes a reality equivalent to another (homó-fono ‘with the same sound’, iso-cromático ‘having the same colour’, equi-distante ‘at the same distance’), a diferent one (hetero-géneo ‘heterogeneous’), or one similar but not totally equivalent (paramédico ‘paramedic’).

5 Impact on syntax The presence or absence of certain prefxes has an impact on syntax. In this section, it will be shown that some of them can change the argument structure (§5.1) and the inner aspect (§5.2) of the base to which they attach. Besides, it will be demonstrated that a number of them scope beyond the limits of the word (§5.3).

5.1 Prefxes that change the argument structure of the base The addition of certain prefxes to intransitive verbs may result in their transitivization. Prefxes able to introduce an unselected object are usually of prepositional nature (§3.1). This is the case of sobre- and circun-, which turn the intransitive verbs volar ‘fy’ and navegar ‘sail’ into the transitive verbs sobrevolar ‘overfy’ (17a) and circunnavegar ‘circumnavigate’ (17b):2 (17) a. El aparato *(sobre-)voló la ciudad de Tulua. the device over-few the city of Tulua [CREA: 1995. Spain] b. Magallanes *(circun-)navegó la tierra. Magallanes circum-navigated the Earth [CREA: 2002. Mexico] 248

Prefxation

The prefx des-, extremely productive in its reversative use, may also introduce an internal argument in a reduced number of verbs, as illustrated subsequently with desmentir ‘deny’ (Gibert-Sotelo 2017b, 91–92, 2018, 167–68): (18) Un portavoz del Reino Unido en Bruselas ha a representative of=the United Kingdom in Brussels has *(des-)mentido las declaraciones del secretario. un-lied the statements of=the secretary ‘A representative of the United Kingdom in Brussels has denied the statement of the secretary’. [CREA: 1997. Spain] In other cases, prefxes do not introduce an internal argument but a PP that the unprefxed verb would not license: (19) a. El acusado *(contra-)puso su versión a la policial. the accused counter-put his version to the police ‘The accused countered the version of the police with his version’. b. El hombre #(inter-)actúa con el ambiente. the man inter-acts with the environment ‘Man interacts with the environment’. [DRAE 2014, s.v. interactuar]

5.2 Prefxes that change the lexical aspect of the base Prefxes able to transitivize the verbs in which they appear (§5.1) usually impose a telic reading to the predicate (cf. Varela and Martín García 1999, §76.2.3). The telicity of the prefxed constructions and the atelicity of the non-prefxed ones are evidenced by the fact that the former, but not the latter, accept modifcation by in-adverbials: (20) a. un objeto volador no identifcado sobre-voló en un cortísimo espacio de an object fying non-identifed over-few in a very.short space of tiempo la Carretera de Cádiz. [Google] time the Road of Cádiz ‘an unidentifed fying object overfew Cádiz Road in a very short space of time’. b. un objeto volador no identifcado voló (*en un cortísimo espacio de an object fying non-identifed few in a very.short space of tiempo) sobre la Carretera de Cádiz. time over the Road of Cádiz ‘an unidentifed fying object few over Cádiz Road (*in a very short space of time)’. (21) Juan de Mendoza y Mate de Luna Juan de Mendoza y Mate de Luna de seis años. [Google] of six years

*(circun-)navegó la Tierra en un lapso circum-navigated the Earth in a lapse

el camino durante media hora. (22) a. Han (*des-)andado por have.3pl un-walked along the path for half hour ‘They have {walked/*retraced} along the path for half an hour’. 249

Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo

b. Han (des-)andado el camino en media have.3pl un-walked the path in half ‘They have {walked/retraced} the path in half an hour’. [Adapted from Gibert-Sotelo 2018, 171–72, (26)–(28)]

hora. hour

Sobrevolar ‘overfy’ gives rise to a telic reading that non-prefxed volar ‘fy’ disallows (20), and the same holds for circunnavegar ‘circumnavigate’ vs. navegar ‘sail’ (21). Besides, andar ‘walk’ is necessarily telic when headed by des- (22). As noticed in Gibert-Sotelo (2017b, 163–65), the addition of des- to adjectives can entail changes in their scalar structure. In particular, des- adds a boundary to the scale of the adjective, which gives rise to contrasts such as the one in (23), where the prefxed adjective allows degree modifers that pick out one of the boundaries of the scale (23b), whereas the non-prefxed adjective does not (23a):3 (23) a. {#ligeramente/#completamente} cortés. {#slightly/#completely} courteous b. {ligeramente/completamente} des-cortés. {slightly/completely} dis-courteous

5.3 Prefxes that scope beyond the base Some prefxes can afect segments larger than the word (RAE and ASALE 2009, §10.4f). This is the case of in-, which licenses negative polarity items under its scope, thus showing that its scope goes beyond the adjectival base: (24) Soy *(in-)capaz de hablar I.am *(un-)able to talk

con to

nadie. [Google] anyone

So-called separable prefxes (RAE and ASALE 2009, 669) usually have an impact on syntactic units bigger than words. In (25a) ex- scopes over the NP alto cargo del Ministerio de Agricultura ‘high position of the Ministry of Agriculture’, in (25b) pro- scopes over the NP derechos de la mujer ‘women’s rights’, and in (25c) anti- scopes over the whole DP todo lo que estaba vinculado al sistema hegemónico ‘all what was related to the hegemonic system’. (25d) is especially interesting, since it shows that the prefxes pre- and post-, which scope over the NP Guerra del Pacífco ‘Pacifc War’, can be coordinated: (25) a. Un ex alto cargo del Ministerio de Agricultura. [Google] an ex high position of=the Ministry of Agriculture b. Manifestaciones pro-derechos de la mujer. [Google] demonstrations pro-rights of the woman ‘Demonstrations pro women’s rights’. c. Eran anti todo lo que estaba vinculado al they.were anti all the what was related to=the sistema hegemónico. [Google] system hegemonic ‘They were anti all what was related to the hegemonic system’. d. la etapa pre y post Guerra del Pacífco. [Google] the period pre and post war of=the Pacifc 250

Prefxation

6 Morphosyntactic status The observation that some prefxes have an impact on syntax (§5) raises the question of whether prefxation processes can be accounted for by the same rules that operate on syntax. It is not the aim of this section to discuss the locus of morphology within the grammatical architecture (see Acedo-Matellán this volume). However, the pieces of evidence presented so far suggest that prefxes are subject to grammatical rules parallel to the ones that operate on the syntactic level. Starting from this premise, this section explores which position prefxes occupy within the morphosyntactic structure (§6.1) and whether they are to be analysed as adjuncts or as heads (§6.2).

6.1 On internal and external prefxes Di Sciullo (1997) assumes a hierarchical distinction between prefxes internal to the verbal projection and prefxes external to it. Internal prefxes have locational or directional semantics, may change the inner aspect and the argument structure of the predicate, and occupy a more internal position than external prefxes. External prefxes, by contrast, do not have spatial semantics, do not change the event or the argument structure of the verb, and occupy a more external position than internal prefxes.4 There are prefxes that may behave as internal or external depending on the predicate. The prefx sobre- is internal in sobrevolar ‘overfy’(26a), since in this context it has spatial semantics and changes the argument and the event structure of the predicate (cf. §5.1 and §5.2). The same prefx is external in sobrealimentar ‘overfeed’ (26b), where it does not show spatial semantics, and, more crucially, it does not change the argument or the event structure of the verbal base: (26) a. El avión *(sobre-)voló la ciudad the plane *(over-)few the city b. Estos padres (sobre-)alimentaron a su these parents (over-)feed their

en media hora. in half an_hour hijo (*en un año). son (*in one year)

If the distinction between internal and external prefxes is applied to adjectival predicates, des- seems a clear case of internal prefx, since it can change the scalar structure of the adjective (cf. §5.2). Gradative prefxes, by contrast, are the more external ones: (27) a. super-des-leal vs. *des-super-leal super-dis-loyal b. semi-in-móvil vs. *in-semi-móvil semi-im-mobile In nominal prefxation, property-denoting prefxes are more external than all the other semantic types except for attitudinal prefxes (Fábregas 2018, §3.1.1): (28) a. mini-tras-tienda mini-back-room b. pseudo-pre-campaña pseudo-pre-campaign c. neo-anti-capitalismo neo-anti-capitalism

vs.

*tras-mini-tienda

vs.

*pre-pseudo-campaña

vs.

anti-neo-capitalismo anti-neo-capitalism

251

Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo

Fábregas (2018, 181–82) establishes a hierarchy of property-denoting prefxes, from more to less external: (29) pseudo- > mini-, maxi- > neo-, paleo- > homo-, hetero, micro-, macro-

6.2 Prefxes as adjuncts or prefxes as heads? Some prefxes determine the argument structure and the lexical aspect of the predicates that contain them, whereas others only modify the predicate externally, keeping all its structural properties unchanged. This brings up the following two questions: (1) whether prefxes should be analysed as heads or as adjuncts and (2) whether prefxes can receive a unifed analysis. The answer that Di Sciullo (1997) provides to these questions is that all prefxes should receive a unifed analysis as adjuncts and that, depending on their adjunction inside or outside the VP, they will be able or not to operate on the argument or the event structure of the verb. The analysis of prefxes as (morphological) adjuncts is problematic when considering cases in which the addition of the prefx results in the addition of an internal argument (cf. §5.1), since adjuncts are optional constituents. Besides, it is unclear why an adjunct would have the power of imposing its structural requirements to the predicate by changing, for instance, an atelic predicate into a telic one (cf. §5.2). A possible answer to this puzzle would be to consider that prefxes can be adjuncts or heads depending on their behaviour. Internal prefxes, which determine the argument and event structure of the verbs in which they appear, would be P elements that head a VP-internal PP [e.g., sobre- in sobrevolar ‘overfy’; cf. (26a) in §6.1].5 By contrast, external prefxes would correspond to adverbial adjunct elements externally modifying the VP, which would account for their inability to change the structural properties of the verb [e.g., sobre- in sobrealimentar ‘overfeed’; cf. (26b)]. Outside the verbal domain, some prefxes also seem to be internal to the categorizing projections. Such is the case of des-, which can change the scalar structure of the adjectives in which it appears [cf. (23) in §5.2]. Gibert-Sotelo (2017b) analyses this prefx as a P head of source semantics that, when embedded in adjectival predicates, provides the farthest (i.e., opposite) point on a scale, thus giving rise to contrary readings (§4.6). The same study also considers the negative prefx in- a categorizing head specifed for adjectival category, since it systematically produces adjectives (cf. §4.6) (see also Newell 2008 for a parallel claim regarding English in-). Other prefxes, like qualifying ones, are clearly external [cf. (28) in §6.1]. They act as modifers of a nominal base (neoclasicismo ‘neoclassicism’), which points towards an adjunct nature. Their analysis as adjuncts is supported by the autonomy they show, which allows using them separated from the base (mini bolsas de papel ‘mini paper bags’) and even coordinated: las eras paleo y neo-industriales ‘the paleo and neo-industrial eras’ (examples retrieved from Google).

7 Conclusion The units classed as prefxes in Spanish are heterogeneous, since they can perform diferent grammatical functions, they convey a wide range of meanings, their impact on syntax is unequal, and a unifed hierarchical analysis of all of them as adjuncts or as heads is problematic. In particular, and following the Spanish bibliography on prefxation, it has been argued that some prefxes have a behaviour parallel to that of prepositions, others seem to work as adverbial elements, and the remainder modify the base to which they attach just like adjectives would do. Prepositional prefxes typically determine the internal structure of the predicate they appear in, whereas adverbial and adjectival prefxes usually modify the predicate externally and do not 252

Prefxation

have an impact on its internal properties. This has led us to the following claim: prepositional prefxes are instances of internal prefxes and can be analysed as P heads of the word level, while adjectival and adverbial ones generally behave as external prefxes that admit an analysis as morphological adjuncts. Quite interestingly, the three grammatical categories related to prefxes are all relational (they constitute non-verbal predicative units), which allows concluding that what unifes prefxes as a class is their relational nature.

Notes * I am grateful to the editors of this Handbook for their help and guidance. This research has been supported by the postdoctoral grant Juan de la Cierva-formación FJC2018–035901-I (Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities), the 2017 SGR 165 Research Group on Language and Linguistics—ROLLING—(AGAUR, Catalan Government), and the projects FFI2017–87140-C4–2-P and FFI2016–80142-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness). 1 On the Aristotelian distinction between contradictory and contrary opposition, see Horn (1989). 2 Cf. Varela and Martín García (1999, §76.2.2) for similar—though not totally equivalent—observations. 3 On gradable adjectives and the scales related to them, see Kennedy and McNally (2005). 4 The distinction between internal and external prefxes mainly corresponds to that between lexical and superlexical prefxes in the works devoted to Slavic prefxes (cf. Svenonius 2004). 5 In studies dealing with prepositional prefxes, it is usually assumed that these elements are heads of a lexical PP (generally decomposed into spatial projections such as Path and Place) that is part of the internal structure of the predicate (Acedo-Matellán 2016; Acedo-Matellán and Mateu 2013; Gibert-Sotelo 2017a, 2017b, among others).

References Acedo-Matellán, V. 2016. The Morphosyntax of Transitions: A  Case Study in Latin and Other Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Acedo-Matellán, V., and J. Mateu. 2013. “Satellite-Framed Latin vs. Verb-Framed Romance: A Syntactic Approach.” Probus: International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 25: 227–65. Alemany Bolufer, J. 1919. “De la derivación y composición de las palabras en la lengua castellana.” Boletín de la Real Academia Española 6: 421–40, 627–49. Bosque, I. 1993. “Sobre las diferencias entre los adjetivos relacionales y los califcativos.” Revista Argentina de Lingüística 9 (1–2): 9–48. Brea, M. 1976. “Prefjos formadores de antónimos negativos en español medieval.” Verba 3: 319–41. Di Sciullo, A. M. 1997. “Prefxed Verbs and Adjunct-Identifcation.” Projections and Interface Conditions: Essays on Modularity, edited by A. M. Di Sciullo, 52–74. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. [DRAE] Real Academia Española. 2014. Diccionaro de la Lengua Española, 23rd ed. Madrid: RAE-Espasa Calpe [online version 23.3, update 2019]. https://dle.rae.es. Fábregas, A. 2010. “On Spanish Prepositional Prefxes and the Cartography of Prepositions.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 9: 55–77. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.94. Fábregas, A. 2014. “Problemas de linearización: prefjos de resultado en español.” Lingüística y Literatura 65: 65–85. www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=476548643004. Fábregas, A. 2018. “Los prefjos adjetivales: un grupo heterogéneo.” Dicenda 36: 167–89. http://dx.doi. org/10.5209/DICE.62142. Fábregas, A., and S. Scalise. 2012. Morphology: From Data to Theories. Edinburgh Advanced Textbooks in Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Felíu, E. 2003. Morfología derivativa y semántica léxica: la prefjación de auto-, co- e inter-. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Gibert-Sotelo, E. 2017a. “Asymmetries Between Goal and Source Prefxes in Spanish: A  Structural Account from a Diachronic Perspective.” In Space in Diachrony, edited by S. Luraghi, T. Nikitina, and C. Zanchi, 241–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188.09sot. 253

Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo

Gibert-Sotelo, E. 2017b. “Source and Negative Prefxes: On the Syntax-Lexicon Interface and the Encoding of Spatial Relations.” PhD diss., Universitat de Girona. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/461414. Gibert-Sotelo, E. 2018. “Deriving Ablative, Privative, and Reversative Meanings in Catalan and Spanish.” Borealis 7 (2): 161–85. https://doi.org/10.7557/1.7.2.4565. Grossmann, M. 1994. Opposizioni direzionali e prefssazione: analisi morfologica e semantica dei verbi egressivi prefssati con des- e es- in catalano. Padova: Unipress. Gruber, J. S. 1965. “Studies in Lexical Relations.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Horn, L. R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Iacobini, C. 2019. “ ‘Rapiéçages faits avec sa propre étofe’: Discontinuity and Convergence in Romance Prefxation.” Word Structure 12 (2): 176–207. Jackendof, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: A.F. Høst. Kennedy, C., and L. McNally. 2005. “Scale Structure, Degree Modifcation, and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates.” Language 81 (2): 345–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0071. Marantz, A. 2007. “Restitutive re-, and the frst phase syntax/semantics of the VP.” Talk given at the University of Maryland, Lanham. Martín García, J. 2005. “Los nombres prefjados en aposición.” Verba 32: 25–57. Menéndez Pidal, R. 1904. Manual de gramática histórica española. Madrid: Librería General de Victoriano Suárez. Montero Curiel, M. L. 1999. La prefjación negativa en español. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura. Newell, H. 2008. “Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Phases.” PhD diss., McGill University, Montréal. RAE, and ASALE. 2009. Nueva gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. Rio-Torto, G. 2014. “Prefxação e composição: fronteiras de um contínuo.” Verba 41: 103–21. Rodríguez Rosique, S. 2011. “Morphology and Pragmatics of Afxal Negation: Evidence from Spanish des-.” In Spanish Word Formation and Lexical Creation, edited by J. L. Cifuentes Honrubia and S. Rodríguez Rosique, 145–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rodríguez Rosique, S. 2013. “El valor aspectual de los verbos reversativos: Claves pragmáticas para un proceso de verbalización.” Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 54: 99–129. http://dx.doi. org/10.5209/rev_CLAC.2013.v54.42374. Scalise, S. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Svenonius, P., ed. 2004. Nordlyd 32 (2): Special Issue on Slavic Prefxes. Tromsø: Septentrio Press. https:// septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/issue/view/8. Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitve Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Varela, S. 2005. Morfología léxica: la formación de palabras. Madrid: Gredos. Varela, S., and J. Martín García. 1999. “La prefjación.” In Entre la Oración y el Discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4993–5040. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Zimmer, K. 1964. Afxal Negation in English and Other Languages. Supplement to Word, Monograph 5. London: William Clowes and Sons.

254

18 The historical evolution of Spanish prefxes* I

sabel Pujol PayetHistorical evolution of Spanish prefxes

(La evolución histórica de los prefjos del español)

Isabel Pujol Payet

1 Introduction This chapter aims to provide an overview of the development of the most productive prefx patterns in the history of Spanish. It focuses both on the periods when each of them frst occurred and was most prevalent and also on the morphological changes afecting them, mainly brought about by grammaticalization and/or restructuring due to the typological change that the evolution from Latin to Romance languages involved. Keywords: prefxes; diachrony; productive patterns; grammaticalization; typological change Este capítulo intenta ofrecer un panorama general de la evolución en la historia del español de los patrones más productivos en el ámbito de la prefjación. Para ello se centra tanto en la periodización de las etapas de nacimiento y mayor auge de cada uno de ellos, como en los cambios morfológicos que los afectan, motivados principalmente por procesos de gramaticalización y/o por reestructuraciones debidas al cambio tipológico acaecido del latín al romance. Palabras clave: prefjos; diacronía; patrones productivos; gramaticalización; cambio tipológico

2 Prospectus Although historical studies of morphology have always taken an interest in prefxation (Menéndez Pidal 1940, 327–31; Penny 1993, 256–60; Alvar and Pottier 1983, 345–60), the topic as a whole has been somewhat neglected, as pointed out by Pharies (2016). This chapter thus proposes to ofer an overview of the development in the history of Spanish of the most productive patterns of derivatives with prefxes.1 The dating of the examples presented is taken from the text (CORDE, CDH, CREA, CORPES XXI) and lexicography (NTLLE) corpora of the Royal Spanish Academy. Because of the breadth of the feld, this study does not deal with temporal, quantifying and qualifying prefxes (see Gibert-Sotelo this volume, for the diferent semantic values of prefxes, synchronically). This chapter is structured in two main sections: section 3 focuses on the evolution of verbal prefxation, and section 4 examines nominal and adjectival prefxation. Section 5 draws some conclusions. 255

Isabel Pujol Payet

3 The evolution of verbal prefxation from Latin to Old Spanish In the transition from Latin to the Romance languages, there was a reduction in the number of prefxes and their use (Iacobini 2019, 177). According to Montero Curiel (1999, 88), the most frequent prefxes in the earliest Spanish texts are a-, en-, des- (and the variant es-), re- and con-. It is important to note that these prefxes come from preverbs exhibiting particular vitality in Latin: ad-, in-, dis-, ex-, re- and com- (García Hernández 1980). In Classical Latin, the creation of deverbal verbs from a preverb was general, as shown in (1) and (2). Thus, a verb of movement such as advolo ‘to arrive fying’ is formed from the simple verb volo ‘to fy’ and the preverb ad‘to’. In these formations, the verb base expresses the way in which the event takes place (‘fying’) and the preverb expresses the direction of movement (‘direction toward a place’, ‘point of arrival’). In verbs which do not express movement, the preverb adopts an abstract, metaphorical value (2) (Acedo-Matellán 2016). (1) a. advolo ‘to arrive fying’ (ad- + volo) b. incurro ‘to run into’ (in- ‘in, into’ + curro ‘to run’) c. devolo ‘to fy down’ (de- ‘down, away from’ + volo) d. diduco ‘to disperse, to take in diferent directions’ (dis- ‘in diferent directions’ + duco ‘to lead’) e. evolo ‘to fy out’ (ex- ‘out’ + volo) f. reduco ‘to lead back’ (re- ‘back’ + duco) g. comporto ‘to move to the same place’ (com- ‘together with’ + porto ‘to transport’) (2) a. ascribo ‘to add by writing’ (ad- + scribo ‘to engrave, write’) b. inaro ‘to plough in’ (in- + aro ‘to plough’) c. describo ‘to copy of, to transcribe any thing from an original’ (de- +scribo) d. dissuo ‘to rip open’ (dis- + suo ‘to sew’) e. exanimo ‘to put out of breath’ (ex- + anima ‘air, breath’) f. rescribo ‘to reply in writing’ (re- + scribo) g. colloquor ‘to talk together’ (com + loquor ‘to talk’) In the evolution of Latin to Romance languages, these preverbs underwent a process of grammaticalization (see De Benito this volume)2 in which they lost their primitive locative sense and specialized in the codifcation of new, more abstract meanings, fundamentally in verbal derivatives. In parasynthetic verbs (see Mateu this volume), a- and en- have an ingressive value, while des- (and es-) has an egressive one. In deverbal verbs, des- generally expresses reversation, re- encodes iteration and com- has an associative sense. According to Iacobini (2010), in Late Latin, there is a shift from deverbal patterns to denominal and deadjectival ones. This is the origin of Romance parasynthetic verbs, which denote a change of state or place; see examples (3) to (10). Among them we can distinguish: a) verbs with an ingressive sense formed with the prefxes a- or en-, in which the prefx indicates that the internal argument of the verb enters the state or place denoted by the base, and b) verbs with an egressive sense, formed with des- (or its old variant es-, Pharies 2013), in which the prefx indicates that the internal argument of the verbs leaves the state or place denoted by the base (Acedo-Matellán 2006; Gibert-Sotelo 2017; Iacobini 2020). The shift from highly productive Latin deverbal patterns to denominal and deadjectival ones in the Romance languages has been considered evidence of a typological change in which the verb base moves from codifying the manner of the event (as happens in satellite-framed languages) to expressing the result (as happens in verb-framed languages), cf. Talmy (2000), Slobin (2004) and Iacobini (2019, 190). 256

Historical evolution of Spanish prefxes

Regarding parasynthetic verbs with the prefx a-, since the Middle Ages, both denominal (3) and deadjectival (4) forms have abounded. Among verbs with a noun base, instrumental forms (5) are also common, the base indicating the instrument with which the event occurs (Pujol Payet 2014). (3) a. abrasar [1300] ‘to burn’, ‘to destroy by fre’ b. aflar [1495] ‘to sharpen’ (4) a. abreviar [1218] ‘to make something short’ b. amansar [1218] ‘to make an animal tame’ (5) a. aserrar [1251]‘to use a saw to cut something’ b. acuchillar [1275] ‘to knife, stab someone’ Ever since Old Spanish developed, there have been large numbers of parasynthetic verbs with the prefx en- with adjectival bases, in both the pattern en-A-ar (6) and the pattern en-A-ecer (7). However, formations with -ecer cease to be productive in Classical Spanish. Derived forms with a nominal base correspond to locative verbs (8a) or locatum verbs (8b), highly productive up to our time. (6) a. endurar [1140] ‘to harden’ b. ensuciar [1218] ‘to get dirty’ (7) a. endurecer [1250] ‘to harden’ b. engordecer [1250] ‘to fatten’, ‘to increase’ (8) a. enterrar [1196] ‘to bury’, encarcelar [1385] ‘to jail’ b. ensillar [1140] ‘to saddle’ As for parasynthetic des- prefxed verbs, substantive-based verbs with a privative sense were common in Old Spanish (9), a pattern that is still highly productive in contemporary Spanish (Gibert-Sotelo 2017, 67). In a verb such as descabezar, the base cabeza is thus interpreted as a possession which is separated from its owner. Ablative parasynthetic denominal verbs (10) are less frequent, conveying a departure of the internal argument of the verb from the place denoted by the base. For example, in desterrar, we understand that someone is separated from his/her land. a. descabezar [1140] ‘to behead’ b. descortezar (un árbol) [1218] ‘to strip the bark of a tree’ (10) a. desterrar [1200] ‘to exile’ b. desviar [1240] ‘to deviate’ (9)

The prefx des- also appears in deverbal derivatives. Throughout the history of Spanish, reversative verbs have exhibited great vitality, expressing an action contrary to what the base indicates (11).3 Less productive, but also present even in Old Spanish, we fnd the combination of the prefx des- with stative verbs, in which the prefx introduces the idea of negation (12). (11) a. desatar [1140] ‘to untie’ b. descolgar [1200] ‘to take down’ (12) a. desconocer [1236] ‘not to know’ b. desobedecer [1250] ‘to disobey’ c. descontentar [1450] ‘to displease’ 257

Isabel Pujol Payet

The Latin preverb re-, from which the prefx re- comes, already had various meanings in classical language derived from the spatial sense ‘back, movement backwards’ [see (1f)], including the sense of repeating an action (Espinosa Elorza 2010, 180). This iterative use is already present in Old Spanish in verbs inherited from Latin, as shown in (13). This deverbal pattern has remained productive throughout the history of Spanish. In a smaller number of verbs, since the Middle Ages, an intensive value has been documented (14). Since the 19th century, the sense of intensity has appeared in adverbial forms such as retebién and requetebién, with reduplication of the prefx (Pharies 2009; see Fábregas this volume, for iteration of prefxes, and Kornfeld this volume, for intensive meanings). As a novelty in Romance, García Sánchez (2018, 144) highlights the appearance of the resultative or perfective sense in verbs such as those in (15), where the event is carried out to completion. (13) a. recrear [1250] ‘recreate’ b. recrecer [1250] ‘happen again’ (14) a. refrenar [1236] ‘to hold in check’ b. rebuscar [1250] ‘to search carefully’ (15) a. rematar [1246] ‘to put an end to something’, ‘to use up what is left’ b. remontar [1467] ‘to overcome an obstacle or difculty’ c. recorrer [1498] ‘to run to the end’ Old Spanish also inherited from Latin collective or symmetrical verbs with the associative prefx con-, coming from the Latin preverb com- (16). This prefx also generates nominal derivatives designating people who share with others the condition expressed in the base, such as condiscípulo [1494]. A condiscípulo is thus someone who shares with another person the fact of being a pupil of the same master, see also (73). (16) a. componer [1196] ‘to put together’ b. confuir [1424] ‘to converge’ c. cooperar [1527] ‘to cooperate, to work together’

4 The evolution of nominal and adjectival prefxation According to Iacobini (2019, 179), in Romance languages, prefxes forming nouns and adjectives usually present spatial, evaluative, negative, refexive and reciprocal values. This section illustrates the origin and development of each of these categories in the history of Spanish, based on specifc examples.

4.1 Spatial prefxes As we have seen in (1), Latin was a language rich in the codifcation of space. It had 27 diferent preverbs to express the location or movement of an entity (García Hernández 1980; AcedoMatellán 2016). Some of them evolved into Spanish [see (17)], and others, as shown in (18) and (19), were reintroduced as the result of a process of re-Latinization, which started in the Middle Ages, with Humanism, and continued in the 18th and subsequent centuries, with the appearance of learned neologisms linked to the specialized language associated with the development of scientifc and technical knowledge (Pharies 2016, 714; Iacobini 2019, 179).4 The examples of (18) and (19) show the frst attestation of these derivatives.

258

Historical evolution of Spanish prefxes

(17) a. a- ‘to’, b. con- ‘together with’ c. des- (and its variant es-) ‘from’ d. en- ‘in/on’ e. entre- ‘between’ f. re- ‘back, behind’ g. so- ‘under, below’ h. sobre- ‘on’ i. tras- ‘through, beyond’ (18) a. extrajudicial [1414] ‘outside a court or the law’ (extra- ‘outside’) b. subterráneo [1454] ‘underground’ (sub- ‘under’) c. contrafoso [1573] ‘pit in front of another pit’ (contra- ‘in front of ’) d. excarcelación [1834] ‘release from prison’ (ex- ‘from’) e. antealtar [1842] ‘space in front of the altar’ (ante- ‘in front of ’) f. interoceánico [1870] ‘between oceans’ (inter- ‘between’) g. intracelular [1876] ‘within a cell or cells’ (intra- ‘inside’) h. retroacción [1880] ‘action moving back’ (retro- ‘back, behind’) i. ultrapuertos [1880] ‘what is beyond or on the other side of ports’ (ultra- ‘beyond’) j. circunsolar [1895] ‘around the sun’ (circum- ‘around’) k. infrarrojo [1896] ‘electromagnetic radiation or light near the red end of the spectrum’ (infra- ‘under, below’) l. superestructura [1910] ‘in ships, the part constructed above the deck’ (super- ‘on’) m. prepalatal [1918] ‘in the front part of the palate’ (pre- ‘in front of ’) n. cisandino [1927] ‘on this side of the Andes’ (cis- ‘on this side of ’) o. percutáneo [1943] ‘through the skin’ (per- ‘trough’) p. postverbal [1956] ‘behind the verb’ (post- ‘back, behind’) (19) a. endocardio [1870] ‘endocardium, membrane that lines the interior of the heart’ (ένδο- ‘inside’) b. hipodérmico [1876] ‘hypodermic, under the skin’ (ύπο- ‘under, below’) c. pericarpio [1895] ‘external part of a fruit surrounding the seed’ (περι- ‘around’) d. exotoxina [1991] ‘exotoxin, a toxin released to the outside by a bacterial cell’ (έξω‘outside’) Many locative prefxes underwent processes of grammaticalization through which they developed more abstract meanings in common language, basically temporal and evaluative, where they exhibit greater vitality: (20) a. Spatial: sobredicho [1208] ‘abovementioned’ b. Temporal: sobrevenir [1234] ‘to come afterwards’ c. Evaluative: sobrehumano [1528] ‘which exceeds the human’ However, in the prefxes used in specialist language, spatial values normally predominate. This is the case of intra-, endo- and exo-. For example, to refer to the interior space of an entity, Spanish uses the prefxes intra- and endo-. Both prefxes appear in scientifc and technical formations or in learned words. They are attested for the frst time in the 19th century, though they will not be productive until the 20th century. The former can be found in parasynthetic adjectives:

259

Isabel Pujol Payet

(21) a. intrauterino, na [1870] ‘intrauterine, within the uterus’ b. intrafamiliar [1887] ‘intrafamilial, within a family’ c. intramuscular [1912] ‘intramuscular, afecting the inside of a muscle’ The latter is productive in both nouns and adjectives. Some nouns were borrowed directly from scientifc Latin in the last half of the 19th century (22). Some derived nouns combine with bound roots (23). The prefx is minimally productive with nominal bases (24). (22) a. endotelio ‘endothelium’, b. endometrio ‘endometrium’ (23) a. endodermo [1870] ‘endoderm’ (from endo- and -dermo) b. endoscopia [1964]‘endoscopy’ (from endo- and -scopia) (24) a. endoesqueleto [1909] ‘endoskeleton, an internal skeleton’ b. endoespora [2002]‘endospore’ Regarding adjective formations, some of them have been borrowed directly from scientifc Latin (25). Others can be found attached to adjectival bases (26). However, most of the endoprefxed adjectives occur with prefxed nominal bases (27): (25) endocrino, na [1919] ‘endocrine’ (26) a. endotérmico, ca [1888] ‘endothermic’ b. endotóxico, ca [1966] ‘endotoxic’ (27) a. endodérmico, ca [1870] ‘endodermal’ (from endodermo) b. endotélico, ca and endotelial [1870] ‘endothelial’ (from endotelio) An incipient rivalry between intra- and endo- can be observed in the case of adjectival formations in the 20th century: intravenoso, sa ‘intravenous’ and endovenoso, sa ‘endovenous’; intracraneal ‘intracranial, within the skull’ and endocraneal ‘endocranial’. The area external to an entity can be expressed by the prefx exo- and also extra-. The former occurs in scientifc and technical nouns and adjectives. Most nouns also generate adjective formations, as shown in (28). Some adjectives are borrowed directly form scientifc Latin (29), others can be joined to a bound roots (30) and, fnally, others can be attached to adjectival bases (31). (28) exoesqueleto [1890] ‘exoskeleton, an external skeleton’ and exosquelético, ca ‘relating or belonging to the external skeleton’ (29) exocrino, na [1943] ‘exocrine or exocrinous’ (30) exógeno, na [1870] ‘exogenous, coming from externally’ (from exo- and -geno) (31) exotérmico, ca [1870] ‘exothermic, releasing heat’ Extra- is also productive with a spatial meaning. A few adjectives are already documented in Old Spanish, see (18a). Adverbial formations (32) and parasynthetic verbs (33) are unusual, but adjectival derivatives are very common in the 20th century (34). Despite its spatial meaning, this prefx attested evaluative readings from the beginning (35). (32) extramuros [1477] ‘outside the city’ (33) a. extraviar [1550] (from vía ‘path’) b. extralimitar [1874] (from límite ‘limit, boundary’) 260

Historical evolution of Spanish prefxes

(34) a. extratrerrestre [1886] ‘from outer space’ b. extracelular [1876] ‘extracellular, situated or taking place outside a cell or cells’ c. extrabancario, ria [1986] ‘outside the banking sector’. (35) a. extraordinario, ria [1280] ‘extraordinary’ (from Lat. extraordinārius ‘out of the common order’) b. extravagante [1440] ‘extravagant, uncommon’ (from scholastic Lat. extravagante) Some of the prefxes in (18) and (19) are not very productive, for example, circun-. In the late Middle Ages, we fnd forms with this prefx which are not transparent from the viewpoint of morphological structure: for example, Nebrija [1495] records circuncidar (< Lat. circumcidĕre ‘cut around’) (NTLLE). Nevertheless, from the 18th century onward, there are a few notable adjectival forms, such as circumpolar [1725] ‘around the pole’, with a locative base (polo ‘pole’). It should be noted that the structure of these adjectives is the same as that of other prefxes frequently found in this period (e.g. anti- and inter-). In the late 19th and 20th centuries, some verbs of movement are recorded, used both transitively (36) and intransitively (37): (36) a. circunnavegar los archipiélagos [1884] ‘to sail around the archipelago’ b. circunvolar la Tierra [1980] ‘to fy around the world’ (37) circunvolar sobre las cretas rocosas [1972] ‘to fy around above the limestone hills’

4.2 Evaluative prefxes Evaluative prefixes express qualifying or quantifying meanings which can be interpreted according to a scale of values. Spanish has a considerable number of prefixes with an evaluative meaning. To illustrate this section, we have chosen the history of two of them: sub- and medio-. In its origins, the prefx sub- exhibits a spatial value found in the earliest documentary records with adjectival derivatives, a pattern that remains active throughout the history of Spanish. (38) a. viento subsolano [1223] ‘wind rising under the sun’ (NTLLE) b. sublunar [1500] ‘under the moon’s orbit’ c. subcutáneo [1870] ‘subcutaneous, under the skin’ d. subsahariano [1963] ‘sub-Saharan’ However, it undergoes a process of grammaticalization as a result of which it develops various more abstract evaluative values. For example, this prefx combines with nouns to express a lower location in a hierarchy. This pattern is productive from Old Spanish to current Spanish (39). Throughout the 19th century, with the development of the natural sciences, many taxonomic sub-prefxed nouns are created, which denote a type of species that is part of the major category designated by the base (40). In the following century, this pattern will be extended to nouns belonging to non-scientifc language, frequently with a pejorative connotation (41). Some adjectival formations arise in the 20th century, like subatómico ‘lower than the atom’ or subnormal ‘less than normal’. Some verbs that denote an event in insufcient degree are also generated in this period (42).

261

Isabel Pujol Payet

(39) a. juez subdelegado [1334] ‘subdelegated judge’ b. subteniente [1549] ‘second lieutenant’ c. subarrendador [1730] ‘sublessor’ d. subdirector [1793] ‘deputy director’ e. subofcial [1826] ‘non-commissioned ofcer’ (40) subgénero, subtipo, subclase, suborden, subtribu, subespecie (41) a. subempleo ‘underemployment’ b. subcultura ‘subculture’ c. submundo ‘underworld’ d. subproducto ‘by-product’ (42) a. subestimar ‘underestimate’ b. subvalorar ‘undervalue’ With respect to medio ‘halfway, partially’, RAE and ASALE (2009, §10.4ñ) states that it has a double morphological nature in current Spanish: it can be construed both as an adverb and as a prefx. In the second case, it is a separable or autonomous prefx with an evaluative meaning and it can go before a participle (43a), a noun (43b), an adjective (43c) or certain verbs (43d). From a historical point of view, the evolution from adverb to prefx has been interpreted as a grammaticalization process that starts in the Middle Ages. (43) a. medio muerto ‘half dead’ b. medio actriz ‘half actress’ c. medio dulce ‘half sweet’ d. medio enamorarse ‘half-fall in love’ The history of medio is thoroughly analysed in Buenafuentes (2015). Before a participle, medio is documented for the frst time in the 13th century (medio muerto). This structure is extended by analogy to other adjectives that share the same semantic feld, for example, medio vivo [1260] ‘half alive’, medio difunto [1508] ‘half deceased’. From the 15th century, new adjectival contexts are found in which the derivatives express physical (44 and 45) or mental defects or other negative conditions (46). It is interesting to note that in the frst examples attested (44), medio ofers a quantitative meaning relating to the idea that people have two eyes and two hands.5 However, this sense becomes more abstract in other adjectives that denote physical (45) or mental defects (46). From the 15th century onwards, medio expands its possibilities of combination before verbal forms (gerunds, infnitives and also conjugated forms). In this period, Felíu and Pato (2015) state that medio modifes telic verbs; however, from the 19th century, it also combines with atelic ones. (44) a. medio çiego con vn ojo [1402] ‘blind in one eye’, ‘partially blind’ b. medio tuerto [1589] ‘blind in one eye’, c. medio manca [1545] ‘one-armed, one-handed’ (45) a. medio mudos [1424] ‘partially dumb’ b. medio corcobado [1532] ‘partially hunchbacked’ c. medio calvo [1597] ‘partially bald’ (46) a. medio estúpido [1430] ‘half stupid’ b. medio loco [1430] ‘half crazy’

262

Historical evolution of Spanish prefxes

4.3 Negative prefxes In this section, we analyse the most active patterns in the negative prefxing of nouns and adjectives. From Old Spanish onward, there have been documentary records of negative substantives with des- (47) and, to a lesser extent, adjectives (48). However, from the 15th century onward, the entry of a large number of learned expressions led to the negation of adjectives with the prefx in-, frst with forms inherited from Latin (49) and later with Romance derivatives (50); see Brea (1976) and Montero Curiel (1999). This pattern has remained productive until today. (47) a. deshonor [1140] ‘lack of honour’ b. desabor [1236] ‘disappointment, worry’ c. desamor [1250] ‘lack of love’ (48) a. desleal [1141] ‘disloyal’ b. desigual [1250] ‘diferent’ c. descortés [1430] ‘impolite’ (49) a. incurable [1400] ‘incurable’ b. impuro [1423] ‘impure’ (50) a. impalpable [1427] ‘impalpable’ b. inalcanzable [1573] ‘unattainable’ In the 18th century, we fnd a new adjectival pattern with the oppositional prefx anti- (Gk. αντι ‘opposite, against, instead of ’), which has exhibited great vitality up to today (51). The history of this prefx in Spanish begins with a few substantives belonging to the ecclesiastical feld (52) (Pharies 2016). An antipapa is an illegitimate Pope because he has not been elected as such and is thus opposed to the legitimate Pope. (51) a. máximas anticristianas [1768] ‘Anti-Christian motto’ b. privilegio antipolítico [1794] ‘privilege against politics’ (52) a. antipapa [1325] b. anticristo [1411] ‘Antichrist, the envoy of Satan’ c. anticardenal [1562] ‘illegitimate cardinal’ The adjectival pattern originating in the 18th century was consolidated above all in the feld of medicine, where these adjectives describe the opposition of medication to a particular condition or illness by combating or preventing it (53) (Montero Curiel 1998; Huertas 2015). These adjectives are often substantivized (54). (53) medicaciones antifebriles [1876] ‘medication to combat fever’ (54) a. los antifebriles [1876] b. los anticatólicos [1797] ‘people opposed to Catholicism’ In the 20th century, a new nominal base pattern emerged (55). These derivatives work as modifers of a substantive. They difer from the examples in (52), as in (55), the prefx does not typify the base. As can be seen, antipapa is a type of Pope, while antiarrugas is not a type of wrinkle. There has been discussion about the categories of these formations: some authors consider them nouns in apposition (Martín García 2005), while others assign them a status close to that of prepositions, as the base of the derivative admits a syntagmatic extension (56) 263

Isabel Pujol Payet

(Serrano-Dolader 2002; Fábregas this volume). From the diachronic point of view, the evolution of the prefx anti- to a preposition is interpreted as a degrammaticalization process in which a bound morpheme becomes a free element. The examples in (56) demonstrate the vitality of anti- in colloquial language in the 21th century. (55) cremas antiarrugas [1995] ‘anti-wrinkle creams’ (56) a. la crema antiarrugas de la cara también hace su trabajo en el escote [2008, Google] ‘anti-wrinkle cream for the face also works for the neckline’ b. [En la empresa] soy “anti coger confanzas” [2020, Google] ‘I’m against excessive familiarity in the company’ c. Es anti todo lo que defendemos (Fábregas this volume) ‘He is against all that we stand for’ Patterns (53) and (56) with anti- have corresponding positive patterns with pro- (Lat. pro‘forward’), which is not observed in Spanish until the 20th century: (57) a. el proyecto pro gubernamental [1977] ‘the pro-government project’ b. recolectar fondos pro verdadera reforma agraria [1981] ‘to raise money in favour of real agrarian reform’ The sense of opposition is also found in the prefx contra-, which occurs relatively frequently from the 18th century onward. However, as we shall see, formations with anti- and contra- complement each other in the history of Spanish, as, while sharing the meaning of opposition, they difer in their morphological patterns: anti- generates adjectival derivatives (53), while contrabasically creates nominal ones; see (58) to (61). Old Spanish, however, inherited some prefxed verbs from Classical and Late Latin (contradecir, contraponer, contrastar ‘to oppose, to be against’). In the classical language, these verbs express a complementary event which is opposed to a previous event (García Hernández 1980, 145). Contradico thus means ‘say something against something said previously’. This sense of complementing or responding to a previous event will also be essential in the formation of Romance substantives in the case of both concrete substantives (58) and eventive substantives (59). A contrapeso is thus a weight opposed to another previous weight, which it equals or balances. Crucially, Spanish contra- is found fundamentally in nominal formations, whereas in Latin, it was combined with verbal bases. In the light of Talmy’s distinction between satellite-framed languages and verb-framed ones (2000), this fact has been taken as evidence of the typological change occurring in the transition from Latin (a satellite-framed language) to the Romance languages (verb-framed languages), Pujol Payet 2018. (58) a. contrapeso [1386] ‘counterweight’ b. contraveneno [1583] ‘antidote’ (59) a. contraataque [1733] ‘counter-attack’ b. contraargumento [1769] ‘counter-argument’ In language related to specialist felds, other less productive nominal patterns appear in which the prefx has spatial (18c) or hierarchical values (contramaestre [1441] ‘boatswain, ofcer on a ship below the captain’).

264

Historical evolution of Spanish prefxes

In the 20th century, we fnd a period of growth in formations with contra- in which denominal patterns based on concrete (60) and abstract eventive (61) substantives are common. These eventive derivatives also serve as the basis for the creation of verbs (62) and adjectives (63). An adjective-based pattern rooted in learned language also began to appear (64). (60) contrainforme [1982] ‘report opposed to a previous report’ (61) a. contraespionaje [1918] ‘counterespionage’ b. contraofensiva [1923] ‘counter-ofensive’ (62) a. contraatacar [1926] ‘to counterattack’(from contraataque) b. contraargumentar [1946] ‘to argue against’ (from contraargumento) (63) a. contracultural ‘countercultural’ (from contracultura) b. contraeducativo ‘opposed to formal education’ (from contraeducación) (64) a. contrarracional [1913] ‘opposed to what is rational’ b. contralateral [1966] ‘on the opposite side’

4.4 Reciprocal, refexive and associative prefxes From the 19th century onward, prefxed nouns and adjectives indicating reciprocal, refexive and associative relationships are documented: inter- could be interpreted with an associative or reciprocal meaning; auto- provides a refexive value and co- an associative one. In the 20th century, these values also extend to verbal derivatives.6 The prefx inter- ‘between’ has its origins in the Latin preverb inter-, which forms verbs: intereo ‘go between’, interscribo ‘write between lines’, intervolo ‘fy between’ (Acedo-Matellán 2016). However, in Spanish, this prefx is productive in the formation of adjectives (65) and, to a lesser extent, verbs (69). The frst case documented is the learned adjective intercutáneo [1427] [inter- + cutis + -áneo] ‘between the skin (and the fesh)’. This pattern is highly productive from the 19th century onward. In these formations, the prefx has a locative value and the noun base of the derivative refers to a place. However, other derivatives may have an associative sense, in which the base is not understood as a place but as an association of entities (66). When a substantive modifed by a derivative in inter- is eventive, the prefx could be interpreted as reciprocal, as happens in (67b), where intercelular modifes the eventive substantive comunicación. In this context, células, the noun base of the derivative intercelular, is not understood as a place but as an agent; that is, the cells communicate with each other. Note the contrast with the spatial sense of the prefx in (67a). The evolution of the locative prefx inter- towards more abstract meanings such as association (66) and reciprocity (67) can be seen as a process of grammaticalization. (65) a. intertropical [1847] ‘between the two tropics’ b. interterritorial [1870] ‘between two territories, between territories’ (66) derechos interterritoriales [1870] ‘rights of a number of territories’ (67) a. sustancia intercelular [1870] ‘substance between two cells, between cells’ b. comunicación intercelular [1894] ‘communication between two or more cells’ The reciprocal sense is also recorded in eventive nouns from the 19th century onward (68). The verbal pattern frst occurs in the 20th century (69). In some cases, participial adjectives appear before the corresponding conjugated verbs, for example, interrelacionado [1947] ‘interrelated’.

265

Isabel Pujol Payet

(68) a. intercambio [1886] ‘exchange’, b. intercomunicación [1916] ‘intercommunication’ (69) a. intercambiar [1918] ‘to exchange’ b. intercomunicar [1933] ‘to link’ c. interactuar [1965] ‘to interact’ d. interrelacionar [1968] ‘interrelate’ The refexive prefx auto- (Gk. αὐτο- ‘self ’), frst appears in Spanish in the 19th century. It is documented in substantives designating an entity generated by itself (70) and also in eventive nouns (71). Verbal derivatives appear in the 20th century (72). However, there is abundant documentation for adjectives and substantives used earlier than the corresponding verbal form. For example, before autorregularse [1969] ‘to self-regulate’, we fnd autorregulador [1940], autorregulación [1945], autorregulado [1953] and autorregulativo [1969]. (70) a. autobiografía [1853] ‘autobiography, biography written by oneself ’ b. autorretrato [1902] ‘self-portrait, a portrait of a person produced by himself/herself ’ (71) autosugestión [1896] ‘autosuggestion’ (72) a. autocontrolarse [1964] ‘to control oneself ’ b. autosugestionarse [1970] ‘to suggest things to oneself ’ c. autoabastecerse [1976] ‘to become self-sufcient’ d. automedicarse [1976] ‘to self-administer (a drug)’ e. autolesionarse [1978] ‘to self-harm’ The associative prefx co(n)- (see §3) has been found increasingly in the formation of nouns since the 19th century: (73) a. contertulio [1816] ‘fellow-participant at a social gathering’ b. coeditor [1818] ‘co-editor’ c. coautor [1851] ‘co-author’

5 Conclusion In the Middle Ages, we fnd productive patterns in verbal derivatives in common language. In particular, certain prefxes [a-, en-, des- and es-, re-, and con)-] are active in patterns stemming from the restructuring of Latin preverbation. However, from the 15th century to our days, the waves of learned vocabulary entering the language, particularly that related to specialist felds, led to a signifcant increase in noun- and adjective-based derivatives with prefxes coming from Latin and Greek. In the 20th century, we also observe more extensive use of derivatives with prefxes. Besides, we attest an increasing creation of verbal forms with prefxes introduced from the 18th century onward (inter-, auto-). The linguistic phenomena that contributed most significantly to the evolution of prefxing processes are typological change (from Latin to Romance languages) and grammaticalization.

Notes * This research has been supported by the research project FFI2017-87140-C4-2-P (Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad) and the 2017 SGR 634 Research Group. 1 For the preparation of this chapter, synchronic reference works have also been fundamental: Varela and Martín (1999) and RAE and ASALE (2009). 266

Historical evolution of Spanish prefxes

2 For a view of how prefxed derivatives are afected by processes of grammaticalization, see Martín and Varela (2012, 325). 3 In Latin, reversative and negative meaning was expressed by the use of the preverb dis-, for example, dissuo ‘to unstitch’ (suo ‘to sew’) and displiceo ‘to dislike’ (placeo ‘to like’). These meanings come from the primary sense of this preverb, the spatial dispersive; see (1d). 4 For the development of spatial prefxes of superiority and inferiority, see Rifón (2012) and (2014). For an analysis of the so- variant (< sub) in Spanish, see Pharies (2011). 5 Note that in (44b) and (44c), medio emphasizes the meaning already conveyed by tuerto ‘blind in one eye’ and manco ‘one-armed, one-handed’. 6 The meaning of association in verbal derivatives has been present since Old Spanish; see (16).

References Acedo-Matellán, V. 2006. “Una aproximació sintàctica als verbs prefxats en català.” Estudios catalanes 4: 41–78. Acedo-Matellán, V. 2016. “Preverbs llatins: Aspectos morfosintàctics i semàntics.” In Cuestiones de morfología léxica, edited by C. Buenafuentes, G. Clavería, and I. Pujol, 63–99. Madrid and Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana and Vervuert. Alvar, M., and B. Pottier. 1983. Morfología histórica del español. Madrid: Gredos. Brea López, M. 1976. “Prefjos formadores de antónimos negativos en español medieval.” Verba 3: 319–41. Buenafuentes de la Mata, C. 2015. “Sobre la naturaleza categorial y morfológica de medio en español.” Verba 42: 135–66. [CDH] Real Academia Española. “Corpus del Nuevo Diccionario Histórico del Español.” www.rae.es. [CORDE] Real Academia Española. “Corpus Diacrónico del Español.” www.rae.es. [CORPES XXI] Real Academia Española. “Corpus del Español del Siglo XXI.” www.rae.es. [CREA] Real Academia Española. “Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual.” www.rae.es. Espinosa Elorza, R. Mª. 2010. Procesos de formación y cambio en las llamadas “palabras gramaticales”. San Millán de la Cogolla: Cilengua. Felíu, E., and E. Pato. 2015. “Medio adverbio, medio prefjo: la evolución de medio como modifcador de verbos en español.” Boletín de la Real Academia Española 95 (311): 61–83. García Hernández, B. 1980. Semántica estructural y lexemática del verbo. Tarragona: Avesta. García Sánchez, J. J. 2018. “Los valores jurídicos de los verbos con preverbio re- en español en relación con su origen latino.” In Nuevas perspectivas en la diacronía de las lenguas de especialidad, edited by X. A. Álvarez, J. J. García, M. Martí, and A. M.ª Ruiz, 143–53. Alcalá: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá. Gibert-Sotelo, E. 2017. “Source and Negative Prefxes: On the Syntax-Lexicon Interface and the Encoding of Spatial Relation.” Doctoral diss., Universitat de Girona, Girona. Huertas Martínez, S. 2015. “Aspectos de la formación de palabras en anti- en el español del siglo XIX.” Études Romanes de Brno 36 (1): 41–60. Iacobini, C. 2010. “Les verbes parasynthétiques: de l’expression de l’espace à l’expression de l’action.” De lingua Latina 3. Iacobini, C. 2019. “ ‘Rapiéçages faits avec sa prope étofe’: Discontinuity and Convergence in Romance Prefxation.” Word Structure 12 (2): 176–207. Iacobini, C. 2020. “Parasynthesis in Morphology.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martín García, J. 2005. “Los nombres prefjados en aposición.” Verba 32: 25–57. Martín García, J., and S. Varela. 2012. “La relevancia de la diacronía para la teoría morfológica.” In Assi como es de suso dicho: estudios de morfología y léxico en homenaje a Jesús Pena, edited by M. Campos, R. Mariño, J. I. Pérez, and A. Rifón, 323–36. San Millán de la Cogolla: Cilengua. Menéndez Pidal, R. 1940. Manual de gramática histórica español. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Montero Curiel, M. L. 1998. “La evolución del prefjo anti-.” In Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española, edited by C. García, F. González, and J. Mangado, vol. 2, 321–28. Logroño: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de la Rioja. 267

Isabel Pujol Payet

Montero Curiel, M. L. 1999. La prefjación negativa en español. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura. [NTLLE] Real Academia Española. “Nuevo Tesoro Lexicográfco de la Lengua Española.” www.rae.es. Penny, R. 1993. Gramática histórica del español. Barcelona: Ariel. Pharies, D. 2009. “Rebién, retebién, requetebién: La alomorfía del prefjo español re-.” In Romanística sin complejos: Homenaje a Carmen Pensado, edited by F. Sánchez Miret, 219–35. Bern: Peter Lang. Pharies, D. 2011. “Evolución del prefjo latino sub- en hispanorromance.” Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española 6: 131–56. Pharies, D. 2013. “El prefjo es- en castellano y en las otras variedades hispano-romances.” Anexos Revista de lexicografía 19: 109–40. Pharies, D. 2016. “El estudio etimológico de los prefjos españoles.” In Etimología e historia en el léxico del español: Estudios ofrecidos a José Antonio Pascual (Magister bonus et sapiens), edited by M. Quirós, J. R. Carriazo, E. Falque, and M. Sánchez, 713–23. Madrid and Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana, Vervuert. Pujol Payet, I. 2014. “From Latin to Old Spanish: On the Polysemy of Denominal Parasynthetic Verbs Prefxed with a-.” Carnets de Grammaire, CLLE-ERSS 22: 276–99. Pujol Payet, I. 2018. “Prefjos y preposiciones: dimensión histórica de contra-.” Estudios de Lingüística del Español 39: 55–80. RAE, and ASALE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. Rifón, A. 2012. “Poner encima/poner debajo, sobreponer/suponer: Una historia de prefjos y verbos.” In Tiempo y espacio en la formación de palabras del español, edited by E. Bernal, C. Sinner, and M. Emsel, 33–46. München: Peniope. Rifón, A. 2014. “Evolución del signifcado morfológico de los prefjos supra- e infra-.” Estudios flológicos 53: 85–107. Serrano-Dolader, D. 2002. “Hacia una concepción no-discreta de algunas formaciones con anti- en español.” Revista Española de Lingüística 32: 387–411. Slobin, D. I. 2004. “The Many Ways to Search For a Frog: Linguistic Typology and the Expression of Motion Events.” In Relating Events in Narrative, Vol. 2: Typological and Contextual Perspectives, edited by S. Strömqvisty and L. Verhoeven, 219–57. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Varela, S., and J. Martín García. 1999. “La prefjación.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, directed by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4993–5040. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

268

19 Appreciative morphology Laura Malena KornfeldAppreciative morphology

(Morfología apreciativa)

Laura Malena Kornfeld

1 Introduction This chapter deals with appreciative (or evaluative) morphology, which comprises a set of processes whereby the lexical base receives meanings that are connotative rather than denotative, as can be observed in the Spanish traditional values: diminutive (cas-ita, ‘house-DIM’), augmentative (casona/ cas-ota, ‘house-AUG’) and pejorative (cas-ucha, ‘house-PEJ’). Appreciative morphology thus distinguishes itself from (“normal”) derivation, which always impacts the denotative meaning of the base, regardless of whether there is a categorial change (e.g., contaminación ‘contamination’ as ‘action and efect of contaminate’, humanidad ‘humanity’ as ‘set of humans’). The predominance of connotative meanings, which involve the speaker’s subjectivity or their relationship with the listener, explains the extreme variability of appreciative morphology from a geographic, social, age and even individual perspective (cf. Pato and Felíu this volume). The chapter includes in the discussion sufxes and also prefxes, focusing on their semantic values and their syntactic distribution. Keywords: appreciative morphology; sufxes; prefxes; syntactic distribution; grammatical interfaces Este capítulo se ocupa de la morfología apreciativa, que incluye un conjunto de procedimientos que aportan a la base léxica signifcados que no son referenciales sino connotativos, como se observa en los valores tradicionales reconocidos para el español: diminutivo (casita), aumentativo (casona/ casota) y despectivo (casucha). La morfología apreciativa se diferencia, así, de la derivación “normal”, que siempre afecta la denotación de la palabra base, haya o no un cambio de categoría sintáctica (e.g., contaminación como ‘acción y efecto de contaminar’, humanidad como ‘conjunto de seres humanos’). La preponderancia de valores semánticos connotativos, que involucran la subjetividad del hablante o su relación con el oyente, explica por qué la morfología apreciativa es sumamente variable desde el punto de vista geográfco, social, etario e inclusive individual (cfr. Pato y Felíu en este volumen). La discusión del capítulo abarca tanto sufjos como prefjos con signifcado apreciativo y se centra en sus valores semánticos y su distribución sintáctica. Palabras clave: morfología apreciativa; sufjos; prefjos; distribución sintáctica; interfaces

269

Laura Malena Kornfeld

2 Sufxes Spanish traditional conception is that appreciative sufxes count as derivational morphology, although some authors challenge this view, considering them part of infection or a third class of morphology (cf. Mendívil this volume; Scalise 1984; Zacarías Ponce de León 2008; Grandi and Körtvélyessy 2015, a.o.). A distinctive grammatical property of appreciative morphology is that it allows for the accumulation of sufxes, as long as they have compatible meanings (e.g., poquit-ín ‘a bit.DIM.DIM’ vs. ??aut-ac-ito ‘car.AUG.DIM)’). The same afx may even be repeated (e.g., chiqu-it-ito ‘small.DIM.DIM’, much-is-ísimo ‘a lot.SUP.SUP’), which is an unprecedented phenomenon in the rest of derivational (or infectional) sufxation (cf. Scalise 1984). A point of discussion in the literature concerns the delimitation of the relevant processes, the boundaries that separate appreciative morphology from other derivational processes being blurry. In this section, we will consider only sufxes which exclusively add an appreciative meaning and maintain the syntactic category of bases. This means that we will put aside certain processes which contribute not only a negative evaluation (which explains why some authors include them within evaluative morphology, as Lázaro Mora 1999; Iannotti 2016, a.o.) but also new denotative meanings to the lexical base, often linked to a categorial change. For example, besides its “pure” appreciative meaning (as in casona ‘house.AUG’ or tristón ‘sad.AUG’), -ón can create deverbal adjectives (or nouns) paraphrasable as ‘one who Vs a lot’ (e.g., tragón ‘swallow-ón’ [gluttonous], reclamón ‘claim-ón’ [cadging], mirón ‘watch-ón’ [voyeur]) and also denominal adjectives (or nouns) with the meaning of ‘one who has a big N’ (bocón ‘mouth-ón’ [big mouthed], cabezón ‘head-ón’ [big head, headstrong], panzón ‘belly-ón’ [paunchy]), alternating with -udo (cabezudo ‘head-udo’, panzudo ‘belly-udo’ [paunchy], orejudo ‘ears-udo’ [big eared], suertudo ‘luckudo’ [lucky one]). These uses are not part of appreciative morphology as we understand it here. Furthermore, we will focus on transparent appreciative sufxation, without paying special attention to the many cases of lexicalized nouns with semantic opacity, which is observed in every dialectal region with diferent sufxes: ventan-illa ‘window-illa’ [car window], carretilla ‘carriage-illa’ [wheelbarrow], fond-illo ‘bottom-illo’ [butt], saqu-ito ‘bag-ito’ [teabag], corralito ‘corral-ito’ [playpen], zapall-ito ‘pumpkin-ito’ [zucchini], sill-ón ‘chair-ón’ [couch], cuchar-ón ‘spoon-ón’ [ladle], corral-ón ‘corral-ón’ [storehouse], palabr-ota ‘word-ota’ [curse word], isl-ote ‘island-ote’ [islet], salam-ín ‘salami-ín’ [special kind of sausage]. Other theoretical issues in the literature involve the morphophonological status of certain afxes. For instance, it is not clear if -ito (as well as other diminutives) is always a sufx, some data suggesting it could be an infx in Carl-it-os ‘Carlos.DIM’, lej-it-os ‘far.DIM’, paragü-it-as ‘umbrella.DIM’ or azuqu-it-ar ‘sugar.DIM’ (cf., for instance, Varela 1990; Lázaro Mora 1999 for a general overview), while other authors assume that in such (uncommon) cases, the diminutive simply copies the closing element of the base (cf. Ambadiang 1997). There is indeed signifcant dialectal variation: manito ‘hand.DIM’, in some Spanish varieties, seems to favor the “infxal” analysis (man-it-o) but coexists with variants as man-ita or man-ecita where the diminutive is undoubtedly a sufx. At the same time, words such as cancion-cita ‘song.DIM’ or pec-ecito ‘fsh. DIM’ can be analyzed as containing two allomorphs of the diminutive, -cito and -ecito (cf. Ambadiang 1997; RAE 2010, a.o.) or, alternatively, as the combination of -ito and an interfx -c- or -ec-1 (cf. Lázaro Mora 1999; Portolés 1999; Ohannesian this volume), also with much variation (e.g., pi-ecito/pi-ec(-)ecito ‘foot.DIM’, pan-cito/ pan-ecito ‘bread.DIM’). Being mainly interested in the syntactic distribution of appreciative sufxes, we will avoid going into the details of these morphology-phonology issues (which can have relevant syntactic consequences when related to the general architecture of grammar; see Acedo-Matellán this volume) and will speak simply of the “appreciative sufx” -ito, even with the knowledge that this term is imprecise and that it could even be thoroughly challenged theoretically. 270

Appreciative morphology

2.1 Nouns Setting lexicalized words aside, the literal meaning of -ito with common nouns can be paraphrased as ‘small’ or ‘little’ (casita ‘house.DIM’, dedito ‘fnger.DIM’, vasito ‘cup.DIM’). This “size reading” can also lead to other interpretations based on the semantics of the noun to which the diminutive is added: ‘short’ (viajecito ‘trip.DIM’, salidita ‘outing.DIM’), ‘mild’ (calorcito ‘heat. DIM’, miedito ‘fear.DIM’), ‘young’ (amiguito ‘friend.DIM’, perrito ‘dog.DIM’). (1) a. casita ‘house.DIM’, botellita ‘bottle.DIM’, autito ‘car.DIM’, librito ‘book.DIM’, dedito ‘fnger.DIM’, vasito ‘cup.DIM’ b. viajecito ‘trip.DIM’, calorcito ‘heat.DIM’, quilombito ‘mess.DIM’, trabajito ‘job.DIM’, patadita ‘kick.DIM’, salidita ‘outing.DIM’, vueltita ‘walking.DIM’ c. perrito ‘dog.DIM’, hombrecito ‘man.DIM’, soldadito ‘soldier.DIM’, amiguito ‘friend. DIM’, mujercita ‘lady.DIM’, maestrita ‘teacher.DIM(fem.)’ These meanings clearly involve the subjective assessment of the speaker and alternate with pejorative and ironic readings, as is usually the case with the diminutive used with the names of professions (e.g., intelectualito ‘intellectual.DIM’, empleadito ‘employer.DIM’, mediquito ‘doctor. DIM’). In fact, the shift towards a pejorative reading of diminutives (and vice versa) is very common, as can be observed in other sufxes described in the literature with those labels. Among diminutives, the following can be found: -ín (muchachina ‘girl.DIM(fem.)), -ete (grupete ‘group. DIM’), -uelo (riachuelo ‘river.DIM.DIM’) and -illo (pajarillo ‘bird.DIM’) in certain linguistic regions of Spain or -ico (pajarico ‘bird.DIM’) in the Caribbean; among pejoratives, -ajo (pequeñajo ‘little.PEJ’), -(a/u)cho (casucha ‘house.PEJ’, comunacho ‘ordinary.PEJ’), -(a/o)ngo (bailongo ‘dance. PEJ’, blandengue ‘soft.PEJ’), -aco (libraco ‘book.PEJ’, bicharraco ‘bug.INTF.PEJ’). With diametrically opposite meanings to the diminutive-pejorative axis, there are the augmentative sufxes, among which -ote, -azo and -ón stand out. These sufxes could be paraphrased as ‘big N’, which can refer both to the physical size of an entity (casona ‘house.AUG’, botellota ‘bottle.AUG’, hombrón ‘man.AUG’) or take on other more specifc readings, such as ‘great, very good’ (autazo ‘car.AUG’, partidazo ‘match.AUG’, programón ‘show.AUG’), ‘important’ (notición ‘news.AUG’, apurón ‘trouble.AUG’), ‘long’ (siestaza ‘nap.AUG’, viajón ‘travel.AUG’), ‘intense’ (lluvión ‘rain.AUG’, calorazo ‘heat.AUG’, estresazo ‘stress.AUG’), ‘strong’ (patadón ‘kick.AUG’, ruidazo ‘noise.AUG’, sustazo ‘scare.AUG’). It is quite noticeable that the grammatical gender of these nouns is systematically maintained with the appreciative sufxes. The only exception seems to be -ón, which invariably induces masculine gender in feminine inanimate nouns (cf. noticia ‘news(fem.)’/ notición ‘news. AUG(masc.)’, patada ‘kick(fem.)’/ patadón ‘kick.AUG(masc.)’, tormenta ‘storm(fem.)’/ tormentón ‘storm.AUG(masc.)’) and is variable with animate nouns: some become masculine (minón ‘woman.AUG(masc.)’, sometimes with variation: both mujerón ‘woman.AUG(masc.)’ and mujerona ‘woman.AUG(fem.)’exist, while others seem to present systematic gender infexion (pajarón lit. ‘bird.AUG(masc.)’/pajarona lit. ‘bird.AUG(fem.)’ (klutz)). The diminutive -ito is clearly the most productive appreciative sufx. Augmentatives show a more random distribution which is not necessarily complementary: thus, there is no semantic diference between casona/ casota ‘house.AUG’, rubión/ rubiote ‘blond.AUG’, hombrón/ hombrazo ‘man.AUG’ or calorazo/ calorón ‘heat.AUG’. Additionally, they have dialectal fuctuations in their uses and preferences, as well as frequent gaps (therefore, vueltita ‘walking.DIM’, pantaloncito ‘pants.DIM’ or mediquito ‘doctor.DIM’ have no augmentative counterpart in most linguistic varieties). 271

Laura Malena Kornfeld

Beyond these relative frequency diferences, the diminutive (and all other appreciative suffxes) cannot be combined with a series of nominalizing sufxes, be they deverbal, such as -ción, -miento and -aje (2a), or denominal, such as -(i)dad, -cia, -ez and -ura (2b). (2) a. *contamina-cion-cita ‘pollution.DIM’, *destruc-cion-cita ‘destruction.DIM’, *abatimient-ito ‘depression.DIM’, *aterriz-aj-ito ‘landing.DIM’ b. *casualidad-ita ‘coincidence.DIM’, *posibilidad-ita ‘possibility.DIM’, *pacienc-ita ‘pacience.DIM’, *delicadec-ita ‘delicacy.DIM’, ??altur-ita ‘??height.DIM’ In contrast, -ito can indeed be used with deverbal nouns ending in the vowels -a, -e, -o (3a), the sufx -dura (3b) or derived from participles in -da (3c): (3) a. parito ‘strike.DIM’, saltito ‘jump.DIM’, encuentrito ‘meeting.DIM’, trabajito ‘job. DIM’, bailecito ‘dance.DIM’, paseíto ‘walk.DIM’ b. lastima-dur-ita ‘wound.DIM’, quema-dur-ita ‘burn.DIM’, magulla-dur-ita ‘bruise. DIM’, abolla-dur-ita ‘dent.DIM’, raspa-dur-ita ‘scratch.DIM’ c. limpia-d-ita ‘cleaning.DIM’, corri-d-ita ‘run.DIM’, raspa-d-ita ‘scratch.DIM’, sali-d-ita ‘trip.DIM’, vuel-t-ita ‘walking.DIM’, escapa-d-ita ‘outing.DIM’, lei-d-ita ‘reading.DIM’ The ungrammaticality of (2) cannot be explained through phonology, since we observe, for example, diminutives that are combined with the syllable /sión/ (i.e., cancioncita ‘song.DIM’, pasioncita ‘passion.DIM’, porcioncita ‘portion.DIM’), including some signifcantly lexicalized nominalizations with a resultative meaning (e.g., composicioncita ‘composition.DIM’, reunioncita ‘meeting.DIM’, estacioncita ‘station.DIM’). On the contrary, the case that does seem to be due to phonological or euphonic reasons is the impossibility (or rarity) of using diminutives on nouns with the sufx -ista (cf. 4a). In vernacular and classical compounds, diminutives behave rather unpredictably, particularly in the case of certain animate nouns and nouns referring to professions (cf. 4b vs. 4c), inanimate nouns being more regular (4d): (4) a. */??taxistita ‘taxi driver.DIM’, */??lingüistita ‘linguist.DIM’, */??tenistita ‘tennis player. DIM’, */??futbolistita ‘soccer player.DIM’ b. */??cuidacochecitos ‘watches-cars[car watcher].DIM’, */??alcanzapelotitas ‘getsballs[ball boy].DIM, */??neurologuito ‘neurologist.DIM’, */??otorrinolaringologuito ‘ear and mouth doctor.DIM’ c. antropologuito ‘anthropologist.DIM’, flosofta ‘philosopher.DIM(fem.)’, hinchapelotitas ‘swell-balls [ballbreaker].DIM’, rompecoquitos ‘break-coconuts[ballbreaker].DIM’ d. sacacorchitos ‘takes outs-corks [corkscrew].DIM’, guardapolvitos ‘saves-dust [overalls]. DIM’, telefonito ‘telephone.DIM’, televisorcito ‘television.DIM’ The grammatical distinction between bounded (countable) and unbounded (uncountable) nouns is relevant here.2 Only -ito can be combined, at least occasionally, with uncountable nouns (cf. 5a), unlike all other appreciative sufxes (cf. 5b): (5) a. Es agüita / arenita / harinita / arrocito / orito / is.3SG water.DIM / sand.DIM / four.DIM / rice.DIM / gold.DIM / papita / azuquítar / cafecito / vientito / airecito. potato.DIM / sugar.DIM / cofee.DIM / wind.DIM / air.DIM lit. ‘It is little sand/water/four/gold/rice/potato sugar /cofee/wind/air’ 272

Appreciative morphology

b. *Es arenaza / harinota / is.3SG sand.AUG / four.AUG /

azucarón / sugar.AUG /

aguota/ airote / orazo. water.AUG / air.AUG/gold.AUG

Uncountable nouns lack defned boundaries a priori, which is why they cannot be syntactically modifed by the adjectives gran(de) ‘big, great’ or pequeño ‘small’ (i.e., there would be no possible interpretation for una pequeña arena ‘a small sand’ or un gran oro ‘a great gold’). Thus, in examples such as (5a), the diminutive seems to have scope not over the noun but over the entire sentence, and it is used to express afection (cf. also 6a) or mitigate the propositional content when it is presupposed to be shocking or not desirable (cf. 6b–c). (6) a. ¿Querés papita / arrocito / cafecito? want.2SG potato.DIM / rice.DIM / cofee.DIM ‘Do you want some potato/rice/cofee?’ b. Me dio miedito. me.DAT gave.3SG fear.DIM ‘I found it scary’ c. Cuesta cincuenta pesitos. cost.3SG ffty pesos.DIM ‘It’s only ffty pesos’ The afection and the attenuation suppose an interpersonal relationship with the listener; according to Martín Zorraquino (2012, 561), it is the case of “expressive acts that strengthen the closeness between the speakers”. The diminutive is also used as an attenuating resource to soften the impact of diferent speech acts: requests, suggestions, advice or orders, both in combination with uncountable nouns (7a–b) and with countable nouns (7b): (7) a. ¿Tenés agüita? have.2SG water.DIM ‘Do you have any water?’ b. ¿Tomamos (un) cafecito? have.1PL (a) cofee.DIM ‘Shall we have a/some cofee?’ In the classical terms of Roman Jakobson (1960), we can conclude that appreciative sufxes in nouns (almost) never transmit referential meaning but emphasize other aspects of the utterance: they express a subjective evaluation of the speaker (as seen in the values of diminutive, augmentative, pejorative) or their attitude towards the speaker (i.e., afection or attenuation values). Eventually, even stylistic or ludic uses of the diminutive can occur. The same rainbow of expressive-afectionate meanings that we have seen for -ito is available for less frequent diminutive and pejorative sufxes, where we alternatively fnd afectionate (¡Qué carucha!, ‘What a face.PEJ!’) or attenuating (¡Qué fresquete!, ‘How cold.DIM (it is)!’) uses.3

2.2 Adjectives The sufxes analyzed in §2.1 are also registered with adjectives: (8) a. rojita ‘red.DIM(fem.)’, facucho ‘thin.DIM’, testarudín ‘stubborn.DIM’, blandengue ‘soft.DIM’, tontuelo ‘dumb.DIM’, pequeñajo ‘small.DIM’ b. fojazo ‘loose.AUG’, buenón ‘good.AUG’, seriote ‘serious.AUG’ 273

Laura Malena Kornfeld

Sufxes add meanings to the adjectival base which alternate between attenuating, afectionate, pejorative, playful or ironic, which are hard to paraphrase or predict. In fact, in contrast with nouns, adjectives tend to be interpreted similarly (especially in American varieties of Spanish) when combined both with the diminutive and augmentative sufx, which creates virtually synonymous pairs, as the ones in (9): (9) amarguito/amargón ‘bitter.DIM/AUG’, crudito/crudón ‘raw.DIM/AUG’, apuradito/ apuradón ‘hurried.DIM/AUG’, seriecito/seriote ‘earnest.DIM/AUG’ The case of -ísimo is diferent, since it is not added to nouns, and the traditional Spanish literature does not usually consider it part of appreciative morphology (cf. Lázaro Mora 1999; RAE 2010; Pastor this volume). The afx -ísimo is the only sufx whose meaning always stays constant, and it can be paraphrased as ‘very’: an elative, according to the Real Academia Española (2010), which considers the commonly used label of “superlative” incorrect. (10) lindísimo ‘nice.EL’, extrañísimo ‘strange.EL’, amabilísima ‘nice.EL(fem.)’, bondadosísima ‘kind hearted.EL(fem.)’ One relevant grammatical distinction to determine the distribution of appreciative sufxes is the fact that they are combined exclusively with qualifying adjectives such as (11a) and not with relational adjectives (cf. 11b). (11) a. fojita ‘loose.DIM(fem.)’, buenito ‘good.DIM’, tontito ‘dumb.DIM’, feito ‘ugly.DIM’, tranquilito ‘calm.DIM’, bajito/ altito ‘low.DIM/tall.DIM’, grandecito/chiquito ‘big. DIM/small.DIM’, gordita/faquito ‘fat.DIM/skinny.DIM’ b. *sintagma nominalito ‘nominal.DIM phrase’, *producción pesquerita ‘fshing.DIM production’, *viaje presidencialito ‘presidential.DIM trip’, *discusión flosofquita ‘philosophical.DIM discussion’, *gusto culinarito ‘culinary.DIM taste’ However, appreciative adjectives other than -ísimo may not be combined with any qualifying adjective either: there are further morphological and semantic restrictions. On one hand, they cannot be combined with relational adjectives which have been recategorized as qualifying (with the sufxes -al, -orio/a, -ico/a) (cf. 12a) or with adjectives derived with deverbal sufxes such as -dor/a,4 -nte, -ble, -ivo/a and -izo/a (cf. 12b): (12) a. una postura *clasiquita/*radicalita ‘a classical.DIM/ radical.DIM perspective’, un control *matematiquito/*ferreito ‘a mathematical.DIM control’ b. *halaga-dor-cito ‘fatter-dor[fattering].DIM’, *ama-bil-ote ‘love-ble[polite].AUG’, *destruct-iv-ón ‘destroy-iv[destructive].AUG’, *atraye-nt-azo ‘atract-nt[attractive]. AUG’, *move-dic-ito ‘move-diz[restless].DIM’ On the other hand, the diminutive can appear with certain simple (13a) or derived adjectives with the sufx -oso (14a), but it is ungrammatical or doubtful with other similar adjectives (cf. 13–14b): (13) a. inutilito ‘useless.DIM’, cobardito ‘coward.DIM’, rapidito ‘quick.DIM’ b. ??utilito ‘useful.DIM’, ??valentito ‘brave.DIM’, ??velocito ‘fast.DIM’, ??astutito ‘cunning.DIM’, ??lealito ‘loyal.DIM’ 274

Appreciative morphology

(14) a. tramposito ‘cheater.DIM’, vanidosito ‘smug.DIM’, celosito ‘jealous.DIM’, perezosito ‘lazy.DIM’, ansiosito ‘eager.DIM’, esponjosita ‘spongy.DIM(fem.)’ b. ??elogiosito ‘laudatory.DIM’, ??bondadosita ‘kind hearted.DIM(fem.)’, ??cuidadosito ‘careful.DIM, ??criteriosito ‘judicious.DIM’, ??gloriosita ‘glorious.DIM, ??amistosito ‘friendly.DIM’ Restrictions like those of (13–14b) may be explained with the concept of attenuation, which we have already mentioned in §2.1. The adjectives that can be combined with the diminutive seem to share the quality of admitting a negative interpretation, even if it is not the predominant or most common one. It is worth noting, actually, that adjectives which may not be combined with -ito (cf. 13–14b) are also anomalous with a specifc group of quantifers in syntax: medio ‘half ’, un tanto ‘a bit’, un poco ‘a little’, algo ‘rather’ (cf. 15–16b), whereas those that can be combined with the diminutive (13–14a) do allow these quantifers (cf. 15–16a): (15) a. Es medio/ un tanto/ algo/ un poco inútil/cobarde/ rápido. is.3SG half / rather / a bit / a little useless/coward/ quick ‘He is half/rather/a bit/a little useless/coward/ quick’. b. ?? Es medio/un tanto/ algo/ un poco útil / leal / valiente/ veloz. is.3SG half / rather / a bit / a little useful / loyal / brave/ fast (16) a. Es medio/un tanto / algo / un poco celosa / perezosa / ansiosa is.3SG half / rather / a bit / a little jealous / lazy / eager vanidosa / tramposa. smug / cheater ‘She is half/rather/a bit/a little jealous/lazy/eager/smug/cheater’. b. ?? Es medio/ un tanto/ algo/ un poco elogiosa / cuidadosa / is.3SG half / rather / a bit / a little laudatory / careful/ gloriosa / criteriosa / bondadosa / amistosa. glorious / judicious / kind hearted / friendly. It is possible for the adjective rápido ‘quick’ (but not for veloz ‘fast’) to have a negative connotation, which is refected in how one may be combined with -ito/a and medio and the other may not (e.g., Es rapidito/medio rápido para ganar plata ‘[He] is quick.DIM/half quick to earn money’ but ??Es velocito/medio veloz ‘[He] is fast.DIM/half fast’). In contrast, as we have anticipated, -ísimo lacks any morphological (cf. 17 with 12) or semantic (cf. 18 with 13–14a) restriction: (17) a. una postura clasiquísima/ radicalísima ‘a classical.EL/ radical.EL perspective’, un control matematiquísimo ‘a mathematical.EL control’ b. halagadorsísimo ‘fattering.EL’, amabilísimo ‘polite.EL’, destructivísimo ‘destructive. EL’, atrayentísimo ‘attractive.EL’, movedísimo ‘restless.EL’ (18) a. utilísimo ‘useful.EL’, astutísimo ‘cunning.EL’, valentísimo ‘brave.EL’, lealísimo ‘loyal. EL’, velocísimo ‘fast.EL’ b. elogiosísimo ‘laudatory.EL’, bondadosísima ‘kind hearted.EL’, cuidadosísimo ‘careful. EL’, criteriosísimo ‘sensible.EL’, gloriosísima ‘glorious.EL’ In many varieties (although not all of them), there is even complementary distribution between -ísimo and syntactic degree quantifers such as muy or bastante (cf. 19a), unlike what occurs with all other sufxes (cf. 19b): 275

Laura Malena Kornfeld

(19) a. ?? Es muy/ bastante lindísimo / extrañísimo ??is.3SG very/quite nice.EL / strange.EL b. Es muy/ bastante chiquito / fojazo / buenón / seriote / is.3SG very/ quite small.DIM / lax.AUG / good.AUG / earnest.AUG / facucho / testarudín. thin.PEJ / stubborn.DIM ‘He is very/quite small/lazybones/good guy/earnest/scrawny/stubborn’. These data suggest that -ísimo functions as a morphological expression of degree quantifcation, which may appear in the same contexts as the corresponding syntactic quantifers (see Pastor this volume). All in all, unlike “true” degree quantifers (such as muy or bastante), which are combined indistinctly with any qualifying adjective, another group of quantifers (which include medio, un tanto, algo, un poco) has an attenuating interpretation and can thus be combined with fewer adjectives. The same asymmetry is observed in appreciative sufxes: -ísimo may be combined with all qualifying adjectives (17–18), while the rest of the sufxes only allow nonderived qualifying adjectives (cf. 12), which have or may have a negative interpretation (cf. 13–14).5

2.3 Other word classes The diminutive, with an afectionate or attenuating interpretation, can occur also with other word classes: adverbs (20a), pronouns (20b) verbal participles (20c) and interjections (20d), especially in American varieties of Spanish (and it is even more productive in contact with certain indigenous languages, cf. Ambadiang 2001): (20) a. Llegamos cerquita / lejitos / rapidito / despacito / ahorita / got.1PL close.DIM / far.DIM / fast.DIM / slowly.DIM / now.DIM tempranito / tardecito / prontito / enseguidita. early.DIM / late.DIM / soon.DIM / right away.DIM ‘We got there quite close/far/fast/slowly/now/early/late/soon/right away’. b. Tiró muchito / algunito / nadita/ todito / threw.3SG a lot.DIM / some.DIM / nothing.DIM/everything.DIM / alguito / poquito / un poquito / un tantito. something.DIM / little.DIM / a little.DIM / a bit.DIM ‘She threw/a lot/some/nothing/everything/something/little/a little/a bit’. c. Fue peinadito / lavadito / perfumadito por su mamá was.3SG brushed.DIM/washed.DIM/scented.DIM by his mom ‘He was brushed/washed/scented by his mom’ d. Holita ‘hello.DIM’, chaucito ‘bye.DIM’, ¡Ojito! ‘watch out.DIM’, ¡Cuidadito! ‘(Be) careful.DIM!’, (hasta) lueguito ‘See later.DIM’ The sufx -ísimo can also be added to adverbs (cf. lejísimos ‘far.EL’, tempranísimo ‘early. EL’) and participles (cf. peinadísimo ‘brushed.EL’, celebradísimo ‘celebrated.EL’), with the same elative meaning it has with adjectives. However, it is more restricted than the diminutive: it is never combined with interjections (*holísima ‘hello.EL’, *ojísimo ‘watch out.EL’) or with bounded adverbs or quantifers (*ahorísima ‘now.EL’, *alguísimo ‘something.EL’, *algunísimo ‘someone.EL’).

276

Appreciative morphology

2.4 Verbs Some authors claim that appreciative morphology is also found in the verbal domain, although these cases are signifcantly less productive than other word classes, since generally all items are listed, often with a certain degree of lexicalization. Thus, Rifón (1998) assumes that the following verbs show the same sufxes we have already introduced: augmentative (such as -ot-in 21a), diminutive (-et-, -it- in 21b) or pejorative (-uc(qu)-, -isc(qu)-, -aj-, -uj- in 21c) (but cf. Portolés 1999; Lázaro Mora 1999; Fábregas 2017 for an alternative analysis of the same items as interfxes—see Ohannesian this volume for discussion): (21) a. parl-ot-ear ‘speak.ot [chitchat]’, pic-ot-ear ‘peck.ot [sample]’, gim-ot-ear ‘groan.ot [whine]’, bail-ot-ear ‘dance.ot’, tir-ot-ear ‘shoot.ot’ b. toqu-et-ear ‘touch.et [handle]’, corr-et-ear ‘run.et [scamper]’, chup-et-ear ‘suck.et [suck slowly]’, repiqu-et-ear ‘ring.et [rattle]’, dorm-it-ar ‘sleep.it [slumber]’ c. pint-arr-aj-ear ‘paint.INTF.aj [deface]’, apret-uj-ar ‘squeeze.uj [squeeze hard]’, besuqu-ear ‘kiss.uc [smooch]’, llor-iqu-ear ‘cry.iqu [whimper]’, mord-isqu-ear ‘bite.isqu [nibble]’, ol-isqu-ear ‘smell.isqu [snif]’ The meanings added to the base in these processes include aspectual notions (especially ‘iterative’ and, to a lesser extent, ‘habitual’) which could be attributed to the segment -e(ar). As for appreciative meanings, according to Rifón, they appear in verbs with the interpretations of ‘intensive’ (apretujar ‘squeeze hard’, parlotear ‘chatter’) and ‘attenuating’ (dormitar ‘snooze’, lloriquear ‘whimper’, corretear ‘scamper’) to which a certain negative or ‘pejorative’ meaning is added (i.e., besuquear ‘smooch’, pintarrajear ‘deface’). It is signifcant that there is no strict correspondence between the sufx and the resulting meaning, since, for instance, the item -ot-may occur alternatively with an intensive (parlotear) or attenuating (picotear ‘sample’) meaning.

3 Prefxes Spanish traditional descriptions about appreciative morphology do not usually include prefxes (cf. Lázaro Mora 1999; RAE 2010 and Fábregas this volume). However, a set of prefxes does have an extremely similar, if not equal, meaning to that which we have attributed to sufxes in 2, which justifes their inclusion in this chapter (cf. Martín García 1998 for a similar, but not identical, delimitation in terms of “intensive prefxes”; see Pastor this volume for similar ideas in the adjectival domain). The parallelism is particularly clear in nouns with augmentative prefxes such as maxi-, macro-, super-, mega-, ultra-, hiper-, archi-, re- in Rioplatense Spanish (and other dialectal variants: requete-, rete-, recontra-) and the diminutives mini-, micro- (Kornfeld 2010):6 (22) a. re auto ‘AUG.car’, super camisa ‘AUG.shirt’, mini árbol ‘DIM.tree’, micro botella ‘DIM.bottle’, mega libro ‘AUG.book’, maxi suplemento ‘AUG.supplement’, macro lingüística ‘AUG.linguistics’ b. re madre ‘AUG.mother’, super mina ‘AUG.woman’, mega amigo ‘AUG.friend’, re médico ‘AUG.doctor’, archi enemigo ‘AUG.enemy’, re viajero ‘AUG.traveler’ c. re siesta ‘AUG.nap’, mega trabajo ‘AUG.job’, super festa ‘AUG.party’, mini viaje ‘DIM. trip’, hiper especulación ‘AUG.speculation’, micro fauna ‘DIM.wildlife’ d. re casualidad ‘AUG.coincidence’, super paciencia ‘AUG.patience’, hiper delicadeza ‘AUG.sensitivity’ 277

Laura Malena Kornfeld

In the same way as sufxes (cf. §2.1), the literal interpretation of ‘big’ can shift towards ‘very good, great’ or, if the noun comes from a verb or has an eventive meaning, towards an aspectual meaning, be it iterative (e.g., re viajero ‘frequent traveler’) or durative (e.g., re siesta ‘long nap’). Diminutives are almost always paraphrased as ‘small’, but some combinations could force further changes in meaning (e.g., mini viaje ‘short trip’).7 Each sufx’s productivity varies according to the linguistic region, as does its distribution with nouns referring to objects, people or events (for instance, hiper-, micro-, maxi-, mini- and macro- rarely precede nouns with a human interpretation). Similarly to what happens with sufxes, nouns with augmentative prefxes can become lexicalized (i.e., hipermercado ‘hypermarket’, superministro ‘superminister’, macroeconomía ‘macroeconomy’, microemprendimiento ‘microenterprise’, maxikiosco ‘convenience store’, minicomponente ‘minicomponent’), although this does not happen to other word classes (or with re-). Exactly like sufxes (other than -ito, cf. examples 5), appreciative prefxes are only combined with countable nouns (cf. 23a). Unlike what occurs with sufxes (cf. 2, 4), they may combine freely with derived nouns and compounds, as (23b-c) shows. (23) a.?? Tiene re oro / super harina / mega agua / hiper arena / re arroz has.3SG AUG.gold / AUG.four / AUG.water / AUG.sand / AUG.rice b. hiper especulación ‘AUG.speculation’, super paciencia ‘AUG.patience’, re casualidad ‘AUG.coincidence’, super taxista ‘AUG.taxi driver’ c. super cuidacoches ‘AUG.car watcher’, mega otorrinolaringólogo ‘AUG.ear and mouth doctor’, re neurólogo ‘AUG.neurologist’ Some augmentative prefxes can also be used within adjectival (24a), prepositional (24b) and adverbial (24c) constructions or in passive phrases (24d) with a quantifying or intensifying meaning: (24) a. re/recontra/super /hiper/archi/mega/ultra grande/ lindo / inteligente / AUG big/ nice / intelligent / agudo acute ‘very big/ nice /intelligent/ acute’ b. re/super /hiper/archi/mega/ultra desde lejos / de moda / de entrecasa AUG from far away/fashion / casual ‘from very far away/very fashion/casual’ c. re/super /hiper/archi/mega/ultra cerca/bien / armoniosamente / claramente AUG near/nicely/harmoniously / clearly ‘very near/nicely/ harmoniously/ clearly’ d. Fue re/ hiper/archi/mega/super/ultra aplaudido / celebrado / was.3SG AUG clapped / appraised / premiado / comentado / leído / visto por el público. prized / commented / read/ seen by the audience ‘It was very clapped/appraised/prized/ commented/read/ seen by the audience’. These prefxes have the meaning of ‘very’, just like -ísimo, although they can be used with more word classes than the sufx, such as with adverbs in -mente and prepositional phrases (cf. 24b–c), as long as they are unbounded (see note 2). Conversely, adjectives, adverbs, prepositional 278

Appreciative morphology

phrases or participles which could not be the complement of degree quantifers such as muy or bastante, because of their bounded meanings, are incompatible with the prefxes: (25) a. *buque re/hiper/ archi/mega/ultra/super petrolero/ carguero ship AUG oil/ cargo b. *re/ hiper/mega/ super mañana / hoy / aparentemente/metodológicamente / AUG tomorrow / today/ apparently / methodologically c. *re/ hiper/ archi/mega/ultra/super en la casa / desde la ventana AUG in the house / from the window d. *Fue re/ hiper/ archi/mega/ultra/super encontrado / conquistado / perdido / was.3SG AUG found / conquered / lost impreso / operado. printed / operated It is not surprising, then, that many varieties of Spanish display a distribution of prefxes which is virtually complementary with syntactic degree quantifers with an analogous meaning. This is corroborated by the impossibility of prefxes to modify quantifers, as shown in (26a), and by the inverse impossibility of quantifers to have scope over the prefx (cf. 26b): (26) a. *re/ requete/recontra/hiper/ archi/mega/ultra/super muy grande AUG very big b. ?? muy re/ requete/recontra/hiper/ archi/mega/ultra/super grande8 ?very AUG big That said, in Rioplatense Spanish, re- has much greater scope than the rest of the prefxes, as analyzed by Kornfeld and Kuguel (2013). In this way, when it modifes verbs, re- usually functions the same way (and means the same) as the quantifer mucho ‘a lot, much’ in syntax (cf. Bosque and Masullo 1997). The most widely distributed uses are those of quantifer and intensifer of the event, which can be paraphrased as ‘a lot’ (cf. 27) and sometimes also ‘intensely’ (cf. 28): (27) Re come / re AUG eat.3SG / AUG ‘She eats/ knows a lot’.

sabe. know.3SG

(28) a. Re trabaja / se re enojó / le re AUG work.3SG / CL.UNACC AUG got.3SG angry / her.DAT AUG ‘He works a lot/got very angry/fears her’. b. Re llueve. AUG rain.3SG ‘It rains a lot’.

teme. fear.3SG

The exclusively Rioplatense uses require aspectual interpretations: durative (i.e., ‘for a long time’, cf. 29) and iterative (i.e., ‘many times’, cf. 30): (29) Re jugó / re esperó / AUG played.3SG / AUG waited.3SG / ‘He played/ waited/ slept for a long time’.

re AUG

durmió. slept.3SG

279

Laura Malena Kornfeld

(30) a. Re viajó a Europa / re visitó museos. AUG travelled.3SG to Europe / AUG visited.3SG museums ‘She travelled to Europe/ visited museums many times’. b. Lo re besó. him.ACC AUG kissed.3SG ‘He kissed him many times’. Re- distinguishes itself from mucho in that it can also be combined with bounded verbs, such as those of (31), where the perfective aspect is emphasized, a function that mucho could not fulfll (cf. *llegó mucho, *construyó mucho la casa): (31) a. Re construyó la AUG built.3SG the ‘He built the house completely’. b. Re llegó. AUG arrived.3SG ‘She arrived a long time ago’.

casa. house

In Rioplatense Spanish, re- also acquires the epistemic modal meaning of ‘certainly’ when it modifes the entire sentence, which is verifed in contexts with or without the complementizer que: (32) a. Re (que) llega / re AUG (that) arrive.3SG / AUG ‘She certainly arrives/fnishes the pasta’. b. Re (que) lo hago para AUG (that) it.ACC do.1SG to ‘I certainly do it to give a good impression’. c. Re que sí/ no. AUG that yes/ not ‘Certainly yes/not’.

termina fnish.3SG

los tallarines. the pasta’

quedar bien. be good

Whenever it used with verbs, re- may be emphatically accentuated according to the discursive context: RE llega ‘[He] RE arrives’/ lo RE quiero ‘[I] RE love him’. Super-, meanwhile, takes on the same quantifying, intensifying or durative meanings of (27), (28) and (29) in combination with verbs (cfr. 33) (and occasionally the same may apply to hiper-, ultra- or mega-), while it cannot be used with the aspectual meanings of (30) and (31) or the modal use of (32): (33) a. Se super enoja / le super teme / super trabaja. CL.UNACC AUG get.3SG angry/ him.DAT AUG fear.3SG / AUG work.3SG ‘He gets very angry/fears him a lot/works a lot’. b. Super jugó / super esperó / super durmió AUG played.3SG / AUG waited.3SG / AUG slept.3SG ‘He played/ waited/ slept for a long time’. (34) a. *super viajó a Europa / AUG travelled.3SG to Europe / 280

*super visitó museos AUG visited.3SG museums

Appreciative morphology

b. *super llegó / *super *AUG arrived.3SG / AUG c. *super (que) llega / sí AUG (that) arrive.3SG / yes

construyó la casa built.3SG the house

When added to adjectives, verbs and sentences, re- in Rioplatense Spanish (and, to a lesser extent, other prefxes, especially super-) may modify coordinated phrases, with scope over both elements9: (35) a. re/ super/ mega/ ultra/hiper/archi [lindo e inteligente] AUG [nice and intelligent] ‘very nice and intelligent’ b. Re/ super [jugó y trabajó] AUG [played.3SG and worked.3SG] ‘He played and worked a lot’. c. Re [voy al zoológico y compro galletitas] AUG [go.1SG to-the zoo and buy.1SG biscuits] ‘I certainly go to the zoo and buy biscuits’. This characteristic is also corroborated in some non-appreciative prefxes, like pro-, pre-, anti-, post-, but, in Rioplatense Spanish, re- may also constitute an independent (and complete) utterance, with diferent meanings: degree quantifers (36a), “pure” intensifer of the verb (36b) or modality marker (36c): (36) a. A:–¿Es lindo? is.3SG nice ‘–Is it nice?’ B:–Re/ super. AUG ‘Very’ b. A:–¿Lo querés? it.ACC want.2SG ‘Do you want it?’ B:–Re /??super. AUG (re /?? SUPER) ‘A lot’ c. A:–¿Venís? come.2SG ‘Are you coming?’ B:–Re /??super AUG (RE /??SUPER) ‘Sure’ The data suggest that re- (and, to a lesser extent, super-) no longer behave in Rioplatense Spanish as bound morphemes: the prefx not only displays syntactic autonomy and links with functional projections of the sentence (such as Aspect or Mood), but it has also acquired a heavier morphophonological weight. In this way, it seems involved in a process of demorphologization or degrammaticalization which brings it near the status of a clitic10 (cf. Cuervo this volume). 281

Laura Malena Kornfeld

4 Conclusions This chapter has focused on the appreciative afxes that meet a series of conditions: they are productive, do not change the syntactic category, exclusively add a connotative meaning (and not denotative) and, precisely because of this, the resulting words are not listed. Additionally, neither sufxes nor prefxes tend to be selective of the word class they are attached to. However, these criteria are not enough to establish unequivocally which afxes are or are not appreciative and, in fact, the ensemble we considered here does not always coincide with that which has been registered in other morphological descriptions (such as RAE 2010; Lázaro Mora 1999). We have already mentioned that some of the analyzed afxes are polysemic and may, alternatively, refer to meanings that involve a denotative change (as in cases such as -ón in mirón ‘voyeur’ and bocón ‘big mouthed’, cf. §2, the locative meaning of super- in superponer ‘overlap’ or the iterative re- in reescribir ‘rewrite’, cf. note 7), which is why it is not evident, a priori, how to draw the boundary between appreciative and other uses. In contrast, other afxes which we have ignored may produce words with evaluative meanings and therefore could have been included here. Thus, several afxes with a comparative meaning (-oide, -esco, pseudo-, cuasi-, proto-) normally create words with a bounded meaning, even technical terms (romboide ‘rhomboid’, cuasi-moneda ‘quasi currency’, protoplasma ‘protoplasm’), but they may also be used with pejorative or attenuating values (i.e., fascistoide ‘fascistoid’, simiesco ‘apelike’, seudoprogre ‘pseudo-progressive’, protodictador ‘proto-dictator’, cuasi-imbécil ‘quasi idiot’); the same occurs with certain prefxes which implicitly carry some kind of measure of a quality (i.e., sobreexcitado ‘overwrought’ or sobrepeso ‘overweight’, subestándar ‘sub-standard’, semicríptica ‘semi cryptic’) (cf. Martín García 1998 for an alternative view). Beyond the delimitation issues, which remain open questions, this chapter has attempted to demonstrate that certain grammatical concepts are useful when characterizing the distribution of appreciative afxes, like, for instance, boundedness as a transcategorial notion (cf. Jackendof 1991). Although we have adopted such a syntactic view of appreciative morphology, we have only focused on the empirical facts, and nothing is said here about theoretical issues, including possible analysis for the diferent afxes (cf. Acedo-Matellán this volume). However, it seems evident that the widening of the inventory of functional categories in later years can provide with relevant tools to explain the way appreciative afxes work, codifying in the syntax notions as degree, countability, size (real and metaphorical) or even attenuation. From this perspective, the case of the Rioplatense re- analyzed in section 3 illustrates how the close bond with functional categories can even enable the appearance of such infrequent phenomena as the degrammaticalization of an afx, which demonstrates once again how unique appreciative morphology is.

Notes 1 Interfxes other than -c- or -ec- may occur less frequently: grand-ul-ón ‘big.INTF.AUG’, tont-orr-ón ‘silly. INTF.AUG’, gord-inf-ón ‘fat.INTF.AUG’, mosc-ard-ón ‘fy.INTF.AUG’, viv-ar-acho ‘smart.INTF.PEJ’ (Portolés 1999). The reasons behind the use of these interfxes depend mostly on meter or euphony, extra-grammatical factors which appear to be quite infuential in appreciative morphology. 2 Following Jackendof (1991), a notion is bounded if it involves a marked limit or turning point without which the concept is not fulflled, as occurs with relational adjectives, telic verbs and countable nouns, whereas unbounded notions are homogeneous and therefore do not presuppose any limit (i.e., qualifying adjectives, atelic verbs, uncountable nouns). 3 Besides, these same meanings can be expressed through non-concatenative morphology, such as shortening in general Spanish (cole, from colegio ‘school’, progre, from progresista ‘progressive’). See Varela

282

Appreciative morphology

4 5

6 7

8

9 10

Ortega (1990, 90–91) for a wider discussion between concatenative and non-concatenative processes in appreciative morphology. In contrast, -ito and -dor can co-occur without issue in animate (trabajadorcito ‘worker.DIM’, cazadorcito ‘hunter.DIM’) or inanimate nouns (veladorcito ‘night light.DIM’; comedorcito ‘living room.DIM’). It must be noted, however, that there are certain asymmetries in how -ito and medio are distributed, which could be explained by the diminutive’s enabling possible afectionate (e.g., bellito ‘pretty.DIM’/ ??medio bello ‘half pretty’/, hermosito ‘beautiful.DIM’ / ??medio hermoso ‘half beautiful’) or ironic interpretations (inteligentito ‘intelligent.DIM’ / ??medio inteligente ‘half intelligent’, astutito ‘cunning.DIM’ / ??medio astuto ‘half cunning’), unlike medio and analogous quantifers (Kornfeld 2016). In contrast, adjectives derived from verbs can be combined with medio (cf. with 12b) as long as they have a possible negative interpretation: for example, ??medio amable / atrayente / paciente ‘half kind/ appealing / patient’ vs. medio halagador / inviable / destructivo / impaciente / movedizo ‘half fattering / undoable / destructive / impatient /shaky’. The way of writing words with the appreciative prefxes varies widely: the prefx may be bound to the base or separated with or without a hyphen (we will adopt the latter criterion). At first sight, it can be seen that there are many more augmentative than diminutive prefixes; in fact, infra- and hipo- (which we could consider virtual antonyms of ultra- and hiper-, respectively) are not used productively but occur only occasionally or in listed items (i.e., infradotado ‘mentally handicapped’, hipocalórico ‘hypocaloric’). It must be also pointed out that the prefixes in (22) are polysemic and are frequently used with non-appreciative meanings (e.g., iterative meaning in reescribir ‘rewrite’, locative meaning in superponer ‘superpose’ or ultratumba ‘beyond the grave’). In contrast, augmentative prefxes may be used in combination with each other and in the same sequence (cf. Es re archi mega ultra super lindo ‘(He) is AUG AUG AUG AUG AUG cute’); they may also co-occur with diferent diminutive and augmentative sufxes (e.g., Es mega buenazo / super grandote / re chiquito ‘(He) is AUG nice.AUG/ AUG big.AUG / AUG small.DIM’), including -ísimo (e.g., Es re / archi/ mega/ ultra/ super lindísimo / bajísimo ‘AUG cute.EL / short.EL), although there the data are more variable and some speakers do not allow co-occurrence. This behavior is not verifed in nouns: re- may not have scope over two coordinated nouns nor function as an autonomous answer (cf. Kornfeld and Kuguel 2013). In fact, besides its emphatic accentuation, re- may occupy diferent positions in relation to the sequences of clitics, with or without a change of scope: me lo re perdí lit. ‘me.CL it.ACC AUG missed.1SG’ / re me lo perdí lit. ‘AUG me.CL it.ACC missed.1SG’ [I totally missed it].

References Ambadiang, T. 1997. “Las bases  morfológicas de la formación de  diminutivos en español.” Verba 24: 99–132. Ambadiang, T. 2001. “Variación dialectal en la formación del diminutivo español: implicaciones para la estructura de los nombres y adjetivos.” In El indigenismo americano II, edited by C. Matute and A. Palacios, 163–90. Valencia: Universitat de València (anejo XLIV de Cuadernos de Filología). Bosque, I., and P. Masullo. 1997. “On Verbal Quantifcation in Spanish.” In Proceedings of Third Workshop on the Syntax of Central Romance Languages, 9–63. Girona: Universitat de Girona. Fábregas, A. 2017. “¿Son algunos interfjos morfemas apreciativos?” ELUA: Estudios de Lingüística 31: 135–50. Grandi, N., and L. Körtvélyessy. 2015. “Introduction: Why Evaluative Morphology?.” In Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology, edited by N. Grandi and L. Körtvélyessy, 3–20. Edinbugh: Edinbugh University Press. Iannotti, M. 2016. “La derivación apreciativa en la 23.ª edición del Diccionario de la Real Academia Española.” Epos XXXII: 137–48. Jackendof, R. 1991. “Parts and Boundaries.” Cognition 41 (1–3): 9–45. Jakobson, R. 1960 [1988]. “Lingüística y poética.” In Ensayos de lingüística general, 27–75. Madrid: Cátedra. Kornfeld, L. 2010. La cuantifcación de adjetivos en el español de la Argentina: un estudio muy gramatical. Buenos Aires: El 8vo. Loco.

283

Laura Malena Kornfeld

Kornfeld, L. 2016. “Una propuestita astutita: el diminutivo como recurso atenuador.” Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana (RILI) XIV (27): 123–36. Kornfeld, L., and I. Kuguel. 2013. “Un afjo re loco (Notas sobre re).” In El español de Argentina: estudios gramaticales, edited by À. Di Tullio, 13–33. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA. Lázaro Mora, F. 1999. “La derivación apreciativa.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4647–82. Madrid: Espasa. Martín García, J. 1998. “Los prefjos intensivos del español: caracterización morfo-semántica.” ELUA: Estudios de Lingüística 12: 103–16. Martín Zorraquino, M. A. 2012. “Sobre los diminutivos en español y su función en una teoría de la cortesía verbal (con referencia especial a un cuento de Antonio de Trueba).” In Cum corde et in nova grammatica (estudios ofrecidos a Guillermo Rojo), coordinated by T. Jiménez Juliá et al., 555–69. Santiago de Compostela: USC. Portolés, J. 1999. “La interfjación.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 5041–73. Madrid: Espasa. Real Academia Española [RAE]. 2010. Manual de la Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Rifón, A. 1998. “La derivación verbal apreciativa en español.” ELUA: Estudios de Lingüística 12: 211–26. Scalise, S. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Varela Ortega, S. 1990. Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis. Zacarías Ponce de León, R. 2008. “Morfemas apreciativos del español: entre la fexión y la derivación.” Núcleo 25: 221–37.

284

20 Main compounding types in Spanish Cristina Buenafuentes de la MataMain compounding types in Spanish

Synchronic issues (Tipos principales de compuestos en español: aspectos sincrónicos)

Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata

1 Introduction1 Along with derivation, compounding is one of the major morphological mechanisms that Spanish employs to develop its lexicon. Despite the apparent simplicity this word-formation process may suggest at frst sight, there is an underlying complexity which arises in answering the two following questions, which are closely connected: what is a compound, and how many types of compounds are there? Hence, the objective of this chapter is twofold. On the one hand, we will ofer an account of diferent existing types of compounds (and, accordingly, the concept of compound which lies beneath them) on the basis of the principal parameters applied for their classifcation, which, in turn, go beyond the grammatical categorization of the constituents. These parameters include the morphological nature of the constituents, as well as the identifcation of the head and the internal syntactic relations occurring amongst the constituents. On the other hand, we will describe the general characteristics of the most productive compounding types in Spanish (V+N, N+A, N+N, N+(i)+A, in most cases) and will highlight not only the major problems these compounds raise regardless of their regularity but also how these problems have been dealt with in morphological theory. Keywords: compounding; compounding types; V+N compounds; N+N compounds; N+A compounds La composición es, junto a la derivación, uno de los principales mecanismos morfológicos que posee el español para acrecentar su léxico. A pesar de la aparente sencillez de este procedimiento de formación de palabras, los compuestos encierran una gran complejidad que deriva de la respuesta a dos preguntas estrechamente vinculadas: qué es un compuesto y qué tipos de compuestos existen. El objetivo de este capítulo es doble. Por un lado, se da cuenta de los diferentes tipos de compuestos (y, por consiguiente, del concepto de compuesto subyacente en ellos), atendiendo a los principales parámetros que se han utilizado para tal fn y que van más allá de la categorización gramatical de sus constituyentes como son la naturaleza morfológica de sus miembros, la identifcación de su núcleo o las relaciones sintácticas internas. Por otro lado, 285

Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata

se describen las principales características de los tipos de compuestos más productivos en español (V+N, N+A, N+N, N+(i)+A, principalmente) y se ponen de manifesto los principales problemas que, a pesar de su regularidad, presentan estos compuestos y cómo se han explicado desde la teoría morfológica. Palabras clave: composición; tipos de compuestos; compuestos V+N; compuestos N+N; compuestos N+A

2 Compounding typology: major criteria If the twofold task of defning and delimiting the compound word has occasioned keen discussion in morphological theory (see Mendívil this volume), establishing a typology of compounds likewise is generally thought to be a highly controversial issue. Thus, it is possible to claim that up to now, there is not yet a universally well-established classifcation of compounds which has been jointly agreed upon regardless of the theoretical focus applied (Bisetto and Scalise 2009, 34–35). Nevertheless, a great many diferent typologies of compounds based on their inspection from diferent parameters have enjoyed considerable acceptance in morphological theory. Moreover, diferent compounding types behave diferently not only on the formal plane but also in terms of morphology, semantics and syntax, as well as in other external respects related to their productivity (see Moyna this volume, for the diachronic aspects of compounding). Bearing all these considerations in mind, this chapter will be structured as follows: frst, I will begin by giving an overall description of the most well-established compounding typologies in the literature, with special emphasis upon their theoretical aspects (sections 2.1 and 2.2); second, I will deal with the most productive compounding types in Spanish from a descriptive perspective and account for the problems concerning each one of them within the fold of morphology theory (section 2.3). The traditional classifcation of compounds in Spanish is based on the grammatical category of a compound and its inner constituents. Thus, lavavajillas (‘wash+dishes = dishwasher’) is a nominal compound whose inner structure is made up of a verb and a noun, whereas barbinegro (‘beard+black = person who has a black beard’) is an adjectival compound formed by a noun and an adjective. Although this classifcation seems fruitful from a descriptive point of view, as evidenced by the fact that it is used in practically all the descriptions of compounding in Spanish (Alemany Bolufer 1920; Bustos Gisbert 1986; Lang 1992; Alvar 1993; Almela 1999; Val Álvaro 1999; Moyna 2011), nevertheless, it does not allow accounting for the complexity underlying the compounding processes. This complexity is determined by two fundamental aspects: frst, by the morphological (non-categorical) nature of the members of the resultant word and, second, by the intra-compounding relationships occurring among them. These two parameters allow establishing a supra-classifcation of compounds which does not override the traditional one but would rather lead to a better characterization of this wordformation process, and at the same time, they raise a number of theoretical issues which have been extensively discussed within the characterization of compounding types.

2.1 Compounding types according to the morphological nature of the constituents Regarding the morphological nature of a compound’s constituents, considering the criteria distinguishing afxation from compounding (see Mendívil this volume), three morphological units may be at play during the creation of a compound: roots (as agri- y cabez- in 1a), stems (as para- y campo- in 1b) or words (as sord-o y alt-a in 1c) (see Felíu this volume):

286

Main compounding types in Spanish

(1) a. agri-dulce (‘bitter+sweet = bittersweet’), cabez-caído (‘head+fallen = crestfallen’) b. para-sol (‘stop+sun = umbrella’), campo-santo (‘feld+saint = cemetery’) c. sord-o-mud-o (‘deaf+mute = deaf mute’), alt-a-voz (‘high+voice = speaker’) Two or more of these units must be present in order to form a compound.2 They can be either of the same type (i.e., two stems, two words, etc.) or of diferent types (stem+root, word+stem, root+stem, etc.), although it is essential that the second constituent meet the necessary conditions to be considered a word. Thus, we cannot create a compound with the structure [root+root], since most roots in Spanish cannot function without infectional morphemes, which makes it impossible for a root to appear within a compound as the second constituent (unless it is a free morpheme). Likewise, the simultaneous union of [root/stem+root/ stem+sufx] refected in constructions like sietemesino (‘seven+month+-ino  =  premature’), barriobajero (‘neighborhood+low+-ero  =  lower class’) or mileurista (‘one thousand+euro+ista = person with a salary of one thousand euros’) corresponds to a process of parasynthesis or external derivation rather than compounding. From the compounding typology perspective, which is under discussion in this chapter, the importance of the nature of these constituents lies in the possibility of creating new words through the merger between two or more stems originating from the classical languages (Greek and Latin); therefore, it is common to encounter compounds formed either by two inexistent stems in Spanish (2a–c) or by a Graeco-Latin stem and an existing word (2d): (2) a. fratricida (‘brother+killer = fatricide’), piscívoro (‘fsh+eater = piscivore’) b. cardiopatía (‘heart+ailment = cardiopathy’), fonología (‘sound+study = fonology’) c. coxalgia (‘hip+pain = hip arthritis’), ludopatía (‘game+ailment = addiction to gambling’) d. aeronave (‘air+ship = airplane’), egiptología (‘Egypt+study = egyptology’) Although it is problematic whether these words should be admitted into compounding (Almela 2003), their nature as combined stems capable of creating new words places them in the scope of compounding; thus, it is reasonable to consider them a type of compounds. Furthermore, there is another peculiarity concerning this compounding type generally known as classical or Graeco-Latin compounds, whose intrinsic connectedness with compounding has been proved self evident. This denomination refers to the presence of a linking element which varies from -o- to -i- in accordance with the Greek or Latin origin of a compound’s second element (Felíu 2009, 76). This linking vowel can also be found in certain Spanish compounds like verdinegro (‘green+black = something that is green and black’), arquibanco (‘chest+bench = furniture with properties of a chest and bench’), cuellicorto (‘neck+short = someone that has a short neck’) and so on (see section 2.3.4), which may be taken as a reason to admit this process of word formation through classical stems into the category of compounding. As noted at the beginning of this section, words can also participate in the formation of compounds. In this regard, during the compounding process, it is highly possible that the word which constitutes one of the members of a compound has previously undergone a morphological process, which in turn allows distinguishing between diferent types of compounds. Therefore, one of the major characteristics of compounds formed by a verb and a noun is that the second member of these words is usually found in plural, as occurs in cases like aparcacoches (‘to park+cars = valet parking’), cuentagotas (‘to count+drops = dropper’), posavasos (to place+glasses = coaster’). These compounds reveal a morphological structure formed by a stem (the verbal form) and a word infected for number before the compound is created, which

287

Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata

clearly violates the rule that infectional processes are more external than the derivational ones (or rather the impossibility of the presence of infectional markers inside a word; see Greenberg 1966). This makes it plausible to ponder the existence of an internal infection (Booij 1996) that allows setting apart the V+N compounds from the rest of compounding classes. By the same token, some types of compounds may contain a complex word resulting from a previous word-formation process as a constituent. Such behavior induces us to raise diferent considerations in relation to the compounding typology and its distinguishing features. (3) a. vasodilatador (‘vessel+dilator = vasodilator’), radioyente (‘radio+listener = radio listener’), hispanohablante (‘hispanic+speaker = Spanish-speaker’) b. cantautor (‘singer+author = singer song-writer’), publirreportaje (‘advertising+report = feature’), docudrama (‘documentary+drama = dramatized documentary’) In the frst place, in Spanish, there is a group of compounds with internal derivation called synthetic compounds, whose second constituent is a derived word (3a), that is, a verbal stem that must take a nomina agentis or instrumenti sufx (in most cases -nte and -dor). These nominalizing sufxes transform this constituent into the head of the compound, whereas the frst one becomes the argument or modifer of the verb from which the head is derived. This implies that these compounds should fnd their head on the right, despite the fact that Spanish is a leftheaded language (see section 2.3.4). This singular behavior has been explained on the basis of a calque from English, although these compounds already came into existence before the time of English infuence over Spanish (Fábregas 2013, 264). Hence, the emergence of a derived word on the inside of a compound has clear implications in terms of intra-compounding relations, which are indicators for distinguishing between diferent compounding classes, as is the case of the issue regarding the presence and the position of the head (see section 2.2.1). Second, it is reported that there are a set of complex words where at least one of the two members undergoes a previous process of reduction (3b). This phenomenon has been labeled blending. In spite of the evident connections between blendings and compounds, in the present chapter, I will not take into account the frst type of formations in view of the fact that they are not considered a type of compounding process (see Torres-Tamarit this volume). Finally, these formants, independent as they are, in creating compounds, preserve their stress independence as well without losing for this reason its condition as compounds (caja fuerte ‘box+strong = strongbox’, hombre lobo ‘man+wolf = werewolf ’, llave inglesa ‘key+English = adjustable wrench’, cabeza cuadrada ‘head+square = hard headed’, pez espada ‘fsh+sword = swordfsh’) (see Martínez-Paricio this volume). In this respect and although many authors regard them as a separate type to be diferentiated from the rest of compounding, yet the orthographic criterion seems fairly inconsistent, because it is not linguistic evidence. Therefore, in this chapter, we will reject this criterion in the compounding typology.

2.2 Compounding types according to the relations between constituents With respect to the intra-compounding relationship, in morphological theory, attention has been frequently drawn to the connections between morphology and syntax (Selkirk 1982; Scalise 1984; Lieber 1992; Spencer 2005; Kornfeld 2009, among many others),3 and compounding is generally considered clear evidence for this interconnectedness (see Acedo Matellán this volume). In fact, lengthy accounts concerning the parallelism between a handful of compounds and certain syntactic structures have already been given since traditional grammar, especially 288

Main compounding types in Spanish

when it comes to relative clauses (coche cama  = ‘coche que es una cama’/‘car+bed = sleeping car = car that is like a bed’), which in turn induced the view of compounding as a sort of microsyntax (Darmesteter 1874; Bloomfeld 1933; Bally 1932; Benveniste 1974). Despite these clear connections, compounds are lexical items whose projection ability does not exceed the boundaries of a word (Fabb 1998, 71; Piera and Varela 1999, 4383; Lieber and Scalise 2006, 10), as suggested by the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (Chomsky 1970). From the compounding typology perspective, the parallelism existing between compounding and syntax crystallizes when establishing two parameters for the classifcation of compounds: frst, diferent compounding classes are distinguished according to the presence or absence of a head as well as its position, and second, diferent types of compounds are diferentiated on the basis of the syntactic relations taking place amongst their constituents.

2.2.1 The head of compounds With respect to the frst parameter, as occurs in syntax (although with a series of restrictions syntactic heads do not have), in compounding the head is the element which determines the morphological (resulting grammatical category, infectional features)4, syntactic (selection and distribution properties) and semantic (compound as a hyponym of the head) properties of the entire resulting construction (Scalise and Fábregas 2010). Thus, in a compound like caja fuerte (‘strong+box = strongbox’), the head is the noun caja ‘box’, because it not only transfers the semantic properties (caja fuerte is a type of caja, i.e., a hyponym of the head) but also the morphological and syntactic properties to the compound, since caja fuerte is a feminine noun as well as caja, and thus it shares the same functions with the latter. Taking this fact into account, all those compounds in possession of a head can be classifed as endocentric compounds. Apart from identifying the presence or the absence of the head, in morphology (rather than in syntax, for instance), it is also customary to take into account the position of the head, which has made it possible to carry out a typological categorization of compounding based on the distinction between right-headed languages (like Germanic languages) and left-headed languages (like Romance languages). Nonetheless, as demonstrated by Scalise and Fábregas’s (2010) analysis of compounds in 22 languages, the head’s position cannot be taken as a universal parameter, and canonical positions can be found within every specifc language. Therefore, as has been pointed out, in many Spanish compounds, the head is located on the right (drogodependiente ‘drug+dependent = drug addict’, vasodilatador ‘vessel+dilator = vasodilator’, aromaterapia ‘scent+therapy = aromatherapy’), despite the fact that in this language, the head is generally found on the left. If none of a compound’s constituents can transfer its morphological, syntactic and semantic features to the resulting construction, it should be considered that the compound is headless or its head falls outside the resultant word. In such cases, these compounds are classifed as exocentric compounds (Foster 1976; Contreras 1985; Scalise and Guevara 2006; Scalise, Fábregas, and Forza 2009). An exocentric compound is a compound word whose grammatical category does not agree with the category of its constitutive elements, and it usually denotes some reality which is not expressed by its members. For example, claroscuro5 ‘chiaroscuro’ should be reckoned exocentric because, on the one hand, the resulting word is a noun although all its constitutive elements are adjectives, and, on the other hand, in semantic terms, each one of these elements refers to a reality which is not denoted by the resulting noun and therefore none of them can be a hyponym of the term. However, the classifcation of compounds into exocentric and endocentric compounds does not always turn out to be straightforward. Certain constructions (see examples in 4) show evidence against the identifcation of the head, and therefore the plausibility of considering compounds endocentric or exocentric is called into question. 289

Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata

(4) a. portarretratos (‘carry+portrait = photo frame’), alzacuellos (‘rise+neck = clerical collar’) b. pelirrojo (‘hair+red  =  redhaired’), barbinegro (‘beard+black  =  person who has a black beard’) c. falda pantalón (‘skirt+trousers  =  garment with properties of a skirt and pants’), arquibanco (‘chest+bench = furniture with properties of a chest and bench’), hombre bala (‘man+bullet = bullet man’) In (4a), we can see that compounds formed by a verb and a noun reveal a certain mismatch between morphological and semantic criteria regarding the determination of the head. This implies that although one of the compound’s constituents matches with the morphological category of the resultant word, it cannot be the head in semantic terms, as it is not its hyponym. In spite of its nominal nature, the head of the construction is not the noun which appears as the second element. This has brought about a lengthy debate on whether this type of construction should be classifed as exocentric or endocentric, with the head located in the frst constituent of the compound (see section 2.3.2 for a more exhaustive account of this matter). Through examples in (4b), we can perceive, likewise, a categorical disagreement between the head and the internal syntactic relations amongst the compound’s constituents. For instance, the head of pelirrojo (‘hear+red = redhaired’) is the adjective because the resulting construction belongs to the same category. However, regarding intra-compounding relationships, this adjective is subject to the noun (as its function as modifer demands). Once again, this fact turns out to be controversial for the characterization of compounding types, since if we take the head into consideration, compounds can only be classifed either as exocentric or as endocentric, and consequently diferent arguments will be needed in order to justify why the head is the adjective rather than the noun (see 2.3.4 for a more detailed analysis). Finally, some compounds may show coincidence between the resulting grammatical category and the category of the elements constituting the compound word (see 4c), and from the semantic point of view, both of these elements contribute to the meaning of the resulting compound. Therefore, the difculty rests in the very question of which of these two elements should be the head, for none of them has more weight than the other in semantic or categorical terms. Given the impossibility of fnding out which is the head, these constructions can be considered either two-headed compounds (Fabb 1998; Bisetto and Scalise 2005; Scalise and Guevara 2006, 191) or exocentric compounds, although the intra-compositive relations occurring amongst them belong to diferent types (coordinative type in arquibanco ‘chest+bench = furniture with properties of a chest and bench’, and attributive in hombre bala ‘man+bullet = bullet man’), as we will see in the next section. As the aforementioned examples suggest, exocentricity is very common in the compounding processes of many languages, although its impact relies on the linguistic typology (Scalise, Fábregas, and Forza 2009; Ralli and Andreou 2012), as well as the compounding type in particular. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that, on the one hand, there are compounds which are fully endocentric or exocentric, but on the other hand, many compounds manifest a certain lack of correspondence between the categorical, morphological and semantic criteria when it comes to determining the head; thus, this type of compound should be considered partially endocentric/exocentric.

2.2.2 Internal syntactic relations Another argument supporting the consideration of compounding as a kind of reduced syntax is that the syntactic relations taking place in phrasal syntax can also occur inside the compounds. 290

Main compounding types in Spanish

This has led to the establishment of diferent compounding types in accordance with the syntactic relation between their two constituents, and such a relation is generally applicable to any language. Therefore, “the possible grammatical relations holding between the two constituents of a compound are basically the relations that hold in syntactic constructions: subordination, coordination and attribution” (Bisetto and Scalise 2005, 326). A coordinative compound is characterized by its semantic interpretation as the sum of the values expressed by both constituents (see 5a and 5b). In formal terms, it usually has a linking vowel -idisplaying the coordinative relation, but it is important to point out that not every compound has this linking vowel (see 5b), nor is this vowel only to be encountered within coordinative compounds (also in subordinative compounds, as can be seen in 6c). The examples given in (5c), although counted among the coordinative compounds, have a special designation since “what is denoted by the compound does not refer to the addition of the constituents, but rather works as an intermediate point between those things these elements denote” (Val Álvaro 1999, 4783). These types of compounds are known as co-compounds (Scalise, Fábregas, and Forza 2009, 60; Fábregas 2013, 251). (5) a. fofsano (‘fabby+healthy  =  person who is fabby but healthy’), verdinegro (‘green+black = something that is green and black’), arquibanco (‘chest+bench = furniture with properties of a chest and bench’) b. duermevela (‘sleep+ensure = light sleep’), café restaurante (‘cofee+restaurant = establishment that is cafe and restaurant’) c. noroeste (‘north+west = northwest’) As for subordinative compounds, they generally show a predicate-argument relation, which implies that one of the constituents is hierarchically subordinated to the other. Since subordinative relations are conditional upon the categorization of the compound’s constituents, in this respect, there are meaningful diferences between those compounds containing a verb (where argumental relations occur between the verb and its complements) (see 6a), those formed by two nouns (see 6b) and those consisting of a noun and an adjective (see 6c), where the subordinative relation takes place via the restriction of the designating extent of the modifed noun. (6) a. portalámparas (‘carry+lamps  =  lamp holder’), perniquebrar (‘leg+break  =  to break your legs’) b. bocacalle (‘mouth+street  =  turning’), estrellamar (‘star+sea  =  starfsh’), cuello cisne (‘neck+swan = turtleneck’) c. cabizbajo (‘head+low = dejected’), cuellilargo (‘neck+long = long-necked’) The subordinative compounds formed by two nouns are basically a consequence of the disappearance of the prepositive element in charge of showing the dependence relation between the two constituents (boca de la calle > bocacalle, estrella del mar > estrellamar), which demonstrates that the productivity of this type of compounds in Spanish is based on those constructions. Finally, regarding attributive compounds, the major characteristic is that one of the two constituents usually describes a characteristic of the other, occasionally in the fgurative sense (see 7); therefore, they ft in with the structure ‘X which is like Y’, with X and Y the two constituents of the compound. (7) a. mujer objeto (‘women+object = sex-object’), abeja reina (‘bee+queen = queen bee’), calzacalzón (‘breeches+pants = garment with properties of a breeches and pants’) b. caja fuerte (‘box+strong = strongbox’), llave inglesa (‘key+English = adjustable wrench’) 291

Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata

Bisetto and Scalise (2009, 51) also place appositive compounds on the same level as attributive compounds.6 According to these authors, the diference between both classes consists of the grammatical category of the element, which does not function as the head. A compound is appositive if it “expresses a property of the head constituent by means of a noun, an apposition, acting as an attribute” (see 7a); however, it is considered attributive when the head “is modifed by a non-head expressing a ‘property’ of the head, be it an adjective or a verb: actually, the role of the non-head categorical element should be that of expressing a ‘quality’ of the head constituent” (see 7b). On the other hand, in Spanish, these two types of compounds also show diferences concerning number infection between one another. Among those non-graphically merged compounds,7 only the appositive ones receive gender from the frst element, and this in turn receives number infection markers, whereas the other remains invariable (mujeres objeto, abejas reina). In contrast, compounds of the attributive type can be infected in both of their constituents, although it is the head that assigns gender to the resultant word (cajas fuertes, llaves inglesas). Aside from the distinguishing syntactic relations we have seen so far, another distinctive feature that diferentiates the three compounding types is the fact that, unlike compounds of the subordinative and the attributive types, coordinative compounds can be recursive (bearing in mind that the recursiveness of Spanish compounds is quite limited) (Fábregas 2013, 266). Besides, although according to Bisetto and Scalise’s (2009) classifcation, these three types of compounds can be both endocentric and exocentric, in Spanish, the attributive-appositive compounds are entirely endocentric, that is to say, both in semantic and in morphological and categorical terms, while in the case of the other types, the total or partial endocentricity/exocentricity relies on the grammatical category of the constituent. In the next section, we will provide a detailed account of this issue.

2.3 Compounding types according to the grammatical category of the constituents In this section, we are going to consider the compounding typology issue in accordance with the grammatical category of a compound’s inner constituents. Rather than dealing with all the existing possible combinations in Spanish to form compound words, we have selected various compounding patterns solely on the basis of their productivity and availability in the creation of new words in Spanish. Taking into account the data provided in Buenafuentes (2007), in this section we are going to perform an analysis of those compounds consisting of a verb and a noun (2.3.1), those formed by two nouns (2.3.2) and those formed by a noun and an adjective (2.3.3). Furthermore, we will also comment briefy on other structures which, although not being productive in modern Spanish, can still refect creative possibilities in the compounding of Spanish.

2.3.1 [V+N]N compounds [V+N]N compounds are productive in Spanish to such an extent that they can be considered the principal and the most prototypical compounding pattern in Spanish (Alemany Bolufer 1920; Lang 1992; Val Álvaro 1999). This productivity is at odds with the fact that they are rarely documented in Latin (Hinojo 2001) and are scarcely used in Anglo-Germanic languages to produce new words, notwithstanding that compounding is a widely used mechanism in all these languages. Besides this peculiarity, compounds consisting of a verb and a noun have raised two problems within the feld of morphological theory, which have been addressed in the preceding

292

Main compounding types in Spanish

sections. One of the debates has focused on the determination of the head, while the other has been centered on accounting for the infectional marker that regularly appears in the second constituent, even though the compound itself is in singular form. As mentioned previously, from the categorical and morphological perspective, the problem concerning the determination of the head is that there exists a disagreement between the resulting category (N) and the category of the head constituent (V), since it is not possible for the noun to be considered the head on account of both morphological (the noun is plural, while the compound is singular) and syntactic reasons (the noun depends on the verb, since it is a subordinative compound). Accordingly, a number of authors have defended the endocentricity of this compounding type by arguing that the construction’s frst element is a verb nominalized by a zero afx (Coseriu 1978; Bisetto 1999; Val Álvaro 1999) or a deverbal noun (Varela 1992). As a matter of fact, advocates of this position point out the parallelism existing between V+N compounds’ frst element and derived deverbal nouns, that is, between compounds like buscapersonas ‘pager’ and derived nouns like buscador de personas ‘searcher of people’. Moreover, they also argue that the nominalization process occurring inside the compound is agentive, which suggests that V+N compounds are incompatible with constituents expressing the same thematic role (*buscapersonas por parte de Juan ‘pager by Juan’) and select action verbs capable of licensing an agent or an instrument (with certain specifcations, as we will see in the following sections). The similarities between the frst element of these compounds and agentive nominalizations can ultimately be perceived when compounds with this structure are reduced and function independently (el busca). This behavior, in turn, leads to afrm that the (nominalized) verb constitutes the head of these compounds (Val Álvaro 1999). Nevertheless, in spite of the similarities between agentive nominalizations and this compounding class, from the semantic point of view, V+N compounds cannot be a hyponym of the head (which should be the nominalized verb if we follow the aforesaid proposal). In view of this, other authors (Contreras 1985; Bisetto and Scalise 2009) consider them exocentric. In this regard, Scalise, Fábregas, and Forza (2009, 58) point out that “VN compounds would be categorially exocentric, but they do not exhibit absolute categorical exocentricity, for the category of the compound, N, is the category of the non-head”. In fact, these authors account for such categorical exocentricity on the basis of the transference of certain features (percolation) from the compound’s constituents to syntax: while the noun’s features are not licensed within the compound, those of the verb are licensed when its argument selection is fulflled by the noun, therefore “[a]s the V categorical feature is licensed inside the compound, but the N categorical feature is not, only N percolates to the whole word. The result is that the highest node, accessible for syntax, is defned as an N and therefore the compound will be treated as a noun in syntax.” (Scalise, Fábregas, and Forza 2009, 69). From the semantic point of view, V+N compounds should also be considered exocentric, since none of the constituents can be a hyponym of the overall meaning of the resultant word, which usually denotes an instrument or an agent (see 8a) but also occasionally refers to event nouns (see 8b) and places (see 8c). Anyway, “in the context of the compound [the verb has] a subject that is interpreted as initiator of the event” (Marqueta 2019, 150).8 (8) a. lavaplatos (‘to wash+dishes = dishwasher’), portaequipajes (‘to carry+luggage = luggage compartment’), guardabosques (‘to guard+forest = forest ranger’) b. pasajuego (‘pass+game = a set of the game’), besamanos (‘to kiss+hand = hand-kissing’) c. rompeolas (‘to break+waves = breakwater’)

293

Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata

As a matter of fact, some compounds are ambiguous when they are interpreted as agents or instruments (for instance, lavaplatos or portaequipajes), but our world knowledge can help us remove such ambiguity in certain constructions. Considering intra-compounding relationships, these compounds are typically subordinative compounds where the predicate (V) selects a complement (N). Argumental relations can take place between these two constituents, which implies that N is the internal argument of V. Generally speaking, if there is a transitive verb (see 9a), the internal argument functions as direct object. Nevertheless, certain compounds manifest relations that may require the presence of a preposition on syntactic level (guardapolvo ‘overalls’ does not mean that polvo ‘dust’ is protected but rather that something is protected from it). The number of intransitive verbs employed in this type of compounds is limited. In fact, most of them usually have a transitive interpretation inside the compounds (lloraduelos ‘to cry+mourning = person who frequently cries his misfortunes’, correcaminos ‘to run+roads  =  roadrunner’ or saltamontes ‘to jump+hills = grasshopper’). The word crecepelo (to grow+hair = hair restorer’) (see 9b) counts among the few existing instances where an inaccusative verb is found inside compounds of this type, which shows the close relationship this type of intransitive verb shares with transitive verbs also in word-formation processes. Regardless of the transitivity of the verb, habitually N has the thematic role of theme (or patient if the theme is afected) (Marqueta 2019, 150), although “the argument relationship is not always patient; some other relationships are possible, including some restricted cases of agents” (see 9c) (Scalise, Fábregas, and Forza 2009, 65). Moreover, although it rarely occurs, in some compounds, non-argumental relations can also take place, making N an adjunct of the predicate that functions as an adjunct (see 9d). (9) a. cuentakilómetros (‘to count+kilometers = millimeter’), abrecartas (‘to open+letters = letter opener’), guardapolvo (‘to save+dust = dust cover’) b. crecepelo (‘to grow+hair = hair restorer’) c. Cantalobos (‘to sing+wolves = name of a village’), Salvadiós (‘to save+God = name of a village’) (examples from Scalise, Fábregas, and Forza 2009) d. girasol (‘to turn+sun  =  sunfower’), andarraya (‘to walk+line  =  game that consists of walking on a line’) The other problem that this compounding type presents is that the form of the compound’s second constituent has a number infection marker which exists before the formation of the compound, despite the fact that the resultant word is in the singular (el guardabosques ‘a person who guards and cares for forests’, el lavavajillas ‘a liquid detergent used to wash dishes’). [T]he abundance of compounds with plural form . . . should be explained as the result of the presence of an action verb in most of these compounds that requires a plural object, except when the noun’s referent is unique (girasol) o when it should be specifed by means of individualization (cazatorpedero). (Alvar 1984, 94) Hence, in these cases, the plural form of the second element should not be understood quantitatively but rather in reiterative or frequentative terms (this can be reckoned as an instance of inherent infection, as Booij 1996 suggests, since this maker is determined by the meaning which is to be expressed). If the quantitative value is to be conveyed, it should be expressed externally through the modifers (which constitutes the contextual infection, according to Booij 1996). 294

Main compounding types in Spanish

By the same token, in those compounds where the second element does not appear in plural form, this usually denotes either an individualized entity (cubrecama ‘to cover+bed = bedspread’) or an uncount noun (guardapolvo ‘to save+dust = dust cover’), although in a handful of compounds of this type, plural uncountable nouns can occasionally be found, as well (sacaleches ‘to extract+milk = breast pump’, for instance). Similarly, Scalise, Fábregas and Forza (2009, 70) explain this particularity by arguing that only N is transferred to the resulting compound without gender and number features; therefore, from the syntactic point of view, the compound is interpreted as a noun whose gender and number do not depend on the second element’s infectional features.

2.3.2 [N+A]N compounds Nominal compounds consisting of a noun and an adjective are highly productive in Spanish, especially. Considering intra-compounding relations, these compounds are of the attributive type according to Bisetto and Scalise’s (2009) classifcation. Therefore, the adjective projects its properties upon the preceding noun and thus functions as its modifer, agreeing with the noun in gender and number (see 10). (10) a. caja fuerte (‘box+strong = strongbox’), llave inglesa (‘key+English = adjustable wrench’), hierbabuena (‘herb+good = mint’), ajoblanco (‘garlic+white = cold garlic and almond soup’) b. guardia civil (‘guard+civil = civil guard’), niño/-a gótico/-a (‘child+gothic = conceited person’), hijo/-a natural (‘son/daugther+natural = extramarital child’) c. cabeza cuadrada (‘head+square = hard headed’), lengua viperina (‘tongue+viperous = forked tongue’), tambor mayor (‘drum+biggest = head of a drum band’) d. relaciones públicas (‘relations+public = public relations’) e. pendón desorejado (‘libertine+awful = cheeky woman’) The particularity of this compounding structure lies in the determination of the head. In this regard, there is a notable diference among compounds with this pattern based on whether these refer to a human referent. In case that they do not denote a human being, they are considered endocentric both in semantic and in categorical and morphological terms, being the noun the head of the construction (see 10a). Not only do they receive gender from the head, but their number infection is also marked in the head constituent (cajas fuerte, llaves inglesas), except when they are graphically merged, in which case the plural value should be expressed externally (hierbabuenas, ajoblancos), as occurs with simple words. Conversely, if they refer to a person, we can observe a lack of correspondence occurring in diferent situations between the infectional features of the constituents and those features manifested in the compound once it is formed. Thus, the compounds in (10b) may behave in a way similar to those totally endocentric compounds not denoting human beings (10a), since the referent’s gender features are represented in the noun, which turns it into the head of the construction (el/la guardia civil, niño/a gótico/a, hijo/a natural). As for number infection, the plural is expressed in both constituents of the compound (guardias civiles, niños góticos, hijos naturales) in the same way as compounds of the [-human] type. However, not all compounds referring to human beings show the same behavior described previously. Within a set of compounds of this type (10c), none of the constituents are semantically involved in the referent of the resulting construction. These compounds usually have a noun as frst constituent, upon which a metonymy is projected (normally it is a part of the body, 295

Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata

although not always, for example, tambor mayor). This metonymy somehow refers to the head of the compound, a fact that has been taken as a supporting argument for considering these compounds endocentric (Booij 2007). Nevertheless, their infectional behavior seems to place them in the scope of exocentricity both on semantic and on morphological level (Scalise, Fábregas, and Forza 2009, 52), although in terms of grammatical category, it is not the case, given the nominal category shared by these compounds and their frst constituents. Hence, the exocentric compounds in (10c) manifest gender and number variability in accordance with the referent. As can be seen, in compounds like cabeza cuadrada, the adjective agrees with the noun it modifes in gender within the compound (*un cabeza cuadrado), but there is disagreement between the gender of this internal noun and the gender projected on the syntactic level: Juan es un cabeza cuadrada. Regarding number infection, these compounds show certain variability, since it can be realized either solely upon the noun (cabezas cuadrada) or upon both constituents (cabezas cuadradas), although this rule is not applicable to all compounds of this type (lenguas viperinas, *lenguas viperina). Nevertheless, a number of N+A compounds referring to human beings raise a number of problems on the morphological plane. Thus, the compound in (10d) presents disagreement not only in gender (as observed in the aforementioned cases) but also in number, which may once again imply a partial exocentricity (only in semantic and morphological terms, not categorical) motivated by the fact that the constituents of the compound are in plural, while the compound denotes a singular referent: el/la relaciones públicas. Ultimately, in these cases, there is an internal infection which occurs previously before the formation of the compound, as we have already described in the section concerning V+N compounds. Likewise, the example in (10e) highlights the possibility for the compound to be both semantically and categorially endocentric (since it is a hyponym of the head and shares the same nominal category with it) but morphologically exocentric in view of the gender disagreement detected between the noun and the referent. As can be observed, pendón desorejado takes the noun pendón as its semantic core, which is masculine within the inner construction of the compound (with its adjective agreeing with it) but designates a female referent (María es un pendón desorejado, *María es una pendón desorejado, *María es una pendona desorejada). Although the noun has gender infection and therefore should express feminine gender by means of the corresponding morphological marker in a way similar to the compounds in (10b), in fact it functions as an epicene noun (*pendona desorejada, la pendón desorejado). Notwithstanding their abundance in Spanish, as has been pointed out, the productivity of N+A compounds relies mostly on those compounds which are totally endocentric (see 10a and 10b).

2.3.3 [N+N]N compounds This compounding class, albeit productive in Spanish, stands signifcantly apart from all the described compounding types. It raises a great many theoretical issues which have also been matters of dispute within the study of other classes of compounds. Its close afnity to free appositions as well as the compositionality of its meaning have frequently led to the question of whether they really concern morphology. Nonetheless, as Val Álvaro (1999, 4780) claims, N+N compounds are “stable word creations”, and their level of analysis falls into the scope of morphology, although with some specifcations which will be considered in this section. One aspect that reafrms the complexity of N+N compounds is that, unlike V+N compounds, which can only be subordinative, they present all three intra-compositive relations we have accounted for thus far, that is, subordination, coordination and apposition (see 2.2.2). In subordinative N+N compounds, the second constituent is a classifer which refers to a part, a 296

Main compounding types in Spanish

purpose or the location of the referent designated by the frst constituent (see 11a), as shown by the word barco cisterna ‘tanker’, which denotes a kind of ship with a tank carrying liquid cargoes. In coordinative N+N compounds, however, the resulting referent usually corresponds to the sum of both constituents’ meanings (see 11b). For example, a falda pantalón ‘garment’ does not refer to a type of skirt but a garment showing characteristics of a skirt and trousers. Finally, in appositive N+N compounds, the second constituent expresses a qualitative value about the frst, since a property (not all the signifcation) of the second N is selected in order to restrict the referent of the frst N (see 11c). Thus, cama nido ‘trundle bed’ is neither a kind of bed nor something with properties of both a bed and a nest but a type of furniture consisting of two beds which resembles a nest. (11) a. barco cisterna (‘ship+tank = tanker’), granja escuela (‘farm+school = farm school’), coche cama (‘car+bed = sleeping car’) b. casa cuartel (‘house+station = residential barracks’), falda pantalón (‘skirt+trousers = garment with properties of a skirt and trousers’) c. cama nido (‘bed+nest = trundle bed’), ciudad dormitorio (‘city+bedroom = commuter town’), hombre rana (‘man+frog = frogman’) The classifcation of these compounds on the basis of the head is also proved a difcult task: compounds of appositive and subordinative types are always endocentric both in categorical, morphological and semantic terms, but whenever it comes to the determination of the head, in coordinative compounds, there is an evident lack of correspondence between morphological, categorical and semantic criteria, since coordinative compounds would be exocentric regarding semantics, but from the categorical and morphological perspective, they would be two-headed endocentric compounds. This fact is closely related to the infectional diferences they show. Although all the compounds showing this structure receive gender from their frst constituent, nevertheless variation is detected on number infection. In subordinative and appositive N+N compounds, number infection is realized upon the frst element, that is, the head, whereas the second constituent remains invariable (barcos cisterna, busques escuela, coches cama // camas nido, ciudades dormitorio, hombres rana). In coordinative N+N compounds, however, number infection is heterogeneous, since in many cases it can appear in the frst element, and occasionally it can be seen in both constituents (casas cuartel ~ casas cuarteles, granjas escuela ~ granjas escuelas), although the analogical infuence of subordinative compounds where the head is found in the frst constituent, . . . tends to impose plural on the frst element of the construction in the case of the most widespread and well-established words, with the exception of those words denoting trade names and activities. This fact is in line with the reanalysis of such compounds as subordinative and consequently makes them the threshold of transition between both classes. (Val Álvaro 1999, 4782) Be that as it may, setting aside the intra-compounding relationships, a certain degree of variation can be observed from compound to compound. Therefore, appositive compounds show various possibilities when it comes to expressing the plural value (as is the case of perros policías or perros policía), whereas coordinative compounds seem to reject one of the two possibilities that can be admitted in other cases (faldas pantalón, ?faldas pantalones). This may be due to the fact that “some second constituents which are very adjective-like in their meaning are evolving towards real adjective status, showing number agreement with the head and sometimes 297

Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata

also predicative use” (Rainer and Varela 1992, 126); that is to say, the agreement of the second constituent with the frst shows that this second constituent is being reanalyzed as an adjective by the speakers, although it is to be noted that such reanalyzed adjective cannot display all the properties of a free adjective. Finally, other structures consisting of two nouns (as illustrated in 12) are pending discussion. These structures, by the same token, are also appositive constructions: (12) palabra clave (‘word+key = keyword’), producto estrella (‘product+star = main product’) Constructions of this type show a number of features that locate them very close to compounds (fxation of form, unalterable word order, required holistic modifcation, impossibility of realizing the determination inside the compound), but there are also other features which seem to place them on the syntactic rather than morphological level. In this respect, from the semantic point of view, the construction’s second element is an intensifer of the frst, that is, the head, and for this reason, it is possible for it to modify practically any noun (palabra clave ‘keyword’, momento clave ‘key moment’, fecha clave ‘key date’, situación clave ‘key position’). In terms of syntactic behavior, this kind of construction seemingly lies out of the scope of compounding, for they not only allow coordination and projections and select their own arguments but also have anaphoric capacity and can be pronominalized or focalized (García-Page 2011, 148). The fact that they belong to free syntactic appositions, therefore, implies plural infection variation, since this can be realized either on the head or on both elements of the apposition (palabras claves ~ palabras clave), although in some cases, it depends on the degree of institutionalization the construction may show.

2.3.4 Other compounding structures In this fnal section, we are going to scrutinize other compounding structures in Spanish, which are mainly used to create adjectives and verbs. Their productivity is low because, as shown previously, in Spanish, compounding is chiefy employed to create nouns. One of the most recurrent structures in Spanish applied in the creation of adjectives is the one uniting a noun with an adjective through a linking vowel -i- (see 13a), although it is possible to document sporadic cases in which such vocalic nexus is lacking (see 13b). The presence of this vowel is a particularity characterizing a number of languages, for example, Spanish or Italian. (13) a. pelirrojo (‘hair+red = redhead’), patiblanco (‘leg+white = animal that has white legs’), boquiancho (‘mouth+width = someone that has a wide mouth’) b. cuelloalbo (‘neck+white  =  someone who has a white neck’), tiest herido (‘head+injured = someone head wound’) (examples from Los milagros de Nuestra Señora by Gonzalo de Berceo, 1246–52) The presence of this nexus has been a matter of dispute throughout the description of this compounding type. As this phenomenon was already existent in Latin, many authors consider it a heritage from the classical language (García Lozano 1993). Other scholars (Sánchez López 2003), however, claim that this linking vowel is absent in the frst compounds formed with this pattern, and it was not until the 15th century when it frst came into use due to Latin infuence, although probably “the creation and spreading of the linking vowel was due to the need to point out the formal subordinative relation between the two elements” (Sánchez López 2003, 165).

298

Main compounding types in Spanish

Since the creation of this linking vowel seems to be fairly regular, this type of compound is repeatedly reported in literary creations, which go no further than their own register. As Gràcia (2002), Sánchez López (2003) and Moyna (2011) point out, these compounds manifest an inalienable possessive relation between “the noun appearing in the frst part of the compound . . . and the noun selected by the adjective as syntactic argument, that is to say, the noun predicated by the adjective in syntax (for example, chico in un chico pelirrojo)” (Sánchez López 2003: 157). For this reason, most compounds of this type have a noun, which refers metonymically to a particular entity, normally a part of the body. These adjectival N+(i)+A compounds are considered endocentric, although it is problematic which one of the two constituents should be the head. On the one hand, from the semantic perspective, the head should be the noun, considering that it corresponds to a metonymy, but on the other hand, categorially and morphologically speaking, it is the adjective which should be considered the head, since the resulting compound is an adjective, even though this fact does not respect the syntactic dependence relations taking place between the noun and the adjective within subordinative compounds. In fact, no internal agreement occurs between the noun and the adjective (which, in turn, can be observed in the nominal compounds with the same structure, as we have already seen), and it is the adjective which agrees with the referent (María es pelirroja ‘Mary is red-haired’, roja ‘red’ agreeing with the feminine referent rather than the noun pelo ‘hair’). In view of this, Fábregas (2013, 256) claims that the adjective is the head, since it is employed in order to specify the designating scope of the resulting adjective (pelirrojo = rojo de pelo, ‘red-haired = person who is red haired’). Therefore, the noun is the element subordinated to the adjective, that is, the head, and the linking vowel -i- functions in the same way as the preposition de in rojo de pelo. The creation of verbs by means of compounding is totally unproductive in Spanish and is almost exclusively limited to the structure uniting a noun and a verb, which, besides, is frequently encountered in a handful of old constructions (maniatar ‘hand+to tie = to tie somebody’s hands’, pelechar (‘hair+to produce = to molt’), perniquebrar (‘leg+to break = to break somebody’s legs’, mantornar (‘hand+to return = to plow a land a second time’), apud Val Álvaro 1999, 4823). It can be inferred from the aforementioned examples that adjectival N+(i)+A compounds are taken as a model to create these compound verbs, with the second adjectival element replaced by a verb. These compounds belong to the subordinative type and take the verb as the head; therefore, the frst constituent (usually a part of the body) is an internal argument that saturates the verb’s transitivity internally but not externally, since the resulting compound is also a transitive verb. The fact that the frst constituent denotes a part of the body is the reason there exists an inalienable possessive relation, which implies that when the compound verb is created, the object afected by both the verb’s referent and its argument inside the compound—which is the owner of this body part—(Los atracadores maniataron a Juan ‘The thieves tied Juan’s hands’) should be syntactically satisfed. In fact, on many occasions, the speakers do not recognize the internal argument satisfed inside the compound and consequently choose to project it on a syntactic level: *Los atracadores maniataron las manos de Juan.

3 Conclusion As has been demonstrated in this chapter, the traditional classifcation of compounds based solely on the grammatical category of the inner constituents should necessarily be complemented, especially if we consider, from the intra-compounding perspective, both those strictly morphological aspects and those of syntactic nature.

299

Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata

In the frst place, the compounding class named classical or Graeco-Latin compounds is based on the premise that compounds can be formed by stems (not only by roots or words), which are possibly non-existent in Spanish, since they are rooted in the classical languages. Thus, one of the aspects to be borne in mind in classifying compounds is the morphological nature of the elements operating in the formation process. This criterion is also important if we want to prescribe the limits between compounding and other similar phenomena like blending, where one or both constituents have previously undergone a reduction process. In the second place, both the determination and the location of the head and the establishment of the internal syntactic relations among the constituents demonstrate the projection of the syntactic properties on morphology. Such properties are the basis of both the classifcation between exocentric and endocentric compounds (as well as the languages showing rightheaded or left-headed compounds) and the distinction between coordinative, subordinative and attributive-appositive compounds. Combining the traditional approach based on the grammatical category of compounds’ constituents and the syntax-based classifcation, it can be noticed that some of these compounding types raise a number of problems, which have been addressed within morphological theory. In this sense, the most common compounding structures in Spanish not only call into question the notion of head (as is the case of V+N and A+A compounds) but also evidence the presence of internal syntactic mismatches (as is the case of N+(i)+A and N+N compounds), as well as the lack of correspondence between the morphological properties of the constituents and the properties externally manifested in the resulting compound (as evidenced by the N+A compounds referring to human beings or V+N compounds). To summarize: the classifcation of compounds proves what Lorenzo (1995, 35) deemed “the shifting sands of compounds”. Although it seems practical to count on a compounding typology, on many occasions, the analysis of compounds transcends the boundaries of this categorization; thus, it is necessary to “study every phenomenon independently” (Fábregas 2013, 256). In this sense, the establishment of parallelisms between the special properties evidenced by a compound on an internal level and certain syntactic constructions not only helps to account for the particular behavior of these compounds in Spanish but is also useful for the general characterization of compounding in this language.

Notes 1 This research has been fnanced with the help of MICINN and FEDER (FFI2017-87140-C4-1-P and PGC2018-094768-B-I00) and CIRIT of Comissionat per Universitats i Recerca de la Generalitat de Catalunya (2017SGR1251). 2 It should be noted that in certain constituents of compounds, there may be a coincidence between root, stem and word. For instance, sol in parasol is a root, a stem and a word, since it is a free morpheme. 3 We will not discuss the most radical theoretical frameworks which consider that morphology is not an autonomous component of grammar but rather a branch that depends on syntax (Roeper and Siegel 1978; Hale and Keyser 1993). See Acedo-Matellán (this volume), for relevant discussion. 4 Scalise and Fábregas (2010, 114) point out that the head of compounds is also their “locus infectionis”, since number infection is realized on the head following the atom condition proposed by Williams (1981). However, in certain compounds, there are divergences between the categorical head and the infection of the compound, as will be proved throughout the analysis of diferent compounding types (see 2.3). 5 Given the impossibility of the appearance of this structure on the syntactic level, Fábregas (2013, 256) claims that it is possible to propose the ellipsis of a noun that should be established as such for the determination of the head, which implies that it would fall outside the resulting construction. 6 It should be pointed out that attributive compounds are also called appositive compounds by some authors (Alemany Bolufer 1920 or Gràcia 2002).

300

Main compounding types in Spanish

7 When the compound is graphically merged, number infection is marginal; therefore, a plural number marker is added to the second element of the compound. 8 Marqueta (2019, 150) argues that the verbs that do not admit causative alternations (for example, morir ‘die’ or caer ‘fall’) may never appear in these compounds.

References Alemany Bolufer, J. 1920. Tratado de la formación de palabras en la lengua castellana. Madrid: Librería general de Victoriano Suárez. Almela, R. 1999. Procedimientos de formación de palabras en español. Barcelona: Ariel. Almela, R. 2003. “¿Unos compuestos demasiado «fronterizos»?”. In Homenaje al profesor Estanislao Ramón Trives, edited by R. Almela, D. A. Igualada, J. M. Jiménez, and A. Vera, 87–102. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. Alvar, M. 1984. “De nuevo sobre los compuestos de verbo + sustantivo.” In Actas del II Simposio Internacional de Lengua Española, 83–97. Las Palmas: Cabildo Insular. Alvar, M. 1993. La formación de palabras en español. Madrid: Arco Libros. Bally, C. 1932. Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Paris: E. Leroux. Benveniste, E. 1974. Problémes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard. Bisetto, A. 1999. “Note sui composti VN dell’italiano.” In Fonologia e morfologia dell’italiano e dei dialetti d’Italia, edited by P. Benincà, A. Mioni, and L. Vanelli, 503–38. Roma: Bulzoni. Bisetto, A., and S. Scalise. 2005. “The Classifcation of Compounds.” Lingue e Linguaggio 4: 319–32. Bisetto, A., and A. Scalise. 2009. “The Classifcation of Compounds.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, edited by R. Lieber and P. Štekauer, 34–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bloomfeld, L. 1933. Language. London: George Allen & Unwin. Booij, G. 1996. “Inherent vs. Contextual Infection and the Split Morphology Hypothesis.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, edited by G. Booij and J. van Marle, 1–16. Kluwer: Dordrecht. Booij, G. 2007. The Grammar of Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buenafuentes de la Mata, C. 2007. “Procesos de gramaticalización y lexicalización en la formación de compuestos en español.” PhD diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. Chomsky, N. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, edited by R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell. Contreras, H. 1985. “Spanish Exocentric Compounds.” In Current Issues in Hispanic Phonology and Morphology, edited by F. H. Nuessel, 14–27. Bloomington: Indiana University, Linguistics Club. Coseriu, E. 1978. Gramática, semántica, universales: Estudios de lingüística funcional. Madrid: Gredos. Darmesteter, A. 1874. Traité de la formation des mots composés. Paris: E. Buillon. de Bustos Gisbert, E. 1986. La composición nominal en español. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Fabb, N. 1998. “Compouding.” In The Handbook of Morphology, edited by A. Spencer and A. Zwicky, 66–83. Oxford: Blackwell. Fábregas, A. 2013. La morfología: El análisis de la palabra compleja. Madrid: Síntesis. Felíu, E. 2009. “Palabras con estructura interna.” In Panorama de la lexicología, edited by E. de Miguel, 51–81. Barcelona: Ariel. Foster, D. W. 1976. “Exocentric N[NN] Nouns in Spanish.” Orbis 25: 44–75. García Lozano, F. J. 1993. “Los compuestos de sustantivo+adjetivo del tipo pelirrojo.” In La formación de palabras, edited by Soledad Varela, 205–14. Madrid: Taurus. García-Page, M. 2011. “Hombre clave, hombre rana, ¿un mismo fenómeno?” Verba: Anuario galego de floloxía 38: 127–70. Gràcia, Lluïsa. 2002. “La composició.” In Introducció: Fonètica i fonologia. Morfologia. Vol. 1 of Gramàtica del català contemporani, edited by J. Solà, M. R. Lloret, J. Mascaró, and M. Pérez Saldanya, 777–829. Barcelona: Empúries. Greenberg, J. 1966. Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hale, K. L., and J. S. Keyser. 1993. “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by K. L. Hale and J. S. Keyser, 53–108. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

301

Cristina Buenafuentes de la Mata

Hinojo, G. 2001. “Cazadotes: ¿latino o románico?.” In Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filología Románica, edited by F. Sánchez Miret, 357–70. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Kornfeld, M. 2009. “IE, Romance: Spanish.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, edited by R. Lieber and P. Štekauer, 436–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lang, M. F. 1992. Formación de palabras en español. Madrid: Cátedra. Lieber, R. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lieber, R., and S. Scalise. 2006. “The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a New Theoretical Universe.” Lingue e Linguaggio 1: 7–32. Lorenzo, E. 1995. “La derivación nominal en español actual.” Donaire 4: 35–41. Marqueta, B. 2019. “El perfl semántico de los compuestos del español: compuestos léxicos y compuestos formados por aposición.” Pragmalingüística 27: 133–44. Moyna, M. I. 2011. Compound Words in Spanish: Theory and History. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Piera, C., and S. Varela. 1999. “Relaciones entre morfología y sintaxis.” In Entre la Oración y el Discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4367–422. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Rainer, F., and S. Varela. 1992. “Compounding in Spanish.” Rivista di Linguistica 4 (1): 97–116. Ralli, A., and M. Andreou. 2012. “Revisiting Exocentricity in Compounding: Evidence from Greek and Cypriot.” In Current Issues in Morphological Theory: (Ir)regularity, Analogy and Frequency, edited by F. Kiefer, M. Ladányi, and P. Siptár, 65–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Roeper, T., and M. Siegel. 1978. “A Lexical Transformation for Verbal Compounds.” Linguistic Inquiry 9: 199–260. Sánchez López, C. 2003. “La relación de posesión inalienable en los compuestos.” In Estudios ofrecidos a José Jesús de Bustos Tovar, edited by J. L. Girón Alconchel, S. Iglesias Recuero, F. Javier Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga, and A. Narbona, 157–70. Madrid: Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad Complutense. Scalise, S. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Scalise, S., and A. Fábregas. 2010. “The Head in Compounding.” In Cross-Disciplinary Issues in Compounding, edited by S. Scalise and I. Vogel, 109–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Scalise, S., A. Fábregas, and F. Forza. 2009. “Exocentricity in Compounding.” Gengo Kenkyu 135: 49–84. Scalise, S., and E. Guevara. 2006. “Exocentric Compounding in a Typological Framework.” Lingue e Linguaggio 2: 185–206. Selkirk, E. O. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Spencer, A. 2005. “Word-Formation and Syntax.” In Handbook of Word Formation, edited by P. Štekauer and R. Lieber, 73–97. Dordrecht: Springer. Val Álvaro, J. F. 1999. “La composición.” In Entre la Oración y el Discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4757–841. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Varela, S. 1992. Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis. Williams, E. 1981. “On the Notions ‘Lexically Related’ and ‘Head of a Word’.” Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245–74.

302

21 The diachrony of Spanish compounding María Irene MoynaThe diachrony of Spanish compounding

(Diacronía de la composición en español)

María Irene Moyna

1 Introduction This chapter reviews the evolution of compounding patterns in Spanish. First, it presents the conceptual and temporal bounds of the process by defning the patterns considered, delimiting the timeframe, and discussing methodological and theoretical issues. It then ofers an overview of the main compounding trends and traces their evolution in terms of frequency, productivity, and structural changes. It shows the relative stability of compounding over time, both in terms of constituents and output lexical categories. It also demonstrates that the relative frequencies of compounding patterns have changed considerably as a consequence of shifts in productivity. The most general observation is an increase in the frequency of head-initial at the expense of head-fnal patterns. The evolution in the meanings of individual compound words is also analysed in terms of semantic narrowing, extension, and metaphoric and metonymic changes. While some shifts in meaning follow predictable paths (e.g., from concrete to abstract), they are by no means systematic. Analytical and theoretical questions raised by the evolution of compounding include the possible reasons for the inversion in the order of compound constituents and the structural changes that have allowed some compounds to defy general trends. Keywords: language change; compounding; constituent order; semantic shift Este capítulo repasa la evolución de los patrones de composición en español. Primero, se presentan los límites conceptuales y temporales del proceso, defniendo los patrones que se consideran en el resto del trabajo, acotándolo temporalmente y discutiendo temas metodológicos y teóricos. Después, se brinda un panorama de las principales tendencias en composición y de su evolución en términos de frecuencia, productividad y cambios en el tiempo. Se muestra la relativa estabilidad de la composición, en lo que tiene que ver con los tipos de constituyentes y en las categorías léxicas resultantes. Asimismo, se demuestra que las frecuencias relativas de los patrones compositivos han cambiado bastante como resultado de modifcaciones en la productividad. En general, se observa un aumento en la frecuencia de compuestos con núcleo inicial a expensas de los de núcleo fnal. La evolución del signifcado de los compuestos también se analiza en términos de extensión o restricción semántica y de cambios metafóricos y metonímicos. 303

María Irene Moyna

Mientras que algunos cambios de signifcado siguen trayectos predecibles (por ejemplo, de lo concreto a lo abstracto), no son para nada sistemáticos. Entre los temas analíticos y teóricos que surgen de estudiar la evolución de los compuestos se incluyen las posibles razones para la inversión en el orden de los constituyentes y los cambios estructurales internos que han permitido que algunos compuestos violen las tendencias generales. Palabras clave: cambio lingüístico; composición; orden de constituyentes; cambio semántico

2 Overview of compounding history 2.1 Introduction: defning compounding In the Hispanic linguistics tradition, compounding (see also Buenafuentes this volume) has been defned as the creation of a lexeme on the basis of pre-existing lexemes (Diez 1973 [1874]; Real Academia Española’s Esbozo 1986), but in fact, most authors recognise explicitly or implicitly that Spanish compounds may combine free words as well as bound stems (ojialegre ‘happy-eyed’, lit. ‘eye-happy’ cf. ojo; vs. cuatroojos ‘bespectacled person’, lit. ‘four-eyes’) (Alemany Bolufer 1920, 155; Bello 1928, 24; Meyer-Lübke 1923 [1895], 625). In the Spanish tradition, there is some hesitation about the status of phrasal compounds (compuestos sintagmáticos), which have the same surface structure as syntactic phrases but are used to denote a stable entity. In this chapter, the term compound will be restricted to polymorphemic words made up of lexical, not functional, constituents (Fabb 1998). Consequently, it covers the history of complex lexemes made up of nominal, verbal, adjectival, adverbial constituents and a small class of prepositions and quantifers (i.e., lexical prepositions and numeral quantifers, cf. Moyna 2011, 15–24). This restriction makes sense descriptively and theoretically, because it limits compounding to lexemes created through patterns with predictable form/meaning relationships. Compare, for example, a word such as matarratas ‘rat poison’, lit. ‘rat-killer’, which is transparent semantically due to the interpretation of the [V+N]N structure as an agentive nominal, with one such as correveidile ‘rumor monger’, lit. ‘run-go-and-tell-him/her’, which exhibits no discernible regular pattern to aid in its interpretation and is therefore structurally idiosyncratic, semantically opaque, and, in the current defnition, not a compound but a syntactic freeze (Miller 1993, 93). One consequence of restricting compounding to lexical categories is that the phrasal structure N+prep+N (e.g., dulce de leche ‘caramel’, lit. ‘sweet of milk’ is excluded from consideration, while semantically identical parallel structures without a preposition are included [e.g., dulceleche ‘id.’]). While this is not a generally upheld distinction (Buenafuentes de la Mata 2007; Bustos Gisbert 1986; Lang 1990; Rainer 1993, Chapter 3; Val Álvaro 1999), it won’t be justifed further due to space constraints; the interested reader is directed to Moyna (2011, 38) for further clarifcation. Over history, the study of Spanish compounding has focused most often on its synchronic aspects (Guevara 2012; Rainer 1993; Rainer and Varela 1992; Val Álvaro 1999, among others). In fact, the same could be said of compounding generally: diachronic accounts tend to be the exception rather than the rule (but see Hatcher 1951; Kastovsky 2009; Miller 2014, Chapter 3). Diachronic accounts of Spanish compounding tend to be narrowly focused on a few salient types. Thus, for example, Lloyd (1968) ofers a thorough account of [V+N]N compounds (quemacocos ‘sun roof ’, lit. ‘burn-coconuts [heads]’), which allows him to outline the main semantic categories of lexemes created with this pattern. His central hypothesis suggests that [V+N]N compounds started life as naming devices (personal epithets, toponyms) and were co-opted to generate common nouns. While this hypothesis has not been universally accepted (Bork 1990; Moyna 2011), several descriptive aspects have been corroborated, including the semantic classes of lexemes 304

The diachrony of Spanish compounding

created through deployment of [V+N]N. For his part, Bork (1990) feshes out the diachronic picture of deverbal nominal compounds with a pan-Romance perspective, documenting lexical and semantic parallels across several languages. Another type of compounding that has commanded attention is the [N+V]V pattern (captener ‘conserve, protect’, lit. ‘head-keep’), which includes deverbal adjectives and nouns (e.g., cabopreso ‘contained, surrounded’, lit. ‘top-held’, captenencia ‘care, protection’, lit. ‘head-maintenance’). These right-headed compounds have been studied extensively in Western Romance, especially Provençal, Occitan, and Catalan, as well as Spanish (Klingebiel 1986, 1988, 1989). Finally, accounts with a broader scope, which attempt to cover compounding more holistically, include Moyna (2011) and Buenafuentes de la Mata (2007) (cf. also Buchi and Chauveau 2015). Moyna (2011), which is quoted extensively in this chapter, is an overview of all major compounding patterns, aimed at identifying overall trends and linking them to other linguistic properties. Its focus is mainly on morphosyntactic properties (i.e., constituent types, internal structure, combinatorial rules) and their evolution. For its part, the primary focus of Buenafuentes de la Mata (2007) is the semantic evolution of compounding, while dialectal variation in Latin American Spanish has also received some attention (Buenafuentes de la Mata 2017).

2.2 Finding compounds in historical sources The main reason for the dearth of historical treatments of compounding is the difculty in culling examples reliably from historical sources. Because of the low textual density of compounding and the impossibility of searching for recurring character strings—as one can do when searching for afxes—the main source of information comes from dictionaries. As a result, critical attention must be paid to spelling variants and explicit or implicit inclusion criteria (Moyna 2011, Chapter  3). Spanish historical dictionaries vary greatly in terms of their stylistic and temporal coverage and in their reliability. For example, the Léxico hispánico primitivo (siglos VIII al XII), which is virtually the only lexicographical compilation for the early periods (700–1099), is explicitly presented as preliminary (Menéndez Pidal et al. 2003, XVIII et passim). Alonzo Pedraz’s (1986) Diccionario medieval español has been faulted for its inconsistent spelling criteria and unsophisticated analysis (Dworkin 1994). The Diccionario de la prosa castellana de Alfonso X el sabio (Kasten and Nitti 2002) is exhaustive but narrow in historical and textual scope, covering only Alfonsine documents between 1254 and 1284. A historical dictionary such as the Vocabulario romance en latín (Nebrija 1973 [1495]), constructed by a contemporaneous lexicographer, captures native speaker intuitions but is heavily infuenced by Latin, thus adding a further confounding element (Guerrero Ramos 1995, 147). Consequently, caution is needed when including a compound in a historical database, and multiple sources, including textual and lexicographical databases, must be employed for verifcation. The second complication in the historical research of compounding is the impossibility of relying on native speaker intuitions to discern whether a two-word sequence was a single lexeme at the time it was written. This problem is more acute than when studying other wordformation processes, so that an array of semantic, orthographic, morpho-lexical, and syntactic criteria must be combined. Meaning has traditionally been adduced as the hallmark of compounding in the Spanish literature (Alemany Bolufer 1920; Buenafuentes de la Mata 2007; Bustos Gisbert 1986, 112–14; Lang 1990; Rainer 1993), and it is indirectly endorsed in any data collection method based on the use of dictionaries. Indeed, many endocentric compounds are created to name a subset of their head and later become narrower in denotation, thus requiring a dictionary defnition (e.g., mal vivir ‘to live badly’ > malvivir ‘to scrape a living, to live in indigence’). However, it is also possible for complex forms with specialised meaning to exhibit behaviour not compatible with 305

María Irene Moyna

compounding. For example, caña azucarera ‘sugarcane’, whose [N+A]N structure is compatible with compounding and which has a dictionary entry refective of its stable meaning, can in fact undergo head deletion under coordination (caña y remolacha azucareras ‘sugarcane and sugar beet’, lit. ‘cane and beet + sugarADJ’). It is not, then, a compound in the usual defnition. Given the limitations of semantics, additional criteria must be used in tandem with it. For example, orthography can help ascertain compound status, insofar as it refects prosody. A frequent trait of compounds is the de-stressing of one constituent in English (Bloomfeld 1933, 89–90; Chomsky and Halle 1968) and to a lesser extent in Spanish (Hualde 2006–2007; Rao 2015). For earlier periods, unitary spelling can ofer prosodic clues. However, de-stressing is not systematic, does not apply to all compound patterns equally, and, more importantly, is not always represented reliably through orthography, thus complicating historical research (Nevalainen 1999, 407–8). In Spanish historical texts, scribal alternations and inconsistencies abound (e.g., gallocresta vs. gallo cresta ‘wild clary’, lit. ‘rooster comb’). In other words, although unitary spelling provides circumstantial evidence of compound status, is doesn’t sufce by itself to unequivocally prove it. For a complex lexical item to be considered a compound, it is necessary for the constituents to exist independently of the combination (e.g., arcoiris < arco + iris ‘rainbow’, lit. ‘bow + iris’). Ascertaining this in synchrony is relatively unproblematic, but in diachrony, issues often arise. For example, zabalmedina ‘type of magistrate’, lit. chief of the city’ (< Ar. çahib almedina) is made up of two borrowings combined following an Arabic pattern, but it is not a Spanish compound, because neither çahib nor medina was borrowed separately, making it unlikely that its internal complexity would be discernible to Hispano-Romance speakers. Note moreover that the requirement for independent existence of constituents must be modifed in Spanish to account for combining forms, that is, bare stems lacking their word class marker (Harris 1991) (avutarda ‘bustard’, lit. ‘bird-slow’; maniatar ‘tie by the hand’, lit. ‘hand-tie’; patitieso ‘fabbergasted’, lit. ‘foot-stif’, cf. av-e, man-o, pat-a). In fact, the presence of such bare forms is the most unequivocal evidence of compound status in historical documents. If morphological form provides no defnitive evidence of compounding, syntactic distributional features can be considered. For example, if a [V+N] phrase appears in an unambiguously nominal slot, its compound status is clear, regardless of spelling (cf. vn alfaneque . . . . que llamauan pica fgo ‘a falcon . . . they used to call pick+fg’ [1386, Pero López de Ayala, CORDE] vs. un picafgo o cualquiera otro pajarito ‘a pick+fg or any other little bird’ [1913, Emilia Pardo Bazán, CORDE]). When phrases and compounds share the same lexical class (e.g., [la[hierba]N [buena]A]NP]DP ‘good herb’ vs. [la[[hierbabuena]N]NP]DP ‘mint’) and thus the same distributional properties, additional tests are needed to assess the degree of constituent fxity and inseparability. Such tests must be based entirely on the written record, operationalised through wildcard searches of digital databases.

2.3 Compounding chronology, frequency, and productivity With the application of the criteria described previously, it is possible to create a list of historical compounds for structural and semantic analysis. An important consideration for diachronic study is accurate dating, including frst and last attestations (Moyna 2011, 83–85). While the use of dictionaries as primary sources limits the sample to lexicalised compounds, rather than the spontaneous one-of creations (hapax legomena) that are the hallmark of productive processes (Baayen and Lieber 1991), dictionaries also provide a faithful representation of the recurrent deployment of compounding patterns over time. It is these patterns, rather than individual compounds, that hold the most interest for historical morphology. 306

The diachrony of Spanish compounding

To establish measures of pattern frequency, one must decide what the comparison group is. Comparing the total number of compounds created with a given pattern in consecutive periods can be misleading, since diferences may be simply due to fuctuations in the overall database size. An alternative that normalises frequencies is to compare compounds created with one pattern against all compounds for the same period. This method ascertains diferences in relative pattern frequency as a fraction of the total over time, thus allowing for the comparison between periods. By contrast, measuring productivity requires comparing new compounds with a pattern in a given period against those carried over from the previous period and those that are no longer attested (for details, Moyna 2011, 85–87). The next section illustrates the main fndings on the structural evolution of Spanish compounding that can be discerned through the application of these methods.

3 Empirical aspects: Spanish compounding over time 3.1 The origins of Spanish compounding Spanish compounding shares most features with the rest of the Romance languages, as one might expect, given its Latin roots. In Latin, compounding was infrequent, restricted to neologistic creations within specialised texts (archaic, poetic, legal), and often infuenced by Greek models (Brucale 2012, 94). The low frequency of compounding in the parent language is refected in the modest presence of lexeme-based word formation in Spanish, a fact which has remained true throughout the language’s history and which is responsible for its scarce treatment in most diachronic accounts (Alvar and Pottier 1983; Lapesa 1980; Lloyd 1987; Penny 1991). Typically, Latin compounds were not made up of fully infected free forms but of bound stems that had undergone phonological and morphological processes (vowel reductions, shortenings, etc.) (magn-animus ‘great-hearted’ < magnus ‘great’ + animus ‘mind, soul, heart’). By contrast, lexicalised syntagmatic combinations were not typically considered compounds, even though they shared several features with them (atomicity, semantic specialisation) (e.g., res publica ‘the common wealth, state, republic’ < res ‘thing’ + publica ‘public’) (Brucale 2012, 96). These syntagmatic complex formations tend to constitute the basis of compounding patterns in Romance, while the bound morphemes used in Latin compounds were typically reanalysed as afxes (e.g., -ifer- < L. ferre ‘to carry’). In Latin, the input categories most likely to participate in compounding include nominal, adjectival, and verbal stems. The outputs, for their part, tend to be nominal, adjectival, and verbal, in that order. Compound nouns and adjectives exhibit a number of possible semantico-syntactic combinations, while verbs are restricted to fewer possibilities. The same limitations tend to be true of Romance in general and of Spanish in particular.

3.2 Evolution of compounding patterns in Spanish Spanish compounding has remained remarkably stable in over a millennium of documented history. In other words, most patterns we can fnd today have structural antecedents in the earliest documented periods (Table 21.1). Nominal compounds represent six out of the eight most frequent patterns ([V+N]N, [N+N]N, [N+A]N, [N+N]N, [A+N]N, [N+N]N) and constitute over three quarters (77.9%) of all compounds over time. Adjectival compounds area a distant second: they include the remaining two highly frequent patterns ([N+A]A, [A+A]A) and almost one in fve compounds (19.6%). Verbal compounding is vanishingly infrequent and is responsible for under 3% of all 307

María Irene Moyna Table 21.1 First and latest attestations of each Spanish compound pattern Totals (Overall %)

1000–1200

1900+

Major patterns [V+N]N

961 (27.8)

cubrepán (c. 1196)

revientapisos (S) (1989)

[N+N]N

404 (11.7)

capiscol (1150)

pez globo (2002)

[N+A]N

396 (11.5)

batallam campalem (ad 1100)

tiro libre (1977)

[N+N]N

327 (9.5)

campidoctoris (1090)

videoportero (2002)

[N+A]A

287 (8.3)

sanguinemixto (LHP) (1056)

puntiseco (S) (1978)

[A+N]N

233 (6.8)

falso testimonio (950–1000)

séptimo arte (1923)

[A+A]A

195 (5.7)

sacrosanto (1046)

rojiverde (1986)

[N+N]N

182 (5.3)

abecé (1236)

disco-pub (1983)

[Adv+A]A

144 (4.2)

malfechor (1097)

maldurmiente (1970)

[N+A]A (deverbal)

62 (1.8)

mampuesto (1146)

gallegohablante (1993)

Minor patterns

[Adv+V]V

55 (1.6)

bien fer (LHP) (1085–1109)

malperder (S) (1990)

[Q+N]N

47 (1.4)

quatro tanto (1196)

sietemachos (1995)

[Adv+N]N

46 (1.3)

benedictione (867–1043)

malcriadez (1954)

[N+N]N (deverbal)

45 (1.3)

animadversionis (1098)

drogodependencia (1981)

[N+V]V

37 (1.1)

captenere (c. 1020–1076)

radiodifundir (1970)

[V+V]N

30 (0.9)

dexaprén (ad 1275)

picaraña (S) (1977)

Source: Moyna (2011) N.B.: Earliest attestations are from CORDE, and latest attestations are from CORDE/CREA unless otherwise specifed. S  =  Seco et al.; LHP  =  Léxico Hispánico Primitivo. Original orthography has been retained; the head constituent is bolded.

attested compounds. In terms of overall constituent structure, compound headedness—the position of the head constituent with respect to the non-head—is more evenly split. The four head-initial patterns ([V+N]N, [N+N]N, [N+A]N, [Q+N]N) are responsible for half of all compounds (52.4%), while head-fnal patterns ([N+N]N, [Adv+N]N, [A+N]N, [N+A]A, [Adv+A]A, [Adv+V]V, [N+V]V) account for 35.9%, and concatenative compounds ([A+A]A, [N+N]N, [V+V]N), whose two constituents are of the same hierarchy, account for a little over one tenth (11.9%). Diferences between periods are not related to the possible structures but rather to the frequency with which patterns are deployed to create novel lexemes. In that respect, Spanish compounding does exhibit fuctuations (Figure 21.1). For example, relative frequencies of compounding by lexical category (N, A, V) vary over time. While nominal compounds have always been more frequent, their overall share has increased by almost 15% over time. This growth has come at the expense of both adjectival and verbal compounds, which have dropped by one third and almost threefold, respectively. The diachronic shifts in constituent order are even more spectacular and potentially of greater theoretical import (Figure 21.2). Hierarchical compounds have shifted head position from fnal to initial. While head-fnal compounds account for two thirds of all compounds at the start of the period considered, they are overtaken by head-initial patterns around 1500, and by the 2000s they are down to one third of the total. This decrease is compatible with an overall shift from head-fnal to head-initial structures in the passage from Latin to Hispano Romance 308

The diachrony of Spanish compounding

Figure 21.1

Relative frequency of compounds by lexical class over time (1000s–2000s)

Source: Data from Moyna (2011)

Figure 21.2 Relative frequency of compounds by headedness over time (1000s–2000s) Source: Moyna (2011)

(Hinojo-Andrés 1988). By contrast, head-initial patterns represent slightly over one third of all compounds at frst, but their numbers grow, peaking in the 1800s, and stabilising at around 50% by the end of the period considered. For their part, concatenative (non-hierarchical) compounds grow steadily, more than doubling in total frequency (from 5.4% to 12.4%) (Moyna 2018). If we consider individual compounding patterns over time, three distinct scenarios emerge. Some patterns exhibit changes comparable to the fate of others with the same headedness properties. Thus, for example, six minor head-fnal patterns, namely [Adv+V]V, [N+V]V, and their adjectival and nominal derivatives, decrease in relative frequency virtually in tandem (Figure  21.3). On the other hand, the increase in head-initial compounding frequency 309

María Irene Moyna

accompanies the growth or stability of two individual patterns, while a third pattern ([Q+N]N) remains negligible throughout (Figure 21.4). Another scenario is presented by patterns with no discernible relative changes in frequency over time. For example, compounds with nominal and adjectival constituents ([N+A]N and [A+N]N) do not behave like their respective classes: the head-initial [N+A]N does not increase

Figure 21.3 Relative frequency of decreasing head-fnal compounds over time (1000s–2000s) Source: Moyna (2011, 261)

Figure 21.4 Relative frequency of head-initial compounds over time (1000s–2000s) Source: Moyna (2011, 262)

310

The diachrony of Spanish compounding

overall or relative to the head-fnal [A+N]N. In fact, while they exhibit fuctuations, their relative frequencies remain relatively unchanged (Figure 21.5). Indeed, the head-initial pattern has always been at least twice as frequent as its head-fnal counterpart, with the diference ranging between 16.9% points (in the 1400s) and 8.9% (in the 2000s). The last possible scenario is presented by head-fnal compounding patterns that buck the overall trend for their headedness type (Figure  21.6). These patterns exhibit an increase in relative frequency, rather than mirroring the overall drop seen in Figure 21.3. Their bursts of growth are not simultaneous, however, hinting that they are fuelled by diferent processes. For [N+A]A compounds, the growth trend starts in the 1400s and stretches for two centuries, after

Figure 21.5 Comparison of relative frequencies of head-initial [N+A]N and head-fnal [A+N]N compounds over time (1000s–2000s) Source: Data from Moyna (2011, 265)

Figure 21.6

Relative frequency of increasing head-fnal compounds over time (1000s–2000s) 311

María Irene Moyna

which it sags slightly. By contrast, the rise in head-fnal [N+N]N compounds starts in the 1800s and continues into the present. At frst sight, this appears to contradict the preference for head-initial compounding, but upon closer inspection, these new compounds have special structural properties that make them compatible with the new constituent order. Indeed, the preposed non-heads appear increasingly in stem form, without a word class marker. This distinguishes these non-heads structurally from preposed heads, which are almost categorically full lexemes (cf. head-initial caradura ‘shameless person’, lit. ‘face-hard’ vs. carilindo ‘handsome’, lit. ‘face-pretty’). There is a close connection between the increasingly frequency of preposed stem non-heads and the increase in head-fnal compounds that exhibit those types of non-head constituents (Moyna 2011, 267–69). In other words, both the combinatorial rules of compounding and the structural features of constituents have evolved over time, and these changes are not independent of each other.

3.3 Illustration: evolution of the [V+N]N pattern While presenting the history of all compounding patterns exceeds the objectives of this brief summary, it is worth considering at least one example, to illustrate how morphosyntactic processes interact over time to generate novel compounds. For the purposes of this discussion, we will focus on exocentric [V+N]N, compounding, a pattern that has commanded by far the most attention in the diachronic literature (Lloyd 1968; Bork 1990), mainly because its current productivity is at odds with the marginal status of the antecedent pattern in Latin. In fact, only a handful of [V+N]N compounds have been documented in Classical Latin (e.g., uertipedium ‘sacred plant’, lit. ‘turn-feet’), which is not surprising, considering that the headcomplement structure is at odds with its head-fnal structure (Bader 1962, 143–44). This has led some to propose that [V+N]N compounds were developed independently in the daughter languages (Diez 1973 [1874], 630), which seems unlikely considering that [V+N]N compounds appeared across several Romance languages simultaneously, in similar semantic felds, and often to name the same items (Bork 1990). An alternative proposal suggests that the [V+N]N pattern must have been more frequent in vulgar Latin, probably through infuence of Greek word formation (Bork 1990, Chapter 5). This could have provided a pattern well aligned with the shift from head-fnal to head-initial syntax in the passage from Latin to Romance. One notable feature of [V+N]N compounds is their steady increase in frequency (Figure 21.4), from a modest 3.2% in the earliest period analysed to virtually one third of all compounds today. This is the result of the pattern’s productivity over the entire time lapse considered, especially between the 15th and 16th centuries and after the 1900s (cf. Table 21.2, where a productivity ratio of 0.5 means one new compound created for every compound carried over from earlier). Over its history, the [V+N]N compounding pattern has also exhibited a high degree of structural stability: these compounds always combine a verb with its complement to form a noun with agentive or instrumental meaning. The verb invariably appears as a stem with its theme vowel, preceding its complement (e.g., quebrantahuesos ‘vulture’, lit. ‘break-bones’). In terms of argument features, the verb must be transitive (matarratas ‘rat poison’, lit. ‘kill-rats’) or unergative, provided the location appears in complement position (correcalles ‘hopscotch’, lit. ‘run-streets’). Finally, unaccusative verbs are interpreted as having undergone causativisation (tardanaos ‘remora’, lit. ‘delay-vessels’, cf. tardar ‘to take long’). The second constituent is a noun (over 99% of the time), which appears in bare lexical form, devoid of determiners; isolated exceptions tend to be adverbs (catalejos ‘binoculars’, lit. ‘see-far’). The nominal constituent often appears with a fnal -s, which may indicate plurality (e.g., guardajoyas ‘jewel cabinet’, lit.

312

The diachrony of Spanish compounding Table 21.2 Productivity of [V+N]N compounds by century Carried over

Lost

New

Total

Productivity

1200s

2

(0)

9

11

NA

1300s

11

(3)

11

19

0.42

1400s

19

(2)

58

75

0.75

1500s

75

(9)

103

169

0.56

1600s

169

(12)

80

237

0.29

1700s

237

(41)

96

292

0.19

1800s

292

(17)

187

462

0.37

1900–2000s

462

(40)

415

837

0.45

Source: Moyna (2011, 207)

‘keep-jewels’) or act as an aspectual (habitual) mark for the entire predicate (e.g., guardalodos ‘mud-guard’, lit. ‘guard-muds’). Diachronic changes in the structure of [V+N]N compounds typically afect phonetic features. For example, if the nominal starts with a vowel, it can merge with the verbal theme vowel (e.g., traga + aldabas > tragaldabas ‘glutton’, lit. ‘swallow-door-knockers’). The -s marker may also undergo changes over time, most often loss (escarbadientes ‘toothpick’, lit. ‘pick-teeth’ [1578] > escarbadiente ‘id.’ lit. ‘pick-tooth’ [1960]), as the plural of the nominal constituent is reinterpreted as pertaining to the entire compound. However, the data are ambiguous, since some compounds are attested without fnal -s before they are attested with it (tapaboca [1587] > tapabocas [1820–1823]). A small subset of early deverbal compounds have the verb in fnal position ([N+V]N, e.g., gatatumba ‘simulation’, lit. ‘cat-topple’), which suggests that the current order was the result of an inversion of verb and complement. This infrequent type has refexes in other Western Romance languages (Cat. camalliga/lligacama ‘garter’, lit. ‘leg-bind’) (Klingebiel 1988, 1994) but is currently unproductive in Spanish.

3.4 Compounding and semantic change It is now worth considering whether semantic changes in individual compounds follow predictable paths. This is a reasonable assumption, given that once compounds are created, they are likely to behave like most lexemes and undergo meaning shifts (Penny 1991, Chapter 5). A frequent shift involves the abstract interpretation of a previously concrete lexeme. Thus, for example, the earliest uses of peliagudo ‘lit. hair + pointy’ are in fact literal (carne . . . . peliaguda ‘bristly meat’ [1542], forros peliagudos ‘hairy covers’ [1624]). Later, as an attribute applied to humans, the compound is ambiguous between a literal and fgurative meanings (todos eran peliagudos y narigudos ‘they were all hairy? wily? and big-nosed’). This ofers a transitional point to unambiguously abstract meanings (negocios . . . peliagudos ‘complicated afairs’ [1787]) (Moyna 2011, 145). It has been proposed that compound meaning changes generally can be accounted for through predictable metaphoric and metonymic processes (Buenafuentes de la Mata 2007). For example, constituents may name an entity metonymically after some habitual action (chupafor ‘hummingbird’, lit. ‘suck + fower’). Or the meaning of one or both compound constituents may undergo shifts such as personifcation (e.g., sauce llorón ‘weeping willow’, where a plant is personifed through a human attribute). An important proviso, however, is that there is often no

313

María Irene Moyna

diachronic evidence that fgurative meanings are preceded by literal meanings. In other words, many compounds are born fgurative (e.g., matacaballos ‘strong drug’, lit. ‘kill-horses’), with no evidence that semantic ontogeny recapitulates a putative diachronic phylogeny. One feature that distinguishes compounds from simplex words is that their complex origin may in fact impose constraints to their semantic shifts. For example, [V+N]N compounds with the verbs guardar ‘to guard, to keep’ and portar ‘to carry, to hold’ are extremely unlikely to accrue fgurative meanings (guardabarro ‘mud-guard’, lit. ‘guard-mud’, portavasos ‘coaster’, lit. ‘hold-glasses’) or drift away from the concrete instrumental meaning (see Rainer this volume, for semantics of compounds with guardar). Meanwhile, other equally common verbs, such as matar ‘to kill’, ofer a range of possible meanings, from the literal (matarratas ‘rat poison’, lit. ‘killrats’) to the fgurative (matasellos ‘rubber stamp’, lit. ‘kill-stamps’, matacandiles ‘candle snufer’, lit ‘kill-candles’). Sometimes the entire compound is to be understood fguratively (matasanos ‘quack’, lit. ‘kill-healthy people’), often following semantic paths that are impossible to reconstruct without etymological information (e.g., matasuegras ‘party whistle’, lit. ‘kill-mothers-inlaw’) (Moyna 2011, 211).

4 Future directions and conclusions As should be clear from this chapter, much remains to be done to advance the study of compounding history in Spanish and in the Romance family more generally. As additional lexicographical sources are published, they may be mined to increase the accuracy of our descriptions for certain periods of interest. For example, Nieto Jiménez and Alvar Ezquerra’s (2007) 11-volume Nuevo Tesoro Lexicográfco del Español (s. XIV-1726) would shed light on Spanish after national unifcation and colonial expansion, a period of great lexical creativity. So far, Latin American varieties have only been studied through the Diccionario de Americanismos (Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española 2010) (Buenafuentes de la Mata 2017), but many additional lexicographical sources can be added, both diachronic (Harris-Northall and Nitti 2003) and synchronic (Academia Argentina de Letras 2003; Academia Nacional de Letras del Uruguay 2011; Chuchuy 2000; Company and Melis 2002; Lara 1996, to name a few). Special consideration should be given to contact areas such as the United States (Moreno Fernández 2018), since compound interpretation is not immune to transfer efects and borrowing at the individual level (Garza de González 2014), and this may very well have an efect on compounding lexicogenesis. Filling these gaps in knowledge would provide a more accurate picture of compounding in one of the best-documented languages in the world and thus advance the diachronic study of word formation more generally.

References Academia Argentina de Letras. 2003. Diccionario del habla de los argentinos. Mexico: Espasa-Calpe Mexicana. Academia Nacional de Letras. 2011. Diccionario del español del Uruguay. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental. Alemany Bolufer, J. 1920. Tratado de la formación de palabras en la lengua castellana. Madrid: Librería General de Victoriano Suárez. Alonzo Pedraz, M. 1986. Diccionario medieval español: Desde las Glosas emilianenses y silenses (s. X) hasta el siglo XV. Salamanca: Universidad Pontifcia de Salamanca. Alvar, M., and B. Pottier. 1983. Morfología histórica del español. Madrid: Gredos. Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2010. Diccionario de americanismos. Lima: Santillana. Baayen, R. H., and R. Lieber. 1991. “Productivity and English Derivation: A Corpus Based Study.” Linguistics 29: 801–43. 314

The diachrony of Spanish compounding

Bader, F. 1962. La formation des composés nominaux du latin. Paris: Éditions “Les Belles Lettres.” Bello, A. 1928. Gramática de la lengua castellana destinada al uso de los americanos, 23rd ed. Paris: A. Blot. Bloomfeld, L. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Hold & Co. Bork, H. D. 1990. Die lateinisch-romanischen Zusammensetzungen N + V und der Ursprung der romanischen Verb-Ergänzung-Komposita. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. Brucale, L. 2012. “Latin Compounds.” Probus 24 (1): 93–117. Buchi, É., and J. P. Chauveau. 2015. “From Latin to Romance.” In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (Volume 3), edited by P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, and F. Rainer, 1931–57. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. Buenafuentes de la Mata, C. 2007. “Procesos de gramaticalización y lexicalización en la formación de compuestos en español.” Unpublished PhD diss., Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. Buenafuentes de la Mata, C. 2017. “Morfología léxica, variación lingüística y lexicografía: La composición léxica nominal en el Diccionario de Americanismos.” Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 94 (7): 677–96. Bustos Gisbert, E. de. 1986. La composición nominal en español. Salamanca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Salamanca. Chomsky, N., and M. Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York and London: Harper & Row. Chuchuy, C. 2000. Diccionario del español de Argentina. Madrid: Gredos. Company, C., and Ch. Melis. 2002. Léxico histórico del español de México. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Diez, F. 1973 [1874]. Grammaire des langues romanes. Geneva and Marseille: Slatkine & Laftte. Dworkin, S. 1994. “Progress in Medieval Spanish Lexicography.” Romance Philology 47: 406–25. Fabb, N. 1998. “Compounding.” In The Handbook of Morphology, edited by A. Spencer and A. Zwicky, 66–83. Oxford: Blackwell. Garza de González, P. 2014. “The Interpretation of N+N and V+N Spanish Compounds by Heritage Speakers.” Unpublished PhD diss., Texas A&M University, College Station. Guerrero Ramos, G. 1995. El léxico del Diccionario (1492) y en el Vocabulario (¿1495?) de Nebrija. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla, Ayuntamiento de Lebrija. Guevara, E. 2012. “Spanish Compounds.” Probus 24 (1): 175–95. Harris, J. 1991. “The Exponence of Gender in Spanish.” Linguistic Inquiry 22: 27–62. Harris-Northall, R., and J. Nitti, eds. 2003. Peter Boyd-Bowman’s Léxico hispanoamericano 1493–1993. New York: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies. Hatcher, A. G. 1951. Modern English Word-Formation and Neo-Latin: A Study of the Origins of English (French, Italian, German) Copulative Compounds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Hinojo-Andrés, G. 1988. “Del orden de las palabras en castellano medieval.” In Actas del I Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española, edited by M. Ariza, A. Salvador, and A. Viudas, 435–48. Madrid: Arco Libros. Hualde, J. I. 2006–2007. “Stress Removal and Stress Addition in Spanish.” Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 5 (2)–6 (1): 59–89. Kasten, L., and J. Nitti. 2002. Diccionario de la prosa castellana de Alfonso X el Sabio. New York: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies. Kastovsky, D. 2009. “Diachronic Perspectives.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, edited by R. Lieber and P. Štekauer, 323–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klingebiel, K. 1986. “Les noms composés et la dérivation en français et en provençal: Hommage à Antoine Thomas.” Romania 107: 433–58. Klingebiel, K. 1988. “New Compounds from the Old: An Unexpected Source of Verb + Noun Compounds in Romance.” In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society—General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization, edited by Sh. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, and H. Singmaster, 88–99. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Klingebiel, K. 1989. Noun + Verb Compounding in Western Romance. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Klingebiel, K. 1994. “Nominal Compounding in the Occitan Dialects: Infuences from French (with an Inventory of Occitan Compound Types).” In The Changing Voices of Europe: Social and Political 315

María Irene Moyna

Changes and Their Linguistic Repercussions, Past, Present, and Future, edited by M. Parry, W. Davies, and R. Temple, 141–53. Cardif: University of Wales, Modern Humanities Research Association. Lang, M. 1990. Spanish Word Formation: Productive Derivational Morphology in the Modern Lexis. London and New York: Routledge. Lapesa, R. 1980. Historia de la lengua española. Madrid: Gredos. Lara, L. F. 1996. Diccionario del español usual en México. Mexico: Colegio de México. Lloyd, P. 1968. Verb-Complement Compounds in Spanish. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Lloyd, P. 1987. From Latin to Spanish. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Menéndez Pidal, R., R. Lapesa, M. Seco, and C. García. 2003. Léxico hispánico primitivo (siglos VIII al XII). Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Meyer-Lübke, W. 1923 [1895]. Grammaire des langues romanes. Leipzig: Stechert. Miller, D. G. 1993. Complex Verb Formation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Miller, D. G. 2014. English Lexicogenesis. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Moreno-Fernández, F. 2018. Diccionario de anglicismos del español estadounidense. Informes del Observatorio. Cambridge, MA: Instituto Cervantes at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University. Moyna, M. I. 2011. Compound Words in Spanish: Theory and History. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Moyna, M. I. 2018. “The History of Concatenative Compounds in Spanish.” In Studies in Historical IberoRomance Morpho-Syntax, edited by M. Bouzouita, I. Sitaridou, and E. Pato, 47–74. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nebrija, A. de. 1973 [1495]. Vocabulario romance en latín: Transcripción crítica de la edición revisada por el autor (Sevilla, 1516). Edited by G. J. MacDonald. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Nevalainen, T. 1999. “Early Modern English Lexis and Semantics.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language: Early Modern English 1476–1776 (Volume 3), edited by R. Lass, 332–458. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nieto Jiménez, L., and M. Alvar Ezquerra. 2007. Nuevo Tesoro Lexicográfco del Español (s. XIV-1726). Madrid: Arco Libros. Penny, R. 1991. A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rainer, F. 1993. Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Rainer, F., and S. Varela. 1992. “Compounding in Spanish.” Rivista di Linguistica 4: 117–42. Rao, R. 2015. “On the Phonological Status of Spanish Compound Words.” Word Structure 8 (1): 84–118. Real Academia Española. 1986. Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Real Academia Española: Banco de datos (CORDE) [en línea]. “Corpus diacrónico del español.” www. rae.es. Val Álvaro, J. F. 1999. “La composición.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4757–841. Madrid: Espasa.

316

22 Blending and truncation Francesc Torres-TamaritBlending and truncation

(Cruces léxicos y truncamiento)

Francesc Torres-Tamarit

1 Introduction Word-formation processes such as infection, derivation and compounding typically involve morpheme concatenation. Other kinds of morphological processes are not (only) concatenative but are instead constrained by prosodic principles that determine their phonological output. Morphological processes of this sort are termed prosodic morphology (McCarthy and Prince 1986), because the phonological shape of the output is determined by the categories imposed by the prosodic hierarchy (syllables, metrical feet and prosodic words). Prosodic morphology typically comprises infxation, truncation and reduplication. In Spanish, two processes are clear instances of prosodic morphology: blending and truncation. This chapter focuses on these two word-formation processes (including truncated hypocoristics) and approaches the phenomena from the perspective of Generalized Template Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999; McCarthy 2000), which combines the premises of prosodic morphology with Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993 [2004]) and Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1995). Keywords: blending; hycoporistic; prosodic morphology; recursion; truncation Los procesos de formación de palabras como los procesos de infexión, derivación y composición se basan generalmente en la concatenación de morfemas. Otros tipos de proceso morfológico no son (únicamente) concatenativos, sino que están sometidos a condicionantes prosódicos que determinan la forma fonológica del output del proceso morfológico. Este tipo de procesos morfológicos recibe el nombre de Morfología Prosódica (McCarthy and Prince 1986), ya que la forma fonológica del output está determinada por las categorías que impone la Jerarquía Prosódica (sílabas, pies métricos y palabras prosódicas). Los procesos que se asocian normalmente a la Morfología Prosódica son los de interfjación, truncamiento y reduplicación. En español, los procesos de cruce léxico y el truncamiento son ejemplos claros de Morfología Prosódica. Este capítulo se centra en estos dos procesos de formación de palabras (incluyendo los hipocorísticos truncados) desde la perspectiva de la teoría Generalized Template Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999; McCarthy 2000), la cual combina las premisas de la Morfología Prosódica con la Teoría de la Optimidad (Prince and Smolensky 1993 [2004]) y la Teoría de la Correspondencia (McCarthy and Prince 1995). Palabras clave: cruce léxico; hipocorístico; morfología prosódica; recursión; truncamiento 317

Francesc Torres-Tamarit

2 Theoretical framework Generalized Template Theory (GTT) (McCarthy and Prince 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999; McCarthy 2000) shares with prosodic morphology (McCarthy and Prince 1986) the fundamental tenet according to which (i) templates (i.e. prosodic constraints on specifc morphemes), (ii) circumscription domains (i.e. prosodically determined domains of process application) and (iii) canonical-shape forms are defned in terms of the categories of the prosodic hierarchy up to the prosodic word (ω), which includes the syllable (σ) and the metrical foot (Ft), as illustrated in (1). (1) Prosodic hierarchy up to the prosodic word (Nespor and Vogel 1986; Itô and Mester 2003) ω | Ft | σ Syllables correspond to the most embedded unit of prosodic structure and organize segments around a nucleus, the most sonorous segment (Parker 2011). According to moraic theory (Hyman 1985; McCarthy and Prince 1986), the most widespread theory of syllable structure, syllables directly dominate onset consonants, on the one hand, and moras, on the other, the skeletal units that express both quantity and weight distinctions. The main generalizations of moraic theory are that (i) light syllables are monomoraic (syllables containing a short vowel and no coda consonant in all languages), and (ii) heavy syllables are bimoraic (syllables containing a long vowel in all languages and syllables closed by a coda consonant in some languages but not in others). In this theory of the prosodic skeleton, moras have a dual role: they express the distinction between light and heavy syllables, and they also represent phonological positions, because long segments are doubly linked to two moras. Syllable structure in moraic theory can thus be represented as in (2). (2) Syllable structure in moraic theory a. light syllable 

b. heavy syllable 

µ

µ

C

V

C

V

c. light or heavy syllable 

µ

µ C

V

C

C

 µ

µ

V

C

Feet are the next higher category of the prosodic hierarchy and commonly defne the domain for stress assignment and some segmental and tonal phenomena. Feet can be either left headed (i.e. trochees) or right headed (i.e. iambs) and either quantity sensitive or quantity insensitive. The foot types illustrated in (3) are those that are recognized by Metrical Stress Theory (Hayes 1995). Parentheses indicate foot boundaries, and moras appear as subscripts at the right of syllables. Trochaic feet can be either quantity insensitive (binary at the syllabic level) or quantity sensitive (binary at the moraic level). Right-headed feet are only of the quantity-sensitive type and also include the uneven iamb, in which the dependent syllable is light and monomoraic, while the head syllable is heavy and bimoraic. The fact that uneven trochees are excluded from the typology of feet stems from the Iambic/Trochaic Law (Bolton 1894; Woodrow 1909),

318

Blending and truncation

according to which only elements that contrast in duration form natural groupings with fnal prominence, while only elements that contrast in intensity form natural groupings with initial prominence. In the next section, we will argue in favor of internally layered, minimally recursive feet. (3) Foot types according to Metrical Stress Theory (Hayes 1995; Kager 2007) well-formed degenerate syllabic trochee ('σσ) ('σ) ('σμ) moraic trochee ('σμσμ) ('σμμ) ('σμ) iamb (σμ'σμ) ('σμμ) (σμ'σμμ) The next higher category in the prosodic hierarchy is the prosodic word, a prosodic domain for the application of a wide range of tonal and segmental phenomena, such as vowel harmony. As opposed to syllables and feet, which can be referred to as rhythmic categories, prosodic words, together with all other higher-ordered prosodic categories (i.e. phonological phrases, intonational phrases and utterances), are considered interface categories. This is because these categories emerge from the need to satisfy syntax-phonology interface constraints, as put forward in Match Theory (Selkirk 2011). Syntax-phonology interface constraints require lexical words to map into prosodic words and syntactic maximal projections to map into phonological phrases. A crucial notion in prosodic morphology and GTT is the minimal word. The minimal word is not a primitive category of the prosodic hierarchy but follows from independently motivated principles of prosodic organization. Due to the principle of headedness, a necessary property of well-formed prosodic trees, a prosodic word must immediately dominate at least one foot, which is the category that occupies the next lower level in the prosodic hierarchy. Given that feet are canonically binary (at either the syllabic or the moraic level of representation), the smallest or minimal well-formed prosodic word is the one that is equivalent to the size of an acceptable foot (usually a non-degenerate, binary foot). Prosodic words containing a foot plus one or more syllables not parsed into feet (incurring violations of the constraint Parse-σ), or prosodic words containing more than one foot (incurring violations of foot alignment constraints), can therefore not be considered minimal words. In their analysis of reduplication in Diyari (Pama-Nyungan, Australia), McCarthy and Prince (1994) noted that the shape of the reduplicative morpheme corresponds to the smallest allowable word in the language, that is to say, a minimal word. The paper argues that no prosodic template (i.e. morpheme-specifc structural constraint) is required to derive the shape of the reduplicative morpheme in Diyari, which follows instead from (i) its being a stem and the requirement that morphological stems match prosodic words [e.g. by satisfying a syntax-phonology interface constraint, for instance, Match(Stem, ω)] and (ii) from specifc constraints on prosodic structure, namely size, parsing and alignment constraints. These constraints are called prosodic word-restrictors (PWRs) in McCarthy and Prince (1994) and are defned in (4). When all these constraints are satisfed, a form with a canonical shape, a minimal word, emerges. (4) PWRs (taken from McCarthy 2008) a. Foot-Binarity Assign one violation mark for every foot that does not contain at least two moras or syllables.

319

Francesc Torres-Tamarit

b. Parse-σ Assign one violation mark for every unfooted syllable. c. Align-Left/Right(Ft, ω) Assign one violation mark for every foot that is not aligned with the left/right edge of a prosodic word. After McCarthy and Prince (1994), Benua (1995) extended the correspondence-based model of reduplication put forward by McCarthy and Prince (1995) to account for truncation. The GTT model of truncation proposed in Benua (1995) assumes two kinds of correspondence relations: input-to-base (IB) correspondence and base-to-truncate (BT) correspondence. These correspondence relations are regulated by IB-faithfulness and BT-faithfulness constraints, respectively. Alber and Arndt-Lappe (2012) have further argued in favor of a third correspondence relation between inputs and truncates (IT). All in all, Benua’s model of truncation within GTT assumes that truncation reduces bases to the size of minimal words and that minimal words emerge from the satisfaction of independently needed constraints on prosodic structure. For Spanish, we will see that besides PWRs, the foot form constraint Trochee, requiring feet to be left-headed, is also satisfed in truncated forms. In fact, if a base exhibiting fnal stress is already disyllabic and cannot be further truncated, stress is just shifted to the frst syllable in compliance with the constraint Trochee (e.g. Jose ← José, Miguel ← Miguel). This chapter is organized as follows. Section 3 describes and analyzes several truncation strategies afecting mostly nouns and personal names in Spanish which yield either single truncated morphs or what will be analyzed as truncate-based prosodic compounds exhibiting unbalanced recursion of the prosodic word. In this section, we will also describe a variant of the same truncation process that yields trisyllabic forms and propose an analysis of these truncated forms as minimal words containing a single internally layered foot (Martínez-Paricio and Torres-Tamarit 2019). Section 4 briefy describes the patterns observed in Spanish blends, which form a heterogeneous group of forms that include truncated forms that combine with a non-reduced base (i.e. some kind of prosodic prefxation), prosodic compounds derived from concatenating usually non-freestanding truncated forms, telescopes and portmanteaus (see Piñeros 2004 for a fullfedged OT analysis of portmanteaus in Colombian Spanish). Section 5 concludes the chapter.

3 Truncation Alber and Arndt-Lappe (2012) establish the constraint ranking schema in (5) necessary to derive truncation in GTT. The faithfulness constraint IO-Max needs to dominate PWR, a cover constraint for PWR constraints, in order to prevent truncation happening in outputs derived from inputs, meaning underlying representations. Truncation is achieved by ranking PWR above the faithfulness constraint BT-Max, which assigns a violation mark for every segment in the base, a fully fedged output form, that has no correspondent in the truncated form. (5) GTT ranking schema for truncation IO-Max >> PWR >> BT-Max

3.1 Disyllabic truncation The most common pattern observed in Spanish truncation corresponds to disyllabic forms with initial stress that preserve the left portion of the base (i.e. left-anchored truncated 320

Blending and truncation

forms). Some examples are given in (6). Most truncated forms are nouns, but adjectives can also be truncated, as well as phrases headed by function words. Truncated nouns inherit the gender (masculine or feminine) of the base (e.g. el cole ‘the school’, la poli ‘the police’) and can most of the time receive number infection (e.g. los nicas ‘the Nicaraguans’, son muy depres ‘They are very depressive’). Personal names are also extremely common targets of truncation. Truncated forms generally denote a certain degree of familiarity and usually belong to colloquial registers of the language, although some truncated forms have completely or partially replaced their corresponding full-length bases. From now on, in all orthographic examples, stressed syllables are indicated in boldface in those cases in which stress is not indicated by a graphic accent according to the Spanish orthographic norm. Throughout this chapter, data sources are always indicated. Sources are Boyd-Bowman (1955), abbreviated as (BB55); Casado Velarde (1999), abbreviated as (CV99); Piñeros (2000a, 2000b, 2004), abbreviated as (P00a), (P00b) and (P04), respectively; Felíu (2001), abbreviated as (F01) and MartínezParicio and Torres-Tamarit (2019), abbreviated as (MT19). If there is no source, Google results are given instead. (6) Left-anchored, initially stressed disyllabic truncated forms a. Non-hypocoristics (CV99) capi capitán, capital ‘captain, capital’ cole colegio ‘school’ depre depresión, depresivo ‘depression, depressive’ nica nicaragüense ‘Nicaraguan’ poli policía ‘police’ progre progresista ‘progressive’ repe repetido ‘repeated’ ridi ridículo ‘ridiculous’ porfa por favor ‘please’ mepa me parece ‘it seems to me’ b. Hypocoristics Boni Cristi Dani Elvi Javi Jose Leo Loli Magda Manu Pili Rafa

Bonifacio Cristina Daniel Elvira Javier Josefa Leocadia Manuela, Dolores Magdalena Manuel Pilar Rafael

(CV99) (P00a) (P00b) (P00b) (P00b) (P00b) (P00b) (CV99) (CV99) (P00b) (CV99) (CV99)

All the truncated forms illustrated in (6) end in a vowel. This vowel corresponds sometimes to a glide in the output of the base (e.g. Dani ← [da'njel], Javi ← [χa'βjeɾ], Manu ← [ma'nwel]) and other times to a high front vowel that does not correspond to any vowel in the base and looks like a desinential vowel (e.g. Lol-i, Pil-i). Syllables in the truncated form can be onsetless (e.g. Elvi, Leo) and have coda consonants (e.g. porfa, Cristi, Elvi, 321

Francesc Torres-Tamarit

Magda). Sometimes a coda consonant in the base is deleted in the truncated form (e.g. Davi ← David, compi ← compinche ‘sidekick’, dire ← director ‘director’, neura ← neurasténico ‘neurasthenic’). From examples like Cristi, it is reasonable to claim that a closed syllable in initial position cannot count as heavy (i.e. bimoraic) and be parsed into its own foot [e.g. (Cris)ti], as this would leave the last syllable of the truncated form unparsed, in contravention of the minimal word hypothesis according to which truncated forms are minimal words. Positing an internally layered foot [e.g. ((El)Ftvi)Ft] (see section  3.2) for forms with an initial closed syllable followed by an open syllable must also be excluded, as truncated forms with two closed syllables are also possible in Spanish [e.g. Arman ← Armando (P00b), Fernan ← Fernando]. Truncated forms from like (i) fácul ← facultad ‘University Faculty’, díver ← divertido ‘fun’, preven ← prevención ‘prevention’ (CV99) and \(ii) Jesu(s) ← Jesús, Rica(r) ← Ricardo, Rodo(l) ← Rodolfo (P00b), with optional deletion of the last coda consonant, clearly show that disyllabic truncated forms in Spanish are equivalent to quantity-insensitive, syllabic trochees. Therefore, coda consonants in truncated forms do not contribute a mora. In order to establish which portion of the base is preserved in truncated forms, Anchor constraints are usually invoked (Piñeros 2000a, 2000b; Alber and Arndt-Lappe 2012). A BTAnchor constraint encapsulates both faithfulness and alignment into the same constraint, as it requires that a segment at the left or right periphery of the base, which serves as the input for truncation, is in correspondence with a segment in the truncated form that preserves alignment at the designated edge. BT-Anchor constraints are formulated in (7). (7) BT-Anchor constraints a. BT-Anchor-Left Assign one violation mark for every segment at the left periphery of the base that has no correspondent at the left periphery of the truncated form. b. BT-Anchor-Right Assign one violation mark for every segment at the right periphery of the base that has no correspondent at the right periphery of the truncated form. In the tableau in (8), we illustrate the constraint ranking that derives left-anchored, disyllabic truncated forms. PWR constraints need to be satisfed. Candidate (e), the faithful candidate, with an unparsed syllable, fatally violates Parse-Syllable, one of the constraints under the cover constraint PWR. Candidate (d) satisfes PWR but violates BT-Contiguity, a constraint that requires the segments in the truncated form to stand in correspondence with a contiguous string in the base, thus avoiding skipping segments. The constraint BT-Contiguity is in fact violated in a less productive pattern of disyllabic truncation in Spanish that preserves both the left and the right edges of the base, specifcally the leftmost and rightmost syllables of the base [e.g. pana ← palangana, Barna ← Barcelona (CV99)]. Right-anchoring, as in candidate (c), is ruled out, because it violates BT-Anchor-Left. Candidate (b), containing an iambic foot, is also discarded because of its violation of Trochee. The most optimal candidate is candidate (a), the left-anchored, initially stressed disyllabic truncated form whose segments are arranged in such a way that they preserve contiguity with respect to the segments of the output. This candidate violates BT-Max three times because three segments from the base have been deleted. The tableau in (8) shows that PWR, BT-Contiguity, BT-Anchor-Left and Trochee dominate BT-Max.

322

Blending and truncation

(8) ('kole) ← ko('leχjo) B = ko('leχjo) a.  ('kole) b. (ko'le) c. ('leχjo) d. ('koχjo) e. ko('leχjo)

PWR

*W

BT-Contiguity

*W

BT-Anchor-Left *W

Trochee *W

BT-Max *** *** **L **L L

A second pattern observed in truncation corresponds to forms that preserve both the stressed syllable of the base and its right edge. This pattern is mostly observed in truncated hypocoristics in Latin American Spanish and is very marginal in non-hypocoristics. Some examples are provided in (9). (9) Right-anchored, initially stressed disyllabic truncated forms with stress preservation a. Non-hypocoristics chacho, chacha muchacho, muchacha (CV99) mano hermano (CV99) b. Hypocoristics Tobo Bela Berto Canda Polo Quino Mela Lupe Tino Tino

Aristóbulo Isabel Humberto Cándida Hipólito Joaquín Mélida Guadalupe Constantino, Celestino Valentín

(P00a) (P00a) (CV99) (P00a) (P00a) (P00a) (P00a) (CV99) (CV99) (P00a)

For ease of exposition, we make use of a constraint named BT-Anchor-Stress to account for the pattern of truncation illustrated in (9) (see Alber and Arndt-Lappe 2012 for arguments in favor of treating this constraint as a pure faithfulness constraint requiring preservation of the stressed syllable in the base as a stressed syllable in the truncated form rather than as an Anchor constraint). BT-Anchor-Stress is defned in (10). (10) BT-Anchor-Stress Assign one violation mark for every stressed syllable in the base that has no correspondent in the truncated form as a stressed syllable. The constraint BT-Anchor-Stress is not enough to account for all the forms in (9), as bases with antepenultimate stress demonstrate. In bases with stress on the third-to-last syllable, the posttonic vowel is not preserved in the truncated form, but rather the rightmost, infectional gender morph of the base (e.g. Canda, although Casado Velarde 1999 also gives Poli from Hipólito). Finally stressed bases ending in a consonant exhibit what can be referred to as morphological epenthesis, or the insertion of an infectional gender morph (-o or -a depending on the gender associated with the personal name) in order to meet foot binarity at the syllabic level (e.g. Quino ← Joaquín, Tino ← Valentín) (see Roca and Felíu 2002 for the role of gender

323

Francesc Torres-Tamarit

desinences in Spanish hypocoristic truncation). Casado Velarde (1999), however, also reports stress-anchored, monosyllabic truncated forms derived from fnally stressed bases ending in a consonant (e.g. Chus ← Jesús, Quin ← Joaquín, Tin ← Agustín) (for a detailed analysis of segmental changes in truncated hypocoristics, see Piñeros 2000b; Álvarez Sanz 2015). Monosyllabic truncated hypocoristics that preserve the left portion of the base are also attested in Spanish (e.g. Cris ← Cristina, Fer ← Fernando, Fran ← Francisco). Interestingly, however, monosyllabic CV truncated forms, without a coda consonant, are unattested in Spanish. This fact suggests that in monosyllabic CVC truncated forms, coda consonants project a mora in order to meet foot binarity at the moraic level. Monosyllabic truncated forms have been accounted for in Alber and Arndt-Lappe (2012) by making use of the constraint Coincide-'σ, which requires every output segment in the truncated form to be parsed into the stressed syllable, thus enforcing monosyllabicity. The tableau in (11) illustrates the evaluation of several output candidates against the constraint ranking responsible for deriving right-anchored truncated forms that preserve the stressed syllable of the base from a base displaying antepenultimate stress. A constraint against internally layered (IL) feet, that is to say, a constraint against minimal recursion at the level of feet (see section 3.2), is included to discard a candidate that preserves all syllables of the base from the stressed syllable to the last syllable, as in candidate (d). We assume that the base also contains an IL foot, which defnes the right-oriented three syllable window of Spanish stress. Candidates (c) and (b) are ruled out because of their respective violations of BT-Anchor-Stress and BTAnchor-Right. Candidate (a), the most harmonic candidate, violates both BT-Contiguity and BT-Max. The candidate without truncation, which would fatally violate PWR constraints, has not been included. (11) ('polo) ← i(('poli)to) B = i(('poli)to) a.  ('polo) b. ('poli) c. ('ipo) d. (('poli)to)

*ILFt

BTAnchor-Stress

*W

*W

BTAnchor-Right *W

BTContiguity * L L L

BT-Max *** *** ****W *L

The next subsection deals with a diferent pattern of truncation in Spanish that yields trisyllabic truncated forms, the analysis of which relies on IL feet.

3.2 Trisyllabic truncation Contrary to standard assumptions in metrical stress theory, in which feet are claimed to be maximally disyllabic, we adhere to the view that feet can be maximally trisyllabic as long as they arise via prosodic adjunction of an unstressed syllable to a preceding or following binary foot. What results from this operation of adjunction is a metrical confguration in which a minimal foot is immediately dominated by a maximal foot. Although IL feet were already proposed in pioneering work on foot structure in the early 80s and used seldom in analyses of particular languages, it has not been until recently that the IL foot has received careful attention, since Martínez-Paricio’s (2013) dissertation and subsequent work. IL feet are not recursive, since recursion is unbounded, but minimally layered: only a single foot can be dominated by another 324

Blending and truncation

foot via a process of adjunction. This restriction follows from two facts: (i) feet, as opposed to supra-feet prosodic categories, do not match syntactic categories, which can show unlimited recursion (and that is why prosodic words or phonological phrases can be recursive, as they match syntactic structure), and (ii) given the rhythmic defnition of a foot, feet can only have one unique head and therefore can only display unbalanced “recursion” [e.g. (σ(σσ)Ftmin)Ftmax) cf. balanced “recursion” *((σσ)Ftmin(σσ)Ftmin)Ftmax]. The IL foot is not a separate category from the “traditional” binary foot because both are targeted by the same processes, namely stress assignment, strengthening and weakening processes, tone association, truncation and so on. An IL amphibrach (weak-strong-weak) foot is illustrated in (12). 12)

IL amphibrach foot Ftmax Ftmin

Dep

Hd

Dep

Before describing the patterns of trisyllabic truncation observed in Spanish, consider how the shape of IL feet (i.e. anapests, amphibrachs and dactyls) can be derived. The position of the unstressed syllable that is directly dominated by the maximal foot is regulated by the alignment constraints in (13), and the position of the dependent syllable of the minimal foot is regulated by the foot form constraints Trochee and Iamb. (13) Alignment constraints on left and right adjunction of weak syllables to maximal feet a. Align-Left(Ftmin,σ,Ftmax) For every minimal foot Ftmin, assign one violation mark if some footed syllable intervenes between Ftmin and the left edge of its containing non-minimal foot Ftmax. b. Align-Right(Ftmin,σ,Ftmax) For every minimal foot Ftmin, assign one violation mark if some footed syllable intervenes between Ftmin and the right edge of its containing maximal foot Ftmax. The tableau in (14) illustrates the constraint ranking that derives amphibrachs, with left adjunction of an unstressed syllable to the maximal foot and a trochaic minimal foot. (14) Amphibrach IL foot σσσ

Align-Left (Ftmin,σ,Ftmax)

Trochee

a.  (σ('σσ)) *W

b. (σ(σ'σ)) c. (('σσ)σ)

*W

d. ((σ'σ)σ)

*W

*W

Iamb

Align-Right (Ftmin,σ,Ftmax)

*

*

*

L

L

*

L

L

For practical reasons, we assume a markedness constraint against IL feet, *ILFt, parallel to a constraint like No-Recursion (Itô and Mester 2013). Disyllabic truncation emerges if *ILFt dominates BT-Max (15a), and trisyllabic truncation emerges from the opposite ranking (15b). 325

Francesc Torres-Tamarit

Because IL feet are minimally “recursive” (this is a property of GEN, as discussed in MartínezParicio and Kager 2015), when PWR constraints dominate *ILFt, the upper bound on minimality is three syllables. (15) GTT ranking schema for truncation a. Disyllabic truncation IO-Max >> PWR >> BT-Max >> *ILFt b. Trisyllabic truncation IO-Max >> PWR >> *ILFt >> BT-Max The most productive pattern of trisyllabic truncation in Spanish yields left-anchored, IL amphibrach feet. The examples in (16a) belong to a pattern of truncation that targets nouns and further requires the insertion of the infectional gender morph -a (and marginally -o), even in masculine contexts, if the base also ends in a gender morph (either -o, -a or -e). Recall that in Spanish, the morph -a is typically associated with feminine contexts but is also a marked masculine morph, as in el poet-a ‘the poet’).1 If the base has no gender morph, however, the inserted morph in the truncated form is either -o, in masculine contexts, or -a, in feminine contexts. Other forms end in -i or -e, which correspond to an identical vowel found in the base. The same pattern is also found in hypocoristics derived from both simple (16b) and compound bases (16c). Truncated hypocoristics derived from simple bases also require the appearance of an infectional gender morph that usually corresponds to the one found in the base (e.g. Berene cf. Beliche). If the base has no gender morph, the unmarked morph is inserted (e.g. Leona, Resura). We have reported one case in which the truncated form has a fnal -i that corresponds to an identical vowel found in the base and belongs to a diminutive sufx (e.g. colegui) and two cases ending in a consonant that is also present in the base (e.g. Emeren, Estanis). Truncated hypocoristics derived from compound bases do not impose any requirement on morph insertion. The same is true for disyllabic truncated hypocoristics derived from compound bases (e.g. Juanjo, Juanra, Luismi). They usually end in a vowel, but this vowel always corresponds to a vowel found in the base, which is not the gender morph but a root vowel. It is important to highlight that the bases of trisyllabic truncated hypocoristics are not prosodic compounds, although they initially derive from two names. The name María José is always pronounced as [ma.ɾja.χo.'se], with a diphthong that is not found in the base of María, pronounced as [ma.'ɾi.a] with a stressed high vowel and a hiatus. The form [ma.ɾja.χo.'se] has only one stress, and the diphthong is preserved in the truncated form Mariajo but as a stressed syllable, [ma.'ɾja.χo]. (16) Left-anchored, penultimately stressed trisyllabic truncated forms a. Nouns + gender morph (F01) anarco anarquista ‘anarchist.masc’ anfeta anfetamina ‘amphetamine.fem’ colegui coleguilla ‘friend.masc’ camara camarero ‘waiter.masc’ estupa estupefaciente ‘narcotic.masc’ indepe independentista ‘pro-independence supporter.masc’ (not in F01) manifa manifestación ‘demonstration’ proleta proletario ‘proletarian’ sujeta sujetador ‘bra’ volunta voluntario ‘volunteer’ 326

Blending and truncation

b. Hypocoristics derived from single bases Bartolo Bartolomé.masc Beliche Belisario.masc Berene Berenice.fem Emeren Emerenciana.fem Encarna, Encarni Encarnación.fem Escola Escolástica.fem Estanis Estanislao.masc Margari Margarita.fem Leona Leonilde.fem Resura Resurrección.fem

(MT19) (BB55) (BB55) (MT19) (MT19) (BB55) (MT19) (MT19) (BB55) (BB55)

c. Hypocoristics derived from compound bases (MT19) Joselu José Luis José María Josema Joserra José Ramón Juandavi Juan David Juanmari Juan María Luismigue Luis Miguel Mariaje María Jesús Mariajo María José Mariate María Teresa Miguelan Miguel Ángel A second pattern of trisyllabic truncation that only afects personal names yields stress-anchored, IL feet with either amphibrach or anapest (weak-weak-strong) rhythm. Anapests derive from both left- and stress-anchoring, and only they derive from a truncate-based morphological compound. The examples in (17a) correspond to stress-anchored, IL amphibrach feet. They are also required to end in a gender morph, which triggers morphological epenthesis in those bases that lack one (e.g. Chabela). Trisyllabicity can also be the result of a process of reduplicative prefxation, as shown in (17b), a pattern that has also been found in Sardinian (Cabré, Torres-Tamarit and Vanrell, to appear) (e.g. Titina). Finally, (17c) exemplifes the pattern yielding anapest feet from both left- and stress-anchoring that derives from truncate-based compound bases. The fact that the base is a compound is clear from comparing a form like Mariajo, pronounced as [ma'ɾjaχo], and Marijó, pronounced as [maɾi'χo], with no [a]. Both the absence of [a] and fnal stress in Marijó become evident if the base of Marijó is not María José, pronounced as [maɾjaχo'se], a single prosodic word, but Mari Jose, pronounced as [maɾi'χose], a truncate-based morphological compound that is also attested independently. These data show that the process of truncation is a recursive morphological procedure, like afxation or compounding. If the second member of the truncate-based compound is monosyllabic (e.g. Maribel), the form cannot be truncated further. (17) Stress-anchored trisyllabic truncated hypocoristics a. Amphibrach feet (BB55) Talina Catalina Pelancha Esperanza Chabela Isabel Manolo Manuel Tunino Saturnino 327

Francesc Torres-Tamarit

b. Amphibrach feet with reduplicative prefxation (BB55) Titina Cristina Chichilo Cecilio Chichicha Francisca Mimiya, Mimía Edelmina Totoya Victoria c. Anapest feet (both stress- and left-anchored) (MT19) Marifé [maɾi'feli] María Felisa Marijó [maɾi'χose] María José Mariló [maɾi'lola] María Dolores Marité [maɾi'teτe] María Teresa Mariví [maɾi'βi] María Victoria [ana'βel] Ana Isabel [maɾi'βel] María Isabel [maɾi'lu(θ)] María de la Luz [maɾi'maτ] María del Mar [maɾi'fe] María de la Fe To sum up, only by assuming IL feet can we maintain the general assumption put forward by GTT that truncated forms maximally correspond to the size of a foot. We therefore claim that both disyllabic and trisyllabic truncated forms in Spanish correspond to minimal words. The next section is devoted to describing the diferent patterns observed in Spanish blends, which are also prosodically conditioned.

4 Blending Blending is a word-formation process that derives nouns (or adjectives) from merging two or more freestanding words through either truncation of one or more of the members from which the blended form derives and/or through (partial) overlapping of the members. Blending is a subtype of compounding as blended forms are made up of two or more words, although some of them (i.e. telescopes and portmanteaus) are phonologically restricted in that the output of blending must be a single prosodic word. Like compounds, they are not hyponyms of one of their members. Semantically, blends mean the product of two amalgamated entities, like in portuñol, a mixture of Portuguese and Spanish languages. Blends are neologisms that result from playful language use and are also common in the language of advertising. In this section, we briefy describe the patterns observed in Spanish blends, which have not received much attention in the literature (except for portmanteaus; see Piñeros 2004; Trommer and Zimmermann 2010). The classifcation proposed here takes into account the prosodic features of the blended constituents. One class of blends correspond to disyllabic truncated forms that precede a nontruncated base creating a prosodic compound that exhibits unbalanced recursion of the prosodic word, as illustrated in (18) for a word like ecoturismo ‘ecotourism’ (CV99) (the same structure can be attributed to truncate-based compounds like [maɾi'χose]). The first member of the prosodic compound always corresponds to a well-formed, disyllabic foot. We propose that this foot is adjoined via recursion to a maximal prosodic word, of which it is the dependent.

328

Blending and truncation

(18) Unbalanced recursion of the prosodic word

Were the foot of the frst member attached to its own prosodic word, being its head, a confguration exhibiting balance recursion of the prosodic word would emerge (e.g. *[[eco]ωmin[turismo]ωmin]ωmax). We claim that such a confguration exists for some Spanish compounds (e.g. [[hombre]ωmin[rana]ωmin]ωmax ‘frogman’). In forms like hombre-rana, both members of the prosodic compound receive a pitch accent, which justifes the fact that each member of the compound is parsed into its own prosodic word, as the domain for pitch accent assignment is the prosodic word (see Hualde 2009, who also assigns two prosodic words to the hombre-rana type of compounds in Spanish). In words like ecoturismo, however, there is no pitch accent associated with the frst member of the blend. This follows easily from the fact that the domain for pitch accent assignment is not the foot but the prosodic word and that prosodic words only license a single pitch accent, which will prefer to associate with the minimal word, that is, the head of the maximal prosodic word and not its dependent, the initial foot. Although the frst member of the blend does not receive a pitch accent, it must at least constitute a foot, because it is always disyllabic.2 More examples of this type of blend appear in (19). Finally, it must be noted that the order of the blended members is not that commonly found in syntactic phrases in Spanish. In blends, the modifying member precedes the semantic/syntactic head, as already noted in Piñeros (2004). The deleted portion of the base appears in between brackets in all examples. (19) Disyllabic truncated forms that combine with a non-truncated base (CV99) fotonovela foto ‘photograph’ + novela ‘novel’ narcoterrorismo narco ‘narcotrafc’ + terrorismo ‘terrorism’ euroelecciones euro ‘European’ + elecciones ‘elections’ petromonarca petró ‘oil’ + monarca ‘monarch’ publirreportaje publi ‘advertising’ + reportaje ‘news report’ A second class of blends in Spanish corresponds to prosodic compounds derived from two truncated forms. Each member of the blend is exactly two syllables long, or a CVC monosyllable, equivalent to the size of minimal words. The frst member of the blend is left-anchored with respect to its base, and the second member is stress- (or right-) anchored. Some examples appear in (20). (20) Prosodic compounds derived from truncated forms (CV99) eurocracia euro ‘European’ + cracia ‘bureaucracy’ teleñeco tele ‘television’ + ñeco ‘puppet’ cibernauta ciber ‘cybernetics’ + nauta ‘astronaut’ secrefata secre ‘secretary’ + fata ‘stewardess’ portuñol portu ‘Portuguese’ + ñol ‘Spanish’ We argue that these two types of blends are prosodic compounds, because either the frst member of the blend (19) or both members (20) are guided by a foot prosodic template. The 329

Francesc Torres-Tamarit

frst member in both types of blends always corresponds to a foot that adjoins to a recursive prosodic word. This can be seen as the result of the requirement that prosodic words can only immediately dominate one foot (note that Spanish has no iterative stress). Therefore, forms like teleñeco are parallel to those hypocoristics derived from two truncated bases, like Mari Jose ← María José, which we also analyze as prosodic compounds showing unbalanced recursion of the prosodic word (e.g. [(maɾi)Ft[('χose)Ft]ωmin]ωmax). Two other types of blends have also been identifed in Spanish, referred to as telescopes and portmanteaus in Piñeros (2004). Some examples are given in (21). As opposed to the blends in (19) and (20), which are prosodic compounds showing unbalanced recursion of the prosodic word, both telescopes and portmanteaus are assigned a single prosodic word. No foot template is involved in them, so there is no need to adjoin any member of the blend into a higher recursive category. In telescopes (21a), on the one hand, two words are confated through the overlapping of those syllables located at the peripheries of the two bases, that is, the right edge of the frst member and the left edge of the second member. In order for these two syllables to overlap, they must be identical or at least share the same vowel or onset consonant (e.g. cuernacionales). Some telescopes also show truncation of the syllables located at word peripheries, which makes it possible for overlapping syllables to be adjacent, a necessary requirement for the formation of telescopes. The stressed syllable in telescopes always corresponds to the stressed syllable of the second member of the base (e.g. eurócrata). One of the overlapping syllables can be either the stressed syllable of the second member of the base (e.g. eurócrata) or an unstressed syllable preceding the stressed syllable (e.g. muñecolate). Overlapping syllables appear underlined in (21). In portmanteaus (21b), on the other hand, the frst member of the base as a whole is merged into the prosodic structure of the second member, which is the semantic/syntactic head. Prosodic integration is achieved through overlapping, which requires identity among the vowels of overlapping syllables. In portmanteaus, as opposed to telescopes, the size of the blend equals the size of the second member of the base, and it is also the stress pattern of the second member that is retained. (21) Telescopes and portmanteaus a. Telescopes cuernacionales cuernos ‘horns’ + nacionales ‘national’ eurócrata euro ‘European’ + rócrata ‘bureaucrat’ golfemia golfe ‘street life’ + hemia ‘bohemian lifestyle’ muñecolate muñeco ‘doll’ + colate ‘chocolate’ plastillera plásti ‘plastic’ + pillera ‘burlap’ b. Portmanteaus burrocracia dedocracia locombia mosqueperros pechonalidad

burro ‘idiot’ + burocracia ‘bureaucracy’ (73,500 Google results, retrieved on 21/12/2019) dedo ‘fnger’ + democracia ‘democracy’ loco ‘crazy’ + Colombia mosquetero ‘musketeer’ + perros ‘dogs’ pecho ‘woman’s chest’ + personalidad ‘personality’

(P04) (CV99) (CV99) (CV99) (CV99)

(P04) (P04) (P04) (P04)

5 Conclusions In this chapter, we have aimed at providing a unifed description and prosodic analysis of blending and truncation in Spanish, two instances of prosodic morphology. We have either presented 330

Blending and truncation

or suggested analyses of hypocoristic truncation in Spanish based on internally layered feet and the notion of minimal word as an emergent property of the grammar. These analyses contribute to the growing body of work on internally layered feet from the domain of the phonologymorphology interface. We have also described several patterns observed in Spanish blends that give support to prosodic compounding showing unbalanced recursion of the prosodic word. Finally, both telescopes and portmanteaus, two specifc types of blends, further show that syllable overlapping is the strategy used to achieve integration of two independent prosodic words into a single prosodic word, which can be longer than the longer member of the base in the case of telescopes but shorter than the sum of syllables of both members or the same size as the semantic/syntactic head in the case of portmanteaus.

Notes 1 Felíu (2001) has argued that -aca and -ata sufxation in Spanish (e.g. pant-aca ‘trousers’, soci-ata ‘socialist’) is also prosodically conditioned and yields trisyllabic forms. However, four-syllable forms like orden-ata ‘computer’ and segur-ata ‘security man’ are attested (author’s observation). 2 Not only does the head syllable of the foot corresponding to the frst member of the blend not receive a pitch accent, but it is not even stressed. Besides disyllabicity, positing a foot fnds independent evidence from single-prosodic word morphological compounds in Catalan (e.g. r[e]ntaplats ‘washing-machine’ cf. *r[ə]ntaplats), in which the frst member of the compound, although being unstressed, does not undergo vowel reduction (Nadeu 2016 and references cited therein). This fact can only be accounted for if the frst member of the compound is parsed into its own foot, as we have shown in (18) for Spanish blends.

References Alber, B., and S. Arndt-Lappe. 2012. “Templatic and Subtractive Truncation.” In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, edited by Jochen Trommer, 289–325. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Álvarez Sanz, J. 2015. “The Phonology and Morphology of Spanish Hypocoristics.” MA diss., UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø. Benua, L. 1995. “Identity Efects in Morphological Truncation.” In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, 77–136. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts. Bolton, T. 1894. “Rhythm.” American Journal of Psychology 6 (2): 145–238. Boyd-Bowman, P. 1955. “Cómo Obra la Fonética Infantil en la Formación de los Hipocorísticos.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 4: 337–66. Cabré, T., F. Torres-Tamarit, and M. del M. Vanrell. To appear. “Hypocoristic Truncation in Sardinian.” Linguistics. Casado Velarde, M. 1999. “Otros Procesos Morfológicos: Acortamientos, Formación de Siglas y Acrónimos.” In Gramática Descritiva de la Lengua Española, edited by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 5075–96. Madrid: RAE-Espasa. Felíu, E. 2001. “Output Constraints on Two Spanish Word-Creation Processes.” Linguistics 39 (5): 871–91. Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hualde, J. I. 2009. “Unstressed Words in Spanish.” Language Sciences 31 (2–3): 199–212. Hyman, L. M. 1985. A Theory of Phonological Weight. Dordrecht: Foris. Itô, J., and A. Mester. 2003. “Weak Layering and Word Binarity.” In A New Century of Phonology and Phonological Theory, edited by Takeru Honma, Masao Okazaki, Toshiyuki Tabata, and Shin-ichi Tanaka, 26–65. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Itô, J., and A. Mester. 2013. “Prosodic Subcategories in Japanese.” Lingua 124: 20–40. Kager, R. 2007. “Feet and Metrical Stress.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, edited by Paul de Lacy, 195–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 331

Francesc Torres-Tamarit

Martínez-Paricio, V. 2013. “An Exploration of Minimal and Maximal Metrical Feet.” PhD diss., UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø. Martínez-Paricio, V., and R. Kager. 2015. “The Binary-to-Ternary Rhythmic Continuum in Stress Typology.” Phonology 32 (3): 459–504. Martínez-Paricio, V., and F. Torres-Tamarit. 2019. “Trisyllabic Hypocoristics in Spanish and Layered Feet.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37 (2): 659–91. McCarthy, J. J. 2000. “Faithfulness and Prosodic Circumscription.” In Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition, edited by Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw, and Jeroen van de Weijer, 151–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCarthy, J. J. 2008. Optimality Theory: Applying Theory to Data. Malden: Blackwell. McCarthy, J. J., and A. Prince. 1986. “Prosodic Morphology.” Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Brandeis University, Waltham. McCarthy, J. J., and A. Prince. 1993. “Prosodic Morphology: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction.” Ms., Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, New Brunswick. McCarthy, J. J., and A. Prince. 1994. “The Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology.” In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 24, edited by Mercè Gonzàlez, 333–79. Amherst: GLSA Publications. McCarthy, J. J., and A. Prince. 1995. “Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity.” In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, edited by Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA Publications. McCarthy, J. J., and A. Prince. 1999. “Faithfulness and Identity in Prosodic Morphology.” In The ProsodyMorphology Interface, edited by René Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Zonneveld, 218–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nadeu, M. 2016. “Phonetic and Phonological Vowel Reduction in Central Catalan.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 46 (1): 33–60. Nespor, M., and I. Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Parker, S. 2011. “Sonority.” In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, edited by Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, 1160–84. Oxford: Blackwell. Piñeros, C. E. 2000a. “Foot-Sensitive Word Minimization in Spanish.” Probus 12 (2): 291–324. Piñeros, C. E. 2000b. “Prosodic and Segmental Unmarkedness in Spanish Truncation.” Linguistics 38 (1): 63–98. Piñeros, C. E. 2004. “The Creation of Portmanteaus in the Extragrammatical Morphology of Spanish.” Probus 16 (2): 203–40. Prince, A., and P. Smolensky. 1993. “Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar.” Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick and University of Colorado, Boulder [Published in 2004, Oxford: Blackwell]. Roca, I., and E. Felíu. 2002. “Morphology in Truncation: The Role of the Spanish Desinence.” In Yearbook of Morphology 2002, edited by Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 187–243. Great Britain: Kluger Academic Publishers. Selkirk, E. 2011. “The Syntax-Phonology Interface.” In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, edited by John Goldsmith, 435–85. Oxford: Blackwell. Trommer, J., and E. Zimmermann. 2010. “Portmanteaus as Generalized Templates.” Paper presented at the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, May 13–16. Woodrow, H. 1909. “A Quantitative Study of Rhythm.” Archives of Psychology 14: 1–66.

332

Part III

Morphology and its interfaces

23 Spanish morphology and the architecture of grammar Víctor Acedo-MatellánMorphology and architecture of grammar

(Morfología del español y arquitectura de la gramática)

Víctor Acedo-Matellán

1 Introduction This chapter deals with the nature of morphology and its position within the architecture of grammar—i.e., its relation to the other components of grammar: syntax and phonology. While this issue is by now a widely studied one, the aim of the chapter is to show how it is illuminated by evidence furnished from word-related phenomena particular to Spanish, like stem alternations or the position of the head in compounds. A secondary aim is to serve as an introduction to this part of the handbook, devoted to interface phenomena. First, the major theories of morphology are presented and classifed according to whether they commit to the idea of morphology as a grammatical component independent of syntax (section 2). The rest of the chapter examines two phenomena showcasing the tension between syntactically vs morphologically oriented theories (section 3) and between morphological vs phonological approaches (section 4). Section 5 concludes. Keywords: architecture of grammar; linguistic interface; phonology; Spanish morphology; syntax Este capítulo trata de la naturaleza de la morfología y del lugar que ocupa en la arquitectura gramatical—es decir, de su relación con los otros componentes de la gramática: la sintaxis y la fonología. Si bien es cierto que este asunto ha sido ya ampliamente estudiado, el objetivo del capítulo es mostrar cómo arroja luz sobre él la evidencia proporcionada por fenómenos relacionados con la palabra que son particulares del español, como las alternancias de radical o la posición del núcleo en los compuestos. Un objetivo secundario es el de servir de introducción a esta parte del manual, dedicada a fenómenos de interfaz. Primero presento las teorías morfológicas más importantes, y las clasifco de acuerdo con si asumen la idea de que la morfología es un componente gramatical independiente de la sintaxis o no (sección 2). En el resto del capítulo examino dos fenómenos que muestran la tensión entre teorías orientadas a la sintaxis vs teorías orientadas a la morfología (sección 3) y entre abordajes morfológicos vs fonológicos (sección 4). Presento conclusiones en la sección 5. Palabras clave: arquitectura gramatical; fonología; interfaz lingüística; morfología del español; sintaxis

335

Víctor Acedo-Matellán

2 Theories and families of theories It is pretty uncontroversial that morphology deals with words, however defned, and that the word is the maximal unit of morphological analysis (Piera and Varela Ortega 1999; see Felíu this volume). However, it is still quite controversial how much of what we have to explain about words can be accounted for in terms of what we know about sentences (syntax) or what we know about the grammar of sounds (phonology). Relatedly, it is also debated whether we need some notion of morpheme or, on the contrary, we ought to actually abandon the morpheme as a theoretical tool of any utility. Sentences and, at least apparently, words show an internal structure composed of units endowed with meaning. Dependency relations found within the word are analogous to those found among words in the sentence, and some words, for instance, deverbal nouns like demostración ‘demonstration’, select other words by virtue of their internal structure. Having these facts in mind and applying Occam’s razor, it is natural to consider, as many scholars have done, the possibility that morphological phenomena be explained away via syntactic rules and principles. Whether that is possible is, without doubt, the most prominent debate in relation to the place of morphology within grammar. From that perspective, we can classify the theories of (Spanish) morphology primarily in those in which morphology is a grammatical component of its own, independent of syntax, and those that reduce all or almost all of morphology to syntax. I will refer to models of the former kind as Autonomous-Morphology (AM) models, and to those of the latter kind as Morphology-is-Syntax (MiS) models, although, as we will see, in some cases, it is not straightforward to establish the distinction—see Bosque (1983), Varela (2009).

2.1 Autonomous-Morphology models Traditional studies in Spanish morphology are, either explicitly or implicitly, of the AM type. For instance, Alemany Bolufer’s (1920) pioneering treaty on derivation and compounding just takes it for granted that the units and processes leading to the creation of new lexemes are to be described in isolation, as a system in itself. Similarly, Alarcos Llorach’s (1949) analysis of the Spanish verbal infexion simply treats forms as signs that enter oppositions, with no connection with syntax. Moreover, at this moment, the drive towards the formulation of universal principles underlying all languages was still timid, so the morphemic analyses developed by the American distributionalists for the languages of North America, already staggeringly blurring the distinction between morphology and syntax, did not, in general, reach languages like Spanish. Architectural matters raised by morphological phenomena begin appearing in the literature as important theoretical questions with the advent of generative grammar (Chomsky 1965 f.). Indeed, epistemological pre-eminence is given in this framework to explanatory adequacy, that is, the fact that the theory not only describes a closed corpus but is able to anticipate the right state of afairs beyond that corpus within the same language and, as far as possible, across languages. Since explanatory adequacy goes hand in hand with a parsimony of the theoretical tools, the research question was justifed as to whether one same mechanism could be posited giving rise to both sentences and words. After a brief period in which full syntactic derivations were assumed to be able to yield words, it is received knowledge that Chomsky (1970) settled matters by establishing that at least word formation, riddled with idiosyncrasies, takes place in the lexicon, a component of grammar frst introduced in Chomsky (1965). Otero (1976), using evidence from Spanish, supported a strong version of this so-called Lexicalist Hypothesis, in which morphology, including infection, constitutes a paradigmatic subsystem, contrasting with 336

Morphology and architecture of grammar

the syntagmatic subsystem of syntax. In short, AM models reigned during the 1970s and the early 1980s. I follow Martín García (1998) in making a distinction between two kinds of AM theories.

2.1.1 Strict Autonomous-Morphology models On the one hand, Halle’s (1973), Aronof’s (1976), or Anderson’s (1992) are theories in which morphology uses rules diferent from those generating sentences: Word Formation Rules (WFRs). In Halle (1973), WFRs have access to either lists of bound morphemes or lists of already coined lexemes (the dictionary). The other three mentioned authors have WFRs take an existing, that is, lexically recorded, lexeme as input and produce an output, a newly coined lexeme. There is, therefore, no storage of bound morphemes and these theories are said to be a-morphous, or, in Hockett’s (1954) famous classifcation of morphological models, item-andprocess models. Varela (1990) subscribes to an AM model, justifying the existence of a diferentiated morphological component on the basis of a distinction that is allegedly possible with words but not with sentences: that between possible words, created by WFRs, and existing words, which after having been created are stored in the lexicon. To provide an example, when we apply the following WFR to the lexeme escribir ‘write’, we obtain the new lexeme escritor ‘writer’ (Varela 1990, 40; see Resnik this volume, for nominalizations): (1) Insert -tor in the context [V __]N Another infuential fully modular AM theory is Kiparsky’s (1982) theory of Lexical Phonology and Morphology, where phonological and morphological rules are interspersed and ordered in diferent strata in the lexicon. García-Bellido (1987) applies Kiparsky’s theory to analyze the coronal fricative–velar morphophonological alternation in Spanish, as in cocer ‘boil’/cocí ‘I boiled’/cuezo ‘I boil’/cocción ‘act of boiling’ (see Colina this volume, and Armstrong this volume, for discussion of the interaction between phonology and morphology). Also strictly AM are the so-called Word-and-Paradigm models, like Matthews (1972) and Stump (2001), mostly dedicated to infection. In these frameworks, the infectional paradigm, rather than the word form, is “the primary object of analysis” (Stump 2001, 28). These models have developed the concept of morphome (Aronof 1994), an infectional pattern, like certain cases of syncretism, that cannot be explained via syntactic-semantic or phonological features but corresponds to a random collection of morphological features and thus constitutes a hallmark of morphology as an independent module. Burdette (2005) and O’Neill (2014), the latter featuring in the discussion in section 4, have applied this model to infectional patterns in the verbal system of Spanish. Word-and-Paradigm and Item-and-Process Theories are realizational or separationist, in that the morphosyntactic features are separated from their phonological realization.

2.1.2 Autonomous Morphology models endowed with syntactic rules Other AM theories like Selkirk’s (1982) or Di Sciullo and Williams’s (1987), admit the principles of sentential syntax, while still placing morphology as an autonomous component. In Hockett’s (1954) words, these are Item-and-Arrangement models, because they contemplate the existence of morphemes as lexical items that can be combined. Several studies in Spanish use this “encapsulated syntax” model, specifcally applying Hale and Keyser’s (1993) theory of lexical syntax to understand word formation: Martín García’s (1998) on the prefx re-, Haouet’s (2000) on parasynthetic verbs like afnar ‘refne’, or Gil Laforga’s (2014) on compound (pelirrojo 337

Víctor Acedo-Matellán

‘red-haired’) and denominal (barbudo ‘bearded’) adjectives. In Haouet’s (2000, 448) study, for instance, the derivation of a location verb like enjaular ‘cage’ as used in the sentence Juan enjauló el pájaro ‘Juan caged the bird’, which takes place at lexical syntax, shows all the features of a fullfedged syntactic confguration:

2.2 Morphology-is-Syntax models Factors like Baker’s (1985) empirical fndings about the parallelism between morpheme order and syntactic operations (his Mirror Principle) and Hale and Keyser’s (1993) work on the constraints imposed on lexical items by the syntactic confguration raised suspicions about hermetically modular visions of the syntax-morphology interaction. In parallel, Piera (1985) tried to deal with the challenges posed by words that syntactically and semantically correspond to full phrases, like the Spanish series of pronouns incorporating the preposition con ‘with’ and the extension -go: conmigo ‘with me’, contigo ‘with you’, consigo ‘with himself/herself/themselves’. He thus anticipated major hallmarks of D(istributed) M(orphology) (the role of Elsewhere Principle in lexical insertion) and Nanosyntax (Phrasal Spell-Out). These fndings and theoretical explorations, alongside a second push towards explanatory adequacy, to wit, the advent of the Minimalist Programme (Chomsky 1993 f.), heralded theories where the diference between syntax and morphology simply vanishes. An early example is Lieber’s (1992), which, however, is a lexicalist theory regarding its subscription to the existence of a unitary lexicon, a repository also comprising morphemes—see Acedo-Matellán (2018) for the diferent senses of lexicalism. DM, a morphemic and realizational theory, was frst introduced in Halle and Marantz (1993), although earlier work had already been carried out in the framework, like Bonet’s (1991) analysis of the so-called spurious se in Spanish.1 The construction of infected words, both simple or complex, is primarily a task of syntax, there being in principle no distinction between the mechanisms underlying the building of sentences and that of words. As Moyna (2004, 620), referring to Marantz (1997), puts it “[t]he diference between morphology and syntax has to do with the categories combined rather than the nature of the combination itself ”. The syntactic confguration, however, with morphemes as terminal items, can be modifed postsyntactically through a series of operations before the terminals are linearized and phonologically interpreted 338

Morphology and architecture of grammar

via vocabulary items (so-called late insertion). All these phases constitute the component properly called morphology. DM has been applied in quite a few studies to morphological phenomena in Spanish: zero derivation, relational adjectives, and appositions like pez globo ‘globefsh’ in Fábregas (2005), theme vowels and stress patterns in verbs in Oltra-Massuet and Arregi (2005), verbal infection in Pomino (2008), and so on. Particular versions of the theory can be found in López’s (2015) Parallel Computation model, based on nominalizations, or Acedo-Matellán and RealPuigdollers’s (2019) theory of roots as vocabulary items inserted into functional nodes, applied to gender-induced polysemy of the leño ‘log’–leña ‘frewood’ type. A more recent, but by now well-known MiS theory is Nanosyntax, developed for Spanish primarily by Antonio Fábregas (see Fábregas 2007, among many other studies).2 In this realizational and morphology-less theory, syntax delivers a representation where each terminal node corresponds to a feature, rather than, as in DM, a bundle thereof. The abstract representation is lexicalized at the interface via morpheme-sized lexical entries, which, by virtue of the tenet of Phrasal Spell-Out, can be assigned to whole stretches of terminal nodes. Consider as an example Gibert Sotelo’s (2017, 111) proposal of a lexical entry for the prefx des- ‘dis-, un-’ (desterrar ‘exile’, desigual ‘uneven’, etc.) in Spanish:

This specifcation allows des- to lexicalize the stretch of nodes Source, Goal, and Place, in that order—a purportedly universal order of spatial relations. The fact that des- can combine with the prefxes a- or en- only to their left (des-en-terrar ‘unearth’ vs *en-des-terrar, des-a-tornillar ‘unscrew’ vs *a-des-tornillar) is explained syntactically: a- and en- lexicalize Place, which is embedded under Goal, while des- is left to lexicalize Source and Goal (it needn’t lexicalize Place if there is another lexical item, like a- or en-, to do the task). Finally, we could consider Mendívil Giró’s (2019) recent contribution to the debate a kind of tweak of the nanosyntactic model and also a bridge between MiS and AM models. He too considers that lexical items correspond to whole syntactic confgurations, but the stored items are always full-fedged words, rather than morphemes. For instance, zapatero ‘shoemaker, cobbler’ is a conventionalized way to refer, in Spanish, to a syntactic confguration with the semantic import of “person who repairs shoes” and does not correspond, morphologically, to zapat-er-o. Thus, as the author puts it, his theory is non-lexicalist but it is also a-morphous, in that words do not have a grammatically relevant structure and are fashioned via analogy.

3 Endocentric compounds and the Autonomous-Morphology vs Morphology-is-Syntax debate If there is a word-formation phenomenon mirroring sentential syntax, that is compounding (see Buenafuentes this volume). Telling is, for instance, Rainer and Varela’s (1992, 117) hesitation, in their overview of compounds in Spanish, when determining that so-called phrasal compounds (dulce de leche “milk candy” ‘caramel spread’) are actually lexicalized phrases and not compounds, 339

Víctor Acedo-Matellán

“in order to avoid the duplication of syntactic rules in the lexicon”. Even from a strictly modular, AM perspective, based on Zwicky (1985 f.), where morphology involves idiosyncratic rules and principles, Clements (1992) observes how headedness in Spanish compounds fts with its typological word order features (VO order, prepositions, etc.). And, in fact, headedness in Spanish compounds is one of the issues that serves well to illustrate the tension between AM and MiS models, since they do not follow the famous AM Right-Hand Head rule (Williams 1981). After examining the types of compounds according to the categories of the two members, Clements (1992) proposes the following two rules, idiosyncratic to the morphological component in Spanish: (4) [+N] Head Rule “In a compound, if its members are [+N] and of different lexical categories, syntactic headedness is determined according to the hierarchy 1: N > 2:A; otherwise the lefthand member will be the syntactic head”. (Clements 1992, 158) (5) Righthand Head Rule “For any compound not consisting of two [+N] members, the righthand member will be the syntactic head”. (Clements 1992, 159) Beside the two rules, Clements invokes two principles, also idiosyncratic to Zwicky’s SHAPE (i.e., word formation) component: the principle of Lexical Blocking, whereby compounds with properties lexically specifed (like drogadicto ‘drug addict’ or fotocopia ‘photocopy’) do not obey the rules, and Panini’s Elsewhere Principle, whereby the [+N] rule overrides the more general Righthand Head Rule. This constellation of assumptions does churn out the facts, as described by Clements. In particular, he accounts for the right-headedness of compounds involving prepositions, as antesala ‘anteroom’ (feminine, based on feminine sala ‘room’) and sinsabor “without-favour” ‘trouble’ (masculine, based on masculine sabor ‘favour’), on the basis of the Righthand Head Rule. On the other hand, in such a strongly modular approach, it is difcult to naturally establish a connection between headedness in compounds and the word order facts in Spanish that Clements himself points out. Another important question is why these and not other rules determine the behaviour of compounds in Spanish. Finally, we are left with no explanation, beyond purely lexical marking, for the drogadicto ‘drug addict’ and fotocopia ‘photocopy’ type, which according to the [+N] Head Rule should be left-headed, contrary to fact. Moyna’s (2004) MiS, DM approach to compounding in Spanish provides answers to all these questions, in that she explores a connection between headedness in compounds, the morphological properties of the non-head, and universal, rather than Spanish-specifc, principles of syntax. Contrary to AM assumptions, Moyna assumes that compounding involves formation of phrases and what distinguishes it from standard syntactic products is the absence of functional categories. The focus is on endocentric compounds with nominal non-heads, like pelirrojo ‘red-haired’ or maniatar “hand-tie” ‘tie someone’s hands’. Moyna’s core empirical observation is that the nominal non-head appears as the right-hand member of the compound when it is endowed with an infectional marker, as coche cama ‘sleeping car’ or dulce de leche ‘caramel spread’ and to the left when it lacks any infectional marker, as in drog-adicto ‘drug addict’ or al-i-caído “wing-fallen” ‘down in the dumps’. She derives this state of afairs in a strictly MiS fashion and without any resort to properties specifc to Spanish. First, non-heads start out as complements of the head. It must be remarked that this is a semantically controversial claim, since the standard, textbook analysis of, for example, de leche ‘of milk’ in dulce de leche treats it as an adjunct rather than as a 340

Morphology and architecture of grammar

complement. Leaving this aside, under Kayne’s (1994) framework, which Moyna adopts, complements linearize to the right of the head universally. Thus, for endocentric compounds and pace Clements’s (1992) and others’ AM approaches, Moyna assumes left-headedness across the board at the frst representation of the construction: coche cama, adicto drog-. Assuming, furthermore, that the infectional marker projects syntactically as ClassP and that it is this projection that case features must be checked against, she proposes that nominal non-heads my stay in situ, that is, to the right of the head, only when endowed with case—morphologically marked with de ‘of ’ or null—by virtue of their projecting ClassP, as in coche cama or dulce de leche. When they fail to project ClassP, however, the head must raise and left-adjoin to the head of the construction in order to circumvent the visibility condition on case: drog-adicto. Moyna explores the explanatory power of her theory by extending the analysis of leftadjoined non-heads to the cases of learned compounds of the fotocopia ‘photocopy’ type, which were left as lexical exceptions in Clements’ account. Furthermore, a natural analysis of compounds involving blending, like servi-centro ‘service station’ or chori-pán ‘chorizo sandwich’, naturally suggests itself. In all these cases, we witness a nominal non-head that is in efect devoid of its infectional markers, and that is at most an NP, with a phonological aid added: for example, /i/ in pel-i-rrojo ‘red-haired’ or /o/ in drog-o-dependiente ‘drug-dependent’. While the explanatory power of this and other MiS theories makes them most attractive from an Occam’s razor perspective, several issues are left unexplained. For instance, regarding the antesala ‘anteroom’ and sinsabor “without-favour” “trouble” type of compounds, from a strictly MiS approach to compounding, the combination of the preposition and the noun should yield a PP rather than a nominal category, which, furthermore, shows the same infectional features as the embedded noun. One could assume that ante ‘before’ and sin ‘without’ may be adverbs, in addition to prepositions, but then the questions begged are how they can combine with nouns and why they are adverbs only when used in compounding. Another problem is that, if the non-head is a complement, as Moyna assumes, it is not clear why N+V verbal compounds, where the N is really like an incorporated N, still admit and even require an overt phrasal complement: (6) Ricky mani-ató Ricky hand-tied ‘Ricky tied Marina’s hands’.

*(a acc

Marina). Marina

4 Morphological vs. phonological approaches: the treatment of stem alternations The extent to which certain word-level phenomena in Spanish can be explained via morphological or phonological devices is also revealing of diferent conceptions of the architecture of grammar. One of the debates illustrating this tension in Spanish morphology is the one on the nature of stem alternations, as in moler ‘grind’–muelo ‘I grind’ or servir ‘serve’–sirvo ‘I serve’. Since these alternations are item specifc, that is, there are non-alternating stems, as in coser ‘sew’ and tensar ‘stretch’, scholars have either approached them as the result of the conditioned selection of one of two stored stems (e.g.: mol-, muel-) or as the result of a kind of phonological rule applying on a more basic, underspecifed underlying form (/mOl/ → /muel/). These two approaches involve diferent characterizations of the grammar and hence impinge on its architecture. The former approach enriches either the lexicon or the morphology but certainly not the phonology. The latter allows an encroaching of phonology (albeit of a special kind) onto the morphological realm. 341

Víctor Acedo-Matellán

O’Neill (2014), assuming the model of morphology in Maiden (2005) and, ultimately, in Aronof (1994), argues that the stem alternation involving a monophthong versus a diphthong is a morphome (see section 2.1.1). Thus, for the afected verbs, the allomorph containing a diphthong is said to occur in the frst, second, third singular, and third plural cells of both the present indicative and the present subjunctive paradigms. The morphome turns out to be a template of sorts, something that is psychologically real for speakers as a quasi-pictorial entity, as based on the shapes created on the paradigms once one imagines only the allomorphic cells. It is evident, on the other hand, that the diphthong–monophthong alternation correlates with rhizotonicity and lack thereof, respectively: muelo ‘I grind’, mueles ‘you (sg.) grind’, etc., vs. molemos ‘we grind’, moléis ‘you (pl.) grind’, and so on. O’Neill does acknowledge this but not that the correlation occurs even outside the pattern of the present paradigms themselves, as shown by nonpersonal forms (moler ‘grind’, moliendo ‘grinding’, molido ‘ground’), future and conditional (moleré ‘I will grind’, molería ‘I would grind’), and even non-verbal lexemes sharing the same root (muelo ‘pile of grain’, muela ‘millstone’ vs molienda ‘act of grinding’, moledura ‘act of grinding’, molendero ‘grinder’). Nevertheless, O’Neill insists that, in spite of its robustness, the correlation is a historical residue and that the allomorphy is best analyzed as morphomic. In sum, this model does not need the assistance of any phonological rules to account for stem alternation but must resort to lexical storage, disregarding the correlation with phonological facts as merely coincidental or historical. Embick (2012) represents a radical departure from this model. In his DM approach to stem alternations, paradigms and, by all means, morphomes, are epiphenomenal. Verbal forms are created in the syntax out of combinations of morphemes, by default, the postsyntactic component operating on syntactic representations to produce the fnal arrangement. Embick hastens to point out that the moler–muelo type of alternation is certainly not a case of regular phonology, since it does not afect all stems. However, the two alternants share most of their phonological material, which makes an approach in terms of suppletion suspicious. That stem alternations involve morphophonology rather than suppletion is argued for on the basis of an examination of the locality conditions governing such alternations. Embick’s claim is that stem alternations are not triggered locally, that is, via information retrievable in a local context, as in unquestionable cases of suppletion like that of English plurals (e.g., box-es–ox-en). The locality argument is, of course, based on the DM assumption that morphology is indeed morpheme based. Moreover, DM being an MiS framework, the morphemes are combined frst by syntax, in a stepwise fashion, and are assigned a phonological representation, via Vocabulary Insertion, also in a strictly stepwise fashion. In particular, given the confguration assumed for verbs, where the root is the most deeply embedded node, Vocabulary Insertion should start at the root and then proceed upwards, node by node (Embick 2012, 26):

If stem alternation boils down to a choice of Vocabulary Items competing for the same root position, that is, two stems for the same root, then that choice could be determined by the morphosyntactic features of the immediately adjacent node—the theme vowel or the TAM morpheme, 342

Morphology and architecture of grammar

depending on analysis. Crucially, it could not be determined by either the phonological properties of the immediately adjacent node, since Vocabulary Insertion has still not taken place at it, nor by any phonological property of the whole word, since the word is still not fully assembled. Since, as argued by Embick, stem alternations of the moler–muelo type are indeed afected by a phonological property of the whole word, namely the position of stress, it follows that they cannot constitute a case of contextual, suppletive allomorphy, handled via two competing Vocabulary Items. Embick must resort, then, to Readjustment Rules (Embick and Halle 2005), phonological rules of sorts that operate once the word is fully assembled and linearized. These rules afect collections of roots and may refer to either morphosyntactic information that is not local to the root or phonological properties of the word. In the case at hand, such rules would have the following format:3 (8) Readjustment Rules for the monophthong–diphthong stem alternation in Spanish o → ue/__[+stress]

e → ie/__[+stress]

Bermúdez Otero (2013), among other authors, has levelled criticism against Readjustment Rules on the basis that they “carry out arbitrary string transformations, have free access to morphosyntactic structure, and refer to lists of lexical items in their structural descriptions” (Bermúdez Otero 2013, 80). He strongly claims, with O’Neill (2014), that stem alternations involve the storage of two diferent stems for the verbs afected. However, unlike O’Neill (2014), he admits that the choice of alternant is phonologically driven. Rather than having rules, he applies an Optimality-Theory algorithm to determine the right choice in each case: “lowranking markedness constraints, otherwise inactive owing to their subordination to faithfulness, kick into action, so that there emerges a preference for diphthongs in tonic syllables and for monophthongs in nontonic syllables” (Bermúdez Otero 2013, 55–56). This author does away with O’Neill’s disregard for a phonological explanation and also with the pitfalls inherent to Readjustment Rules. At the same time, his approach is compatible with Embick’s observation that stem alternation is non-locally triggered. However, the feasibility of his proposal rests on the universal validity of the markedness constraints posited. Additionally, he introduces a complexifcation of the selection of exponents for morphological positions: certain positions would carry two exponents along until they reach the level of phonology, where one of them is fltered out. In sum, these three models of stem alternation could be set in a scale regarding the importance they bestow on either morphological or phonological conditions, in turn revealing different views as to the interaction of the two components. O’Neill’s model neglects phonology altogether and regards the alternation as strictly morphologically driven. Embick proposes phonological rules that are, however, strongly linked to morphological and lexical conditions, thus creating a level between morphology and phonology proper. Finally, Bermúdez-Otero claims that the two alternants should be lexically stored, the choice between them being regulated by universal, hence totally regular, phonological constraints. The reader is referred to sections 3.3 and 3.4 of Armstrong, this volume, for related discussion.

5 Conclusions The central position of morphology within grammar, showing syntax- and phonology-like properties, probably accounts for its uneven presence in the history of the feld. Indeed, within 343

Víctor Acedo-Matellán

the same century, it has gone from featuring as the star of the show in the distributionalist analyses of the 40s to warranting Marantz’s (1997, 202) remark that “when morphologists talk, linguists nap”. The major theories of morphology and its location in the architecture of grammar have beneftted from analyses of Spanish word-level phenomena. Studies on Spanish morphology have sometimes anticipated features of these theories—like Piera’s (1985) for DM and Nanosyntax—or played a major role in their shaping, like Bonet’s (1991) for DM. The analyses of endocentric compounding, on the one hand, and of stem alternations, on the other, have been brought to provide specifc illustrations of the syntax-morphology tension and the phonology-morphology tension, respectively. In general, theories favouring morphology as an independent module fare well descriptively but sometimes fail to capture certain cross-modular generalizations. Conversely, theories favouring syntactic or phonological explanations for morphological phenomena may overgenerate and miss what seems to be idiosyncratic to morphology. The debate is certainly still very much alive.

Notes 1 See an overview of DM in Embick and Noyer (2007). 2 Find an updated overview of the theory in Baunaz and Lander (2018). 3 Embick (2012) actually does not provide the rules himself, so I have laid them out basing on his Readjustment Rule for the raising alternation (e.g., pedir ‘request’–pido ‘I request’). The two diphthongization rules could perhaps be subsumed in one, producing /e/-headed diphthongs with a non-syllabic vowel agreeing in the value for [back] with the underlying vowel: that is, /ie/ for underlying [-back] /e/ and /ue/ for underlying [+back] /o/. Furthermore, maybe additional rules or further refnements are needed, in light of the fact that the alternation may also involve the pairs /u/–/ue/ (e.g., jugar ‘play’– juego ‘I play’) and /i/–/ie/ (e.g., adquirir ‘acquire’–adquiero ‘I acquire’), as Bermúdez Otero (2013, 55) rightly recalls.

References Acedo-Matellán, V. 2018. “Exoskeletal Versus Endoskeletal Approaches in Morphology.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited by Mark Aronof. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ acrefore/9780199384655.013.585. Acedo-Matellán, V., and C. Real-Puigdollers. 2019. “Roots into Functional Nodes: Exploring Locality and Semi-Lexicality.” The Linguistic Review 36 (3): 411–36. doi:10.1515/tlr-2019-2019. Alarcos Llorach, E. 1949. “Sobre la estructura del verbo español.” Boletín de la Biblioteca de Menéndez Pelayo 25: 50–83. Alemany Bolufer, J. 1920. Tratado de la formacion de palabras en lengua castellana. La derivacion y la composicion. Estudio de los sufjos y prefjos empleados en una y otra. Madrid: Librería General de Victoriano Suárez. Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aronof, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronof, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baker, M. C. 1985. “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation.” Linguistic Inquiry 16 (3): 373–415. Baunaz, L., and E. Lander. 2018. “Nanosyntax: The Basics.” In Exploring Nanosyntax, edited by L. Baunaz, K. de Clercq, L. Haegeman, and E. Lander, 3–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ oso/9780190876746.003.0001. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2013. “The Spanish Lexicon Stores Stems with Theme Vowels, not Roots with Infectional Class Features.” Probus 25 (1): 3–103. doi:10.1515/probus-2013-0009. Bonet, E. 1991. “Morphology After Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance.” PhD diss., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 344

Morphology and architecture of grammar

Bosque, I. 1983. “La morfología.” In Introducción a la lingüística, edited by F. Abad Nebot and A. García Berrio, 115–54. Madrid: Alhambra. Burdette, K. W. 2005. “New Paradigms: A Rule-and-Feature Based Morpholexical Model of the Spanish Verbal System.” In Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, edited by D. Eddington, 158–68. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, edited by R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum, 184–221. Waltham: Ginn. Chomsky, N. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by K. L. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clements, J. C. 1992. “Lexical Category Hierarchy and ‘Head of Compound’ in Spanish.” In Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Nineteenth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XIX), the Ohio State University, 21–23 April 1989, edited by C. Laeufer and T. A. Morgan, 151–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Di Sciullo, A. M., and E. Williams. 1987. On the Defnition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Embick, D. 2012. “Contextual Conditions on Stem Alternations. Illustrations from the Spanish Conjugation.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2010: Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ Leiden 2010, edited by I. Franco, S. Lusini, and A. Saab, 21–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi. org/10.1075/rllt.4.02emb. Embick, D., and M. Halle. 2005. “On the Status of Stems in Morphological Theory.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003, edited by T. Geerts, I. van Ginneken, and H. Jacobs, 59–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Embick, D., and R. Noyer. 2007. “Distributed Morphology and the Syntax-Morphology Interface.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistics Interfaces, edited by G. C. Ramchand and C. Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0010. Fábregas, A. 2005. “La defnición de la categoría gramatical en una morfología orientada sintácticamente: nombres y adjetivos.” PhD diss., Instituto Universitario de Investigación Ortega y Gasset, Madrid. Fábregas, A. 2007. “An Exhaustive Lexicalisation Account of Directional Complements.” Tromsø Working Papers on Language & Linguistics: Nordlyd 34 (2): 165–99. García-Bellido, P. 1987. “La ordenación de las reglas y la fonología léxica”. ELUA. Estudios de Lingüística 4: 107–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.14198/ELUA1987.4.07. Gibert Sotelo, E. 2017. “Source and Negative Prefxes: On the Syntax-Lexicon Interface and the Encoding of Spatial Relations.” PhD diss., Universitat de Girona. https://dugi-doc.udg.edu/handle/10256/14994. Gil Laforga, I. 2014. “La interacción de los componentes gramaticales en la formación de palabras: adjetivos posesivos derivados y compuestos.” PhD diss., Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. https://repositorio.uam.es/handle/10486/663100. Hale, K. L., and S. J. Keyser. 1993. “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by K. L. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, M. 1973. “Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Formation.” Linguistic Inquiry 4 (1): 3–16. www.jstor. org/stable/4177749. Halle, M., and A. Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Infection.” In The View from Building: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger 20, edited by K. L. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Haouet, L. 2000. “En torno a la relación entre morfología y sintaxis: La formacion de los parasintéticos en español.” PhD diss., Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid. https://repositorio.uam.es/ handle/10486/12047. Hockett, C. F. 1954. “Two Models of Grammatical Description.” Word 10: 210–31. Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Kiparsky, P. 1982. “Lexical Morphology and Phonology.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, edited by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin. 345

Víctor Acedo-Matellán

Lieber, R. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. López, L. 2015. “Parallel Computation in Word Formation.” Linguistic Inquiry 46 (4): 657–701. Maiden, M. 2005. “Morphological Autonomy and Diachrony.” In Yearbook of Morphology 2004, edited by G. Booij and J. van Marle, 137–75. Dordrecht: Springer. Marantz, A. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2): 201–25. Martín García, J. 1998.  La morfología léxico-conceptual: las palabras derivadas con re. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Matthews, P. H. 1972. Infectional Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mendívil Giró, J. 2019. “If Everything Is Syntax, Why Are Words so Important? An A-Morphous but Non-Lexicalist Approach.” Linguistics 57 (5): 1161–215. Moyna, M. I. 2004. “Can We Make Heads or Tails of Spanish Endocentric Compounds?.” Linguistics 42 (3): 617–37. Oltra-Massuet, I., and K. Arregi. 2005. “Stress-by-Structure in Spanish.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (1): 43–84. O’Neill, P.  2014. “Similar and Difering Patterns on Allomorphy in the Spanish and Portuguese Verbs.” In Portuguese-Spanish Interfaces: Diachrony, Synchrony, and Contact, edited by P. M. Amaral and A. M. Carvalho, 175–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Otero, C. 1976. “The Dictionary in a Generative Grammar.” Paper presented at the 91st Annual Convention of the Modern Language Association, New York, December 26. Piera, C. 1985. “On the Representation of Higher Order Complex Words.” In Selected Papers from the XIIIth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Chapel Hill, N.C., 24–26 March  1983, edited by L. D. King and C. A. Male, 287–313. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Piera, C., and S. Varela. 1999. “Relaciones entre morfología y sintaxis.” In Entre la oración y el discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by V. Demonte and I. Bosque, 4367–422. Madrid: Espasa Calpe y Real Academia Española. Pomino, N. 2008. Spanische Verbalfexion: Eine minimalistische Analyse im Rahmen der Distributed Morphology. Berlin: De Gruyter. Rainer, F., and S. Varela. 1992. “Compounding in Spanish.” Rivista di Linguistica 4 (1): 117–42. Selkirk, E. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stump, G. T. 2001. Infectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Varela, S. 1990. Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis. Varela, S. 2009. “What and Where Is Morphology.” Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 2 (2): 451–61. Williams, E. 1981. “On the Notions ‘Lexically Related’ and ‘Head of a Word’.” Linguistic Inquiry 12 (2): 245–74. Zwicky, A. 1985. “How to Describe Infection.” Berkeley Linguistic Society 11: 372–86.

346

24 Allomorphy and suppletion Grant ArmstrongAllomorphy and suppletion

(Alomorfía y supletivismo)

Grant Armstrong

1 Introduction Allomorphy and suppletion both refer to a situation in which a morpheme has more than one phonological exponent. This chapter provides an overview of diferent types of allomorphic alternations in Spanish and what triggers them. Finally, some key issues that inform current analyses are discussed. Keywords: allomorphy; suppletion; allomorphic alternations Alomorfía y supletivismo son términos usados para describir una situación en que un morfema tiene más de un exponente fonológico. En este capítulo se resumen los tipos diferentes de alternancias alomórfcas del español y los contextos que las condicionan. Finalmente, se mencionan unos asuntos importantes que informan los análisis actuales. Palabras clave: alomorfía, supletivismo, alternancias alomórfcas

2 A typology of allomorphic and suppletive alternations in Spanish The terms allomorphy and suppletion both refer to a situation in which a single grammatical feature or a single lexeme has more than one phonological exponent. Such exponents are said to exhibit an allormorphic or suppletive alternation, which is conditioned by some linguistic context. The locus where the alternation is observed is the target and the conditioning environment is the trigger. The following discussion is based on the following terms and divisions that are used as an overarching descriptive apparatus to classify distinct types of allomorphic and suppletive alternations.

347

Grant Armstrong

(1) Allomorphy types, targets and triggers Type • Morphophonology • Suppletive allomorphy

Target • Infectional features • Derivational afxes • Roots and stems

Trigger • • • •

Phonological Morphological Lexical Syntactic

(2) Trigger-target relations Distance (trigger-target) • Local/adjacent • Non-local/non-adjacent

Directionality (trigger-target) • Inside-out/inward sensitivity • Outside-in/outward sensitivity

2.1 Types of alternations: morphophonology vs. suppletive allomorphy I will follow a long line of researchers in making a distinction between morphophonology and suppletive allomorphy (see Paster [2014, 2017] for a general overview). Some alternating surface forms of a particular grammatical feature or lexeme (root or stem) may plausibly be derived by general phonological rules or idiosyncratic ones sometimes called morphophonological or readjustment rules (see Kiparsky [1996], Paster [2014, 2017] for a general discussion). A textbook example of this from Spanish can be observed in the forms of the negative prefx in- that attaches to adjectival bases as in (3) (Pensado 1999, 4476; Ohennesian 2019, 290; see GibertSotelo, this volume, for prefxation in general). (3) Surface forms of the negative prefx in[in-] [in]-adecuado ‘inadequate’ [in]-efcaz ‘inefcient’ [in]-oportuno ‘unfortunate’ [in]-usual ‘unusual’

Assimilation [im]-posible ‘impossible’ [iɱ]-formal ‘informal’ [in]-domable ‘untamable’ [iŋ]-culto ‘uncultured’

[i-] [i]-legal ‘illegal’ [i]-legible ‘illegible’ [i]-rreparable ‘irreparable’ [i]-rreal ‘unreal’

One way of analyzing the alternations in (3) is to assume that there is a single phonological exponent /in-/, which is phonetically realised as [in] with vowel-initial bases. The surface forms in the second column are derived by nasal assimilation to the initial non-liquid consonant of the base and those in the third column through deletion of the nasal segment before a liquidinitial base. Nasal assimilation is a general rule that applies to all syllable fnal nasals in Spanish, but nasal deletion would be considered an idiosyncratic morphophonological or readjustment rule before liquids that applies only when the prefx in- combines with liquid-initial bases. In other cases, such as enlazar ‘to connect’ and un rey ‘a king’, there is no nasal deletion in the same position. On this interpretation, the superfcial alternation in (3) is a case of morphophonology,

348

Allomorphy and suppletion

since general phonological rules or more specifc readjustments derive the surface forms from a single underlying form. The other analytical choice that exists is to propose that there are two phonologically distinct exponents for the negative prefx that are conditioned by the initial segment of the base: i- is inserted before bases that begin with liquids and in- is inserted elsewhere. The general phonological rule of nasal assimilation then accounts for the diferent surface forms observed in the second column. This is genuine suppletive allomorphy since it involves “rival” alternants or afxes (i- and in-) competing for a position (Carstairs 1987, 19; Paster 2014, 221). Marking a distinction in this way between morphophonology and suppletive allomorphy means that there is no substantive diference between the terms ‘allomorphy’ and ‘suppletion’. Many researchers assume this and refer to any alternation that involves rival alternants in following ways: ‘suppletive allomorphy’ (Paster 2014, 2017), ‘suppletion’ (Bobaljik 2012) or ‘allomorphy’ (Bonet and Harbour 2012). That said, it is important to note that other researchers use the terms ‘allomorphy’ and ‘suppletion’ to refer to diferent phenomena. A traditional view is that alternants that are phonologically similar, like i-and in- previously, are instances of allomorphy, while alternants that are phonologically unrelated, such as the roots in the infectional paradigm of ir ‘go’ (see Table 24.1 subsequently) are cases of suppletion. A second view is that allomorphy is an alternation in how grammatical features and derivational afxes are exponed while suppletion involves root and stem alternants (Corbett 2007; Embick 2010). In the rest of this chapter, I will not mark a distinction between the terms ‘allomorphy’ and ‘suppletion’. I will use the term ‘suppletive allomorphy’ and work under the assumption that the cases examined involve rival alternants in the sense just discussed.

2.2 Targets The schema in (4), common from realisational models of morphology, will serve as a useful tool for understanding the terms introduced in this section and the next one. (4) a. A → X/__ C b. A → Y A is the target, the locus of a particular alternation; X and Y are the phonological exponents. C is the trigger, a conditioning environment for a particular exponent X, and Y appears elsewhere. In this section, I will consider diferent types of targets in Spanish. The frst type are infectional afxes. To take just one of many possible examples, TAM afxes of verbs are a common target of suppletive allomorphy (Alcoba 1999; RAE and ASALE 2009, 181–203) as shown in (5) and (6). (5) Imperfect (ba~a alternation) 1st conjugation cant-a-ba-s sing-thv-ipfv-2sg ‘you sang’

2nd conjugation com-í-a-s eat-thv-ipfv-2sg ‘you ate’

3rd conjugation dorm-í-a-s sleep-thv-ipfv-2sg ‘you slept’

349

Grant Armstrong

(6) Preterite (ste~ro alternation) 2 pers cant-a-ste-Ø sing-thv-pfv-2sg ‘you sang’ cant-a-ste-is eat-thv-pfv-2pl ‘you all sang’

3 pers pl cant-a-ro-n sing-thv-pfv-3pl ‘they sang’

A second type of target is derivational afxes. For instance, the nominalising sufxes -dor(a) and -or(a) (cf. Rifón, this volume; see also Resnik, this volume, for nominalisation in general) are used to derive agent nouns, among other meanings, from diferent classes of verbal bases as in (7) (Santiago Lacuesta and Bustos Gisbert 1999, 4541–46; RAE and ASALE 2009, 450–55). (7) Nominalisation (dor(a)~or(a) alternation) -dor(a) forms

-or(a) forms

trabajar – trabajadora ‘to work’ ‘worker’ vender – vendedora ‘to sell’ ‘seller/vendor’ consumir – consumidor ‘to consume’ ‘consumer’

editar – editora ‘to edit’ ‘editor’ confesar – confesor ‘to confess’ ‘confessor’ pintar – pintora ‘to paint’ ‘painter’

Suppletive allomorphy in roots and stems is pervasive in Spanish. It is observed primarily in the infectional paradigms of verbs and in various derivational processes. Perhaps the most well-known case of suppletive allomorphy in roots is the infectional paradigm of ir ‘go’. Here, there are three phonologically distinct roots v-, i- and fu- that appear in diferent paradigmatic positions as shown in Table 24.1. Finally, a commonly cited target of root allomorphy in derivation is the bound root -struir. Verb stems formed from this root exhibit a systematic alternant -struc when used as a base in nominal and adjectival derivations as in (8) (RAE and ASALE 2009, 347, 542).

Table 24.1 Infectional paradigm of ir 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl Non-fnite

350

Pres ind Pres sbjv voy vaya vas vayas va vaya vamos vayamos vais vayáis van vayan Infnitive ir

Imperf iba ibas iba íbamos ibais iban

Pret fui fuiste fue fuimos fuisteis fueron Participle ido

Past sbjv fuera fueras fuera fuéramos fuerais fueran

Fut iré irás irá iremos iréis irán

Cond Imperative iría ve//vaya irías id//vayan iría iríamos iríais irían Gerund yendo

Allomorphy and suppletion

(8) Stem alternations Xstruir~Xstruc V

N

A

destruir ‘to destroy’ construir ‘to build’ instruir ‘to instruct’

destrucción ‘destruction’ construcción ‘construction’ instrucción ‘instruction’

destructivo ‘destructive’ constructivo ‘constructive’ instructivo ‘instructive’

2.3 Triggers The trigger is the conditioning environment that determines which exponent in a suppletive allomorphic alternation will be spelled out. Triggers may be phonological, morphological, lexical or syntactic in nature. I will consider an example of each type in turn. The distribution of the derivational sufxes -al and -ar, which form nouns or adjectives from nominal bases, is phonologically conditioned by the nominal base (Ranier 1999, 4616–17; RAE and ASALE 2009, 494–95, 542–44). The general rule is one of dissimilation. There are two contexts in which -ar appears: (i) if the base (minus the theme node) ends in a lateral consonant and (ii) some bases (not all) that have a lateral consonant in non-fnal position and no intervening rhotic between that lateral consonant and the sufx. In other contexts, -al appears (it is the elsewhere exponent). (9) Phonological trigger (the al~ar alternation) -al forms doctor ‘doctor’–doctoral ‘doctoral’ industria ‘industry’–industrial ‘industrial’ posición ‘position’–posicional ‘positional’ for ‘fower’–foral ‘foral’ larva ‘larva’–larval ‘larval’ línea ‘line’–lineal ‘linear’

-ar forms sol ‘sun’–solar ‘solar’ círculo ‘circle’–circular ‘circular’ familia ‘family’–familiar ‘family’ luna ‘moon’–lunar ‘lunar’ pulmón ‘lung’–pulmonar ‘pulmonary’ lámina ‘sheet’–laminar ‘laminar/layered’

Morphological triggers are common in many suppletive allomorphic alternations in Spanish. In fact, nearly all of the examples discussed in §2.2 involve morphological triggers. For instance, the diferent exponents of the preterite shown in (6) are conditioned by the person and number features of verbal agreement. The exponent -ste appears with second person regardless of whether this is spelled out as -is (2pl) or -s (2sg colloquial, not shown previously) or represented with a null exponent -Ø. The exponent -ro, on the other hand, appears only in the presence of 3pl. The following cases also involve morphological triggers: (i) conjugation class is the trigger for the diferent exponents of the imperfect in (5), (ii) TAM features are the trigger for the different roots in the infectional paradigm of ir in Table 24.1 and (iii) lexical category (irrespective of phonology) is the trigger for the stem allomorphs of Xstruir verbs in (8). Lexical triggers involve an idiosyncratic set of lexical items that condition the appearance of a particular exponent. The alternation between -dor and -or shown in (7) is most adequately accounted for with a lexical trigger. Even though there are tendencies for -or to combine with bases ending in -tar and -sar, this context cannot be generalised over the entire range of bases that combine with it. For example, there are verbal bases with contextual root allomorphs like lect- (leer) ‘read’–lector ‘reader’ that combine with -or. There are also bases that end in -tar

351

Grant Armstrong

(reclutar ‘recruit’ > reclutador ‘recruiter’) and -sar (abusar ‘abuse’–abusador ‘abuser’) that take -dor. This indicates that the verbal bases that combine with -or must be listed and -dor is an elsewhere exponent. Finally, syntactic triggers are relatively rare but attested in Spanish. As discussed in Bonet, Lloret, and Mascaró (2015a), a set of determiners, quantifers and adjectives exhibit stem allomorphy that is determined by syntactic position. In post-nominal position, a theme vowel is present, while in pre-nominal position, a bare, athematic stem appears, as in (10). (10) Syntactic trigger (post vs. pre-nominal position) Post-nominal (theme vowel stems) un ejemplo buen*(o) an example good ‘a good example’ un ejemplo cualquier*(a) an example any ‘any old example’

Pre-nominal (bare stems) un buen(*o) ejemplo a good example ‘a good example’ cualquier(*a) ejemplo any example ‘any example’

2.4 Distance (trigger-target) Since much theoretical discussion about suppletive allomorphy is based in part on locality constraints between the trigger and target (see §3.4 subsequently), it is worth mentioning two types of distance relations: local and non-local. In a scenario in which the root node is a target of a suppletive allomorphic alternation, a local trigger is the adjacent node X, while a non-local trigger is the node Y. Subsequently, following the notation used in Božič (2019), the target is boxed and the trigger is underlined. (11) a. Local trigger-target relation: b. Non-local trigger-target relation:

root – X – Y root – X – Y

Cross-linguistically, most known cases of morphologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy involve a local trigger like (11a) (Embick 2010; Božič 2019), but non-local relations between the trigger and target like (11b) have also been described (Bobaljik 2012; Merchant 2015; Božič 2019). The following examples involve a local relation between the trigger and target. (12) a. com-í-a-s eat – thv – ipfv – 2sg ‘you ate’ b. cant-a-ro-n sing – thv – pfv – 3pl ‘they sang’ Spanish is a language in which morphological triggers are almost always local, though there are some cases that could be interpreted as non-local. One of these is the root fu- in the infectional paradigm of ir in Table 24.1. The following segmentation, in which a theme node intervenes between the TAM sufx and the root, appears to be a case of a non-local trigger. 352

Allomorphy and suppletion

(13) fu-é-ra-mos go – thv – pst.sbjv – 1pl ‘that we went/might go’ Whether or not this counts as a non-local trigger depends on the proposed segmentation in (13). There are alternatives in which the stem, verb and theme vowel, is the relevant target. In this case, there would be a local relation between the stem and the relevant TAM value (see §3.4 subsequently). For other types of triggers, the distinction between local and non-local relations cannot be stated in the same way as (11). Phonological triggers may not be adjacent segments as in the pairs luna-lunar and pulmón-pulmonar in (9) previously. Further, suprasegmental phonological triggers such as stress (see Martínez-Paricio, this volume) cannot be defned in the linear concatenative terms in (11). Vowel-diphthong alternations in roots like djente ‘tooth’–dental ‘dental’– dentista ‘dentist’ are triggered by the position of stress rather than an adjacent segment. Syntactic triggers, on the other hand, may defne an environment in which a particular alternant appears but have nothing to do with concatenation of nodes. For example, the bare stem allomorphs of all the determiners, quantifers and adjectives that participate in the alternation in (10) appear in the pre-nominal position irrespective of whether they are adjacent to the head noun. (14) cualquier(*a) buen(*o) ejemplo any good example ‘any good example’

2.5 Directionality (trigger-target) In many theories, words are built in cycles starting from the root node or stem and proceeding outward (Kiparsky 1982; Halle and Marantz 1993; Bobaljik 2000; Paster 2006; Embick 2010; Bermúdez-Otero 2013 for diferent implementations). In such views, the properties of already constructed parts of a word may infuence a choice of alternant in a node that is added in the cycle immediately after it. I will call this inside-out conditioning. On the other hand, it is also possible that, within a single cycle of word-building, an outer node could infuence a choice of alternant at a target closer to the root node. I will call this outside-in conditioning. (15) a. Inside-out: b. Outside-in:

root – X – Y root – X – Y

(generally allowed) (allowed in constrained circumstances)

Examples of both types can be easily found in Spanish. The dor(a)~or(a) alternation in (7) previously is a case of inside-out conditioning, since the list of items at the root node is what determines the choice of sufx. Any alternation in which a sufx is sensitive to a root node is a case of inside-out conditioning. The inverse scenario, where a root alternant is sensitive to information in an afx, is a case of outside-in conditioning (see the infectional paradigm of ir in Table 24.1 and the Xstruir~Xstruc alternation in (8) for just two of many possible examples). The TAM afx alternations in (5) and (6) show two distinct directional patterns. The imperfect is a case of inside-out conditioning, since the conjugation class of the root (perhaps the theme node itself) determines the choice of TAM sufx. The preterite is a case of outside-in conditioning, because the form of the target depends on person features, which are further from the root. 353

Grant Armstrong

3 Key issues in the analysis of suppletive allomorphy In this section, I highlight four important issues that have been instrumental in informing analyses of suppletive allomorphy from various perspectives.

3.1 Suppletive root allomorphy in derivation Core cases of suppletive allomorphy in which root nodes are the target involve infectional paradigms; the verbs ir ‘go’ and ser ‘be’ are the most widely cited examples of this (see Carstairs 1988; Corbett 2007; Paster 2014 for a general discussion). It seems natural that this should be the case. In acquisition, children have been shown to assume that distinct forms map to distinct meanings, the so-called Mutual Exclusivity Constraint (Markman and Wachtel 1988). Noticing gaps in infection would be a way for a child to link two distinct forms to the same meaning and learn that they constitute a suppletive allomorphic alternation. With derivational processes, there is a complication. Since it is common for a productive derivational process to give rise to lexicalisation, it is not always clear where to draw the line between two forms that are allomorphs of a single lexeme and two forms that are simply diferent lexemes but perhaps related historically and/or semantically (see discussion in Bermúdez-Otero 2013, 78–82). Take the following infected and derived forms, all related to the verb ver ‘see’, as a case in point. (16) Infected and derived words related to ver ‘see’ (from Lat. vidēre) v-e-mos ‘we see’ (pres ind) // ve-í-a-mos ‘we saw’ (imperfect) vis-to ‘seen’ (participle, from Lat. vissus/visĭtus) vis-ta ‘view/eyesight’ (from Late Lat. *vista) vis-i-ble ‘visible’ (from Lat. visibĭlis) vis-ión ‘vision/sight’ (from Lat. visio, -ōnis) vid-e-nteA ‘sighted/seeing’ (from Lat. videns) vid-e-nteN ‘clairvoyant/psychic/fortune teller’ (from Lat. videns) From a diachronic perspective, there are diferent etymological sources in (16): some words come from the Latin verb vidēre and its participial forms and others from Latin adjectives (e.g. visibĭlis) and nouns (e.g. visio, -ōnis). Additionally, the relation between the verb and certain nouns derived historically from it, like vidente, is opaque. Here, it would be difcult for a modern speaker to use either form or meaning to link vidente to ver. However, the adjective vidente has a more transparent semantic relationship with ver, as do visible and visión. This situation, which is very common in groups of derived words in Spanish (so-called word families; see Mendívil, this volume) gives rise to an analytical choice: it is possible to posit multiple lexemes and relate them via redundancy rules (Jackendof 1975) or propose that vis-, and perhaps even vid-, are root allomorphs of ver (see discussion in RAE and ASALE [2009, 27–32] for other examples). In the frst option, all nouns and adjectives in (16) could be listed as separate lexemes, and the information within them that could be predicted through a relation to the verb ver could be stated as general rule (Jackendof 1975). There are other approaches, though, in which the job of relating these words to one another could be taken care of through a suppletive allomorphic relation. Consider one possible approach in which only two lexemes are proposed. Assume that a lexeme and its stem allomorphs are the stored information, and each stem allomorph is subcategorised for a particular context (see Paster 2006; Bermúdez-Otero 2013 for diferent implementations of this general idea). We might posit two lexemes for the set of words in (16)—see and clairvoyant. The stem allomorphs of the lexeme see, with theme vowels in parentheses, would 354

Allomorphy and suppletion

be v(e)- (for most verb forms), vis(i)- (for participles as well as deverbal nouns and adjectives) and vid(e)- (for the deverbal adjective vidente). For clairvoyant, the stem allomorph would be vident(e). In a root-driven theory like Distributed Morphology (DM), the notions lexeme and stem are not primitives. Instead, words are built from acategorial root nodes, which in current practice are treated as numerical indexes that can have more than one phonological exponent (Harley 2014). In (16), the question for DM is if there is a single root node (one numerical index with many allomorphs) underlying all the words or if there is more than one root node. It is, in principle, possible to work out an account for both possibilities. The equivalent of the two-lexeme idea sketched out previously would be two root nodes, √123 (→ see) and √124 (→ clairvoyant) and a set of spell-out rules that indicate which context triggers each root allomorph. A single root node account would posit one highly underspecifed node, √123, and derive all the forms through a series of contextual spell-out rules and contextual interpretation rules. The contextual interpretation rules are used to link special meanings to a root in a particular context, or even an entire structure, such as that of the noun vidente (Breuning 2014; Harley 2014). The questions about root allomorphy that arise in derivational contexts are fascinating and deserve careful attention. Defnitive answers to these questions will require a multi-faceted approach, taking into account diachronic observations with psycholinguistic experimentation (see e.g. Allen and Badecker [1999]) and, perhaps, theoretical parsimony.

3.2 Regularities in suppletive allomorphy The descriptive discussion in §2 presented a wide range of distinct phenomena. Since there is often arbitrariness involved in linking exponents of the target with the relevant characteristics of the trigger, some analyses of suppletive allormorphy efectively list the contexts where each exponent of a particular morpheme appears. An important cross-section of the theoretical discussion about suppletive allomorphy takes issue with this approach, claiming that it does not really explain why allomorphic alternations exist—it simply describes them (see Perlmutter 1998; Mascaró 2007). This is problematic in cases of allomorphic alternations that do not appear to be arbitrary and warrant a diferent approach that is capable of capturing why. One such approach is concerned with allomorphic alternations that are optimising from the phonological perspective (Mascaró 2007; Bonet, Lloret, and Mascaró 2015b and references therein). In general terms, such alternations involve selection of a particular exponent that can be characterised in general phonological terms rather than simply listed arbitrarily. In Optimality Theory (OT), this situation is one in which phonological markedness constraints outrank morphological constraints, often abbreviated as P >> M (see Paster [2015] for discussion). A clear illustration of this is the y~e and o~u alternation in coordinating and disjunctive conjunctions (Bonet and Mascaró 2006). (17) Allomorphic alternation in conjunctions y-e alternation

o-u alternation

madre {y/*e} padre ‘mother and father’ oraciones {o/*u} palabras ‘sentences or words’ madre {*y/e} hija ‘mother and daughter’ palabras {*o/u} oraciones ‘words or sentences’ As is well known, the conjunction y [i] surfaces as e [e] when the second conjunct begins with the high front vowel [i], and the disjunctive conjunction o [o] surfaces as [u]/[w] when the second member of the disjunct begins with the mid back vowel [o]. While it is possible to 355

Grant Armstrong

list the contexts for each exponent as spell-out rules, the authors note that this misses a more general point—mainly, that the choice of exponent is determined by phonological markedness. In addition to using phonological markedness constraints to rule out [ii] and [oo], among other sequences, they also propose that exponents should be ordered in a set in which one allomorph is dominant over others. In this case, [i] and [o] are dominant allomorphs: {i>e} and {o>u}. The output that we see in (17) arises because optimal candidates do not violate the higher-ranked phonological markedness constraints such as obligatory contour principle (OCP) but do violate the lower-ranked morphological faithfulness constraints, which are labelled priority constraints. Appeals to phonological markedness may help explain, rather than just describe, allomorphic patterns like this one. However, many of the patterns observed in the data are somewhat arbitrary, as seen in §2. This gives rise to the question of whether there should be multiple mechanisms that account for diferent types of allomorphic patterns—one that uses such notions as phonological constraints and another that lists contexts (see the discussions in Mascaró [1996, 2007]; Paster [2015] for details).

3.3 Localist vs. globalist views of allomorphy and suppletion An important recent theoretical debate is between localist and globalist theories of suppletive allomorphy (Embick 2010; Bonet, Lloret, and Mascaró 2015b; Gribanova and Shih 2017). Localist theories, typically associated with lexical morphology and phonology (Kiparsky 1982) and, currently, DM, Subcategorization Models (Paster 2006) and Stratal OT (Bermúdez-Otero 2013), are based on the idea that structure-building operations are cyclic. Cycles are completed incrementally in such a way that information contained within a cycle cannot freely interact with information in subsequent cycles. Additionally, there is a separation between morphology and phonology: morphology provides the underlying forms of exponents which are subsequently interpreted by phonological rules. Globalist theories, typically associated with Monostratal OT, evaluate outputs of underlying forms in such a way that permits global interactions between diferent parts of a structure, as well as between morphology and phonology (see Kager [1996] and Mascaró [1996, 2007] for examples of such theories that are constructed specifcally to handle allomorphic alternations). There are several types of data that have been employed to investigate the contrasting predictions of each class of theory, primarily with phonological triggers (Embick 2010; Paster 2015). One is based on the following prediction of localist, cyclic theories: there should be no outsidein phonological conditioning whatsoever. This is because inserting an exponent at a particular node could not be conditioned by phonological material of an outer node that has not yet been assembled. Globalist theories permit this type of interaction for the reasons mentioned previously. Spanish has a potential example of outside-in phonological conditioning: the bl(e)~bil alternation. The adjectival sufx -bl(e) (see Martín García, this volume) surfaces as -bil when it is followed by another derivational sufx that begins with the vowel [i] (Pensado 1999, 4485). (18) bl(e)~bil alternation -bl(e) forms tom-a-ble ‘drinkable’ razon-a-ble ‘reasonable’ culp-a-ble ‘guilty’ pos-i-ble ‘possible’ sustent-a-ble ‘sustainable’ 356

-bil forms tom-a-bil-idad ‘drinkability’ razon-a-bil-ísimo ‘very reasonable’ culp-a-bil-izar ‘blame’ pos-i-bil-ista ‘possibilist’ sustent-a-bil-ismo ‘sustainabilism’

Allomorphy and suppletion

From a globalist perspective, we might make the case that in order to force the choice of the -bil allomorph over -bl(e), information about the initial vowel of a subsequent derivational morpheme is required and thus a strict version of cyclic localism cannot explain this example. There are numerous ways, however, that the alternation in (18) could be handled in a localist theory. One way is to claim that this is morphophonology and -bil surfaces as the result of an epenthetic vowel after the output of morphological operations feeds phonology. While [i] is not the vowel regularly involved in epenthesis (which is [e]), support for treating this is as a morphophonological process that operates on the underlying form /bl/ comes from the fact that /bl/ sequences that are clearly not the sufx -ble are also separated by vowels in derivational processes: diablo ‘devil’–diabólico ‘diabolic’, tabla ‘table’–tabular ‘tabular’ and niebla ‘fog’–nebuloso ‘foggy/nebulous’. Another alternative would be to treat the alternation in (18) in terms of position within the lexeme: -bl(e) is lexeme-fnal and -bil appears elsewhere.1 Examples that support unconstrained global interactions between all parts of words and between phonology and morphology are relatively rare but not unheard of. Looking carefully at cases that appear to involve the aforementioned global interactions is an important vein of research that can weigh in on the localist-globalist debate.

3.4 Locality domains Because the vast majority of empirical evidence indicates that suppletive allomorphy is triggered locally (both in Spanish and cross-linguistically), current research within diferent localist, cyclic frameworks has focused more narrowly on defning what the locality domains on allomorphic alternations are (Embick 2010; Bermúdez-Otero 2013; Merchant 2015). In Spanish, the most interesting cases that can weigh in on this debate involve root suppletion in the infectional paradigms of verbs and in certain derivational processes. I will use strong preterites as an illustration. Strong preterites are allomorphs of a fairly large class of verbs that appear in the preterite and past/future subjunctive (see Camus, this volume for a detailed discussion of this and other allomorphic alternations in verbal infection). (19) Strong preterite pus- of poner Preterite 1 sg 2 sg 3 sg 1 pl 2 pl 3 pl

pús-e pus-í-ste pús-o pus-í-mos pus-í-ste-is pus-ié-ro-n

Past subjunctive pus-ié-ra pus-ié-ra-s pus-ié-ra pus-ié-ra-mos pus-ié-ra-is pus-ié-ra-n

In theories like DM, which build words from roots, the relevant parts of a strong preterite would be represented as in (20). (20)

Agr T v ˜PONER

Agr T

v 357

Grant Armstrong

In Embick’s (2010) theory, T can only trigger an allomorphic alternation at the root node if v is null. In 1sg and 3sg forms of the preterite, there is arguably no theme vowel present, so T would have access to the root node. However, in all other cases, there is an overt theme node. Thus, it is not clear how T would access the root node in order to force the insertion of pusrather than pon-, pong- or pues-. While it is possible to use a readjustment rule and claim that there is no suppletive allomorphy at the root node, the unconstrained power of these has raised signifcant questions (Bobaljik 2012, 139–44; Bermúdez-Otero 2013; Merchant 2015). In light of this, some important alternatives have been ofered. The frst is to maintain a root-driven approach to word building and expand the possible locality domains that may trigger suppletive allomorphy. Merchant (2015), following work by Bye and Svenonius (2012), proposes that adjacent spans of nodes rather than adjacent individual nodes may act as triggers for allormorphic alternations. Strong preterites can be easily accounted for on this hypothesis, since v and T constitute a span of nodes that is adjacent to the root, which has access to the features in T that are necessary to force the correct choice of allomorph in this context. The second is outlined in Bermúdez-Otero (2013). In this approach, words are built from stems with the corresponding theme node, not roots. Individual lexemes have any relevant stem allomorphs listed, and the choice of allomorph is determined by the relevant context and constrained cyclically. In the case of the strong preterites in (19), the lexeme poner would have a number of listed stem alternants, with the relevant theme vowels, and subcategorisation information about where they are to be inserted. The issue of non-adjacency vanishes in this theory because there is no separate theme node that could count as an intervener between the root and T. The verb stem and T are adjacent, so the information in T has direct access to the stem. Locality domains are a hot topic in current research on suppletive allomorphy in which the careful investigation of apparently non-local triggers like the ones just mentioned will help sharpen our understanding of how to best model locality.

4 Conclusion In §2, I presented a broad picture of allomorphy and suppletion in Spanish, focusing on where we see this phenomenon and what triggers it. Section §3 discussed some of the most important issues that are at the heart of theoretical debates about how to best describe and explain allomorphic alternations. An exciting aspect of allomorphy and suppletion is that there exist very detailed descriptions of almost every type of known alternation in Spanish, often from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Future research that looks at this data through a lens informed by theoretical debates such as those mentioned in §3 will no doubt advance our understanding of this important topic.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Antonio Fábregas and Víctor Acedo-Matellán for helpful commentary and editorial assistance with this chapter. All errors are my responsibility.

Note 1 Thanks to Víctor Acedo-Matellán for this suggested analysis.

358

Allomorphy and suppletion

References Alcoba, S. 1999. “La fexión verbal.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4915–91. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Allen, M., and W. Badecker. 1999. “Stem Homograph and Inhibition and Stem Allomorphy: Representing and Processing Infected Forms in a Multilevel Lexical System.” Journal of Memory and Language 41: 105–23. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2013. “The Spanish Lexicon Stores Stems with Theme Vowels, Not Roots with Infectional Class Features.” Probus 25: 3–103. Bobaljik, J. D. 2000. “The Ins and Outs of Contextual Allomorphy.” In Proceedings of the Maryland Mayfest on Morphology 1999, edited by K. Grohmann and C. Struijke, 35–71. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Linguistics. Bobaljik, J. D. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bonet, E., and D. Harbour. 2012. “Contextual Allomorphy.” In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, edited by J. Trommer, 195–234. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bonet, E., M. R. Lloret, and J. Mascaró. 2015a. “The Prenominal Allomorphy Syndrome.” In Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory, edited by E. Bonet, M. R. Lloret and J. Mascaró, 5–44. Shefeld: Equinox. Bonet, E., M. R. Lloret, and J. Mascaró, eds. 2015b. Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory. Shefeld: Equinox. Bonet, E., and J. Mascaró. 2006. “U u o e y o e.” In Cuadernos de Lingüística XIII 2006, edited by A. Fábregas, N. Curto, and J. M. Lahoz, 1–8. Madrid: Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset. Božič, J. 2019. “Constraining Long-Distance Allomorphy.” The Linguistic Review 36: 485–505. Breuning, B. 2014. “Word Formation Is Syntactic: Adjectival Passives in English.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 363–422. Bye, P., and P. A. Svenonius. 2012. “Non-Concatenative Morphology as Epiphenomenon.” In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, edited by J. Trommer, 427–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carstairs, A. 1987. Allomorphy in Infexion. London: Croom Helm. Carstairs, A. 1988. “Some Implications of Phonologically Conditioned Suppletion.” In Yearbook in Morphology 1988, edited by G. Booij and J. van Marle, 67–94. Dordrecht: Foris. Corbett, G. 2007. “Canonical Typology, Suppletion and Possible Words.” Language 83: 8–42. Embick, D. 2010. Localism Versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gribanova, V., and S. Shih, eds. 2017. The Morphosyntax-Phonology Connection. Locality and Directionality at the Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halle, M., and A. Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Infection.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harley, H. 2014. “On the Identity of Roots.” Theoretical Linguistics 40: 225–76. Jackendof, R. 1975. “Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon.” Language 51: 639–71. Kager, R. 1996. “On Afx Allomorphy and Syllable Counting.” In Interfaces in Phonology, edited by U. Kleinhenz, 155–71. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Kiparsky, P.  1982. “Lexical Morphology and Phonology.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, edited by I. S. Yange, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin. Kiparsky, P. 1996. “Allomorphy or Morphophonology?” In Trubetzkoy’s Orphan: Proceedings of the Montreal Roundtable Morphophonology: Contemporary Responses, edited by R. Singh, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Markman, E. M., and G. F. Wachtel. 1988. “Children’s Use of Mutual Exclusivity to Constrain the Meaning of Words.” Cognitive Psychology 20: 121–57.

359

Grant Armstrong

Mascaró, J. 1996. “External Allomorphy as Emergence of the Unmarked.” In Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, edited by J. Durand and B. Kals, 473–83. Salford: European Studies Research Institute. Mascaró, J. 2007. “External Allomorphy and Lexical Representation.” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 715–35. Merchant, J. 2015. “How Much Context Is Enough? Two Cases of Span-Conditioned Stem Allomorphy.” Linguistic Inquiry 46: 273–303. Ohannesian, M. 2019. “Allomorphic Variation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Phonology, edited by S. Colina and F. Martínez-Gil, 288–306. New York: Routledge. Paster, M. 2006. “Phonological Conditions and Afxation.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley. Paster, M. 2014. “Allomorphy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, edited by R. Lieber and P. Stekauer, 219–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paster, M. 2015. “Phonologically Conditioned Suppletive Allomorphy: Cross-Linguistic Results and Theoretical Consequences.” In Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory, edited by E. Bonet, M. R. Lloret, and J. Mascaró, 218–53. Shefeld: Equinox. Paster, M. 2017. “Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, edited by A. Hippisley and G. Stump, 93–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pensado Ruiz, C. 1999. “Morfología y fonología.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4423–504. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Perlmutter, D. 1998. “Explanation of Allomorphy and the Architecture of Grammars.” In Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, edited by S. G. Lapointe, D. K. Brentari and P. M. Farrell, 307–38. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Ranier, F. 1999. “La derivación adjetival.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4595–643. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Real Academia Española (RAE), and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (ASALE). 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. Santiago Lacuesta, R., and E. Bustos Gisbert. 1999. “La derivación nominal.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4505–94. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

360

25 Phonotactics of Spanish morphology Sonia ColinaPhonotactics of Spanish morphology

(La fonotáctica y la morfología del español)

Sonia Colina

1 Introduction The morphology of Spanish is undoubtedly shaped by phonotactics, a set of restrictions over segments or sequences of segments permissible in a particular language. After reviewing various phenomena that illustrate this point, this chapter focuses on the interaction between morphological boundaries and operations (e.g., sufxation, prefxation, compounding, phrasal incorporation) and phonotactically driven phonological phenomena (e.g., glide consonantisation, /s/ aspiration, nasal velarisation, rhotic alternations and exceptional hiatuses). The presentation of the data is followed by a summary of extant analyses and of the challenges posed to phonological theory. The analyses demonstrate that the phenomena discussed are some of the most challenging in Spanish morphophonology and have the potential to shed light on and shape future advances in general phonological theory. Keywords: morphophonology; aspiration; glide consonantisation; resyllabifcation; prefxation Es indudable que la morfología del español se encuentra infuida por la fonotáctica, el conjunto de restricciones que especifcan qué segmentos o secuencias de segmentos son aceptables en una lengua. Tras pasar revista a varios fenómenos que sirven para ilustrar la anterior afrmación, este capítulo se centra en la interacción entre fronteras y operaciones morfológicas (ej. sufjación, prefjación, composición, frases), por un lado, y procesos fonológicos regidos por criterios fonotácticos (ej. consonantización de deslizadas, aspiración de /s/, velarización de nasales, alternancias róticas e hiatos excepcionales), por el otro. A continuación de la presentación de los datos se ofrece un resumen de análisis generativos de los mismos y de los retos que presentan dichos datos a la teoría fonológica. Los análisis demuestran que los fenómenos tratados son de los más complejos en la morfonología del español y que sin duda serán determinantes en la dirección que tomen los avances de la fonología teórica general. Palabras clave: morfonología; aspiración; consonantización de deslizadas; resilabeo; prefjación

361

Sonia Colina

2 Basic terminology and facts Phonotactic constraints are restrictions over sequences of segments permissible in a particular language. They are commonly stated in syllabic terms because they hold over syllables and syllabic components (Colina 2020). Phonotactic restrictions have an efect on the morphological facts of Spanish; in other words, the shape of Spanish morphemes is subject to phonological phonotactic requirements and well-formedness conditions. For instance, in most dialects of Spanish (Sonoran Mexican Spanish is a notable exception), the palatal approximant [j] is not allowed in the onset, surfacing instead as a palatal obstruent (ranging in degree of constriction from a fricative to a stop or africate), as seen in the allomorphs of the gerund sufx /iendo/, com-iendo [ko.mjen.do] ‘eating’ vs. cre-yendo [kre.ʝen̪ .do] *[kre.jen̪ .do] ‘believing’. Oftentimes, phonotactic restrictions must refer to morphological information, as in the [j]/[ʝ] alternation example, since consonantisation of [j] applies within the word domain before prefxation, deshielo [des- ʝe.lo] *[de.sje.lo], but fails to apply in the absence of a morphological boundary, as in desierto *[des.ʝe.r.to] [desierto] ‘desert’. Some morphological alternations are associated with phonotactic and prosodic restrictions. Plural allomorphy (see Camacho, this volume), for instance, is argued by some to be related to the epenthesis that is required to avoid the ill-formed consonant cluster that would result from attaching plural /s/ to the right of a word-fnal consonant, for example, desdén, desdenes *desdéns ‘disdain/s’ (Saltarelli 1970; Contreras 1977; Harris 1970, 1980, 1991, 1999; Colina 1995, 2006a; Moyna and Wiltshire 2000 and many others). In diminutive formation, monosyllabic consonant-fnal bases such as tren ‘train’ take the diminutive sufx -e-cito, rather then -cito, due to a prosodic condition that requires that the base be bisyllabic (Prieto 1992; Crowhurst 1992; Colina 2003a). According to some phonologists (Harris 1983, 1991, 1999; Colina 1995), phonotactics is partly responsible for the shape of Spanish morphology and of Spanish words and word classes: word-fnal [e] in words such as paje [paxe] ‘page’, nube [nuβe] ‘cloud’, parte [parte] ‘part’ is argued to be the result of epenthesis, as it is preceded by illegal consonants (those other than /r l n s d θ/) and consonant clusters. While arguments exist against an active rule of epenthesis following word-fnal illegal clusters (Bonet 2006; Colina 2003b, 2009), the fact remains that at some point in the history of Spanish, epenthesis took place to repair ill-formed consonants and consonant clusters, thus shaping the word classes and word morphology of Spanish. Segments can also be deleted or added in a morpheme to avoid an ill-formed sequence that would result from morpheme concatenation. For example, the stem-fnal consonant [p] is deleted in a stem like esculp- when followed by a consonant initial sufx, such as -tor or -tura: esculp-ir ‘to sculpt’, escul-tor ‘sculptor’, escul-tura ‘sculpture’ (Harris 1983). In other cases, the morphology and, more specifcally, morpheme concatenation can produce ill-formed allophonic segments or sequences of segments that do not occur in the absence of a morphological boundary and which are not repaired. For instance, geminates are not allowed in Spanish, but so-called ‘fake’ geminates can occur across morpheme boundaries, as in in-nato, ‘innate’. Other phenomena of this kind involve [h] and [ŋ], which are never allowed in the onset, unless they are allophonic realisations of coda /s/ and /n/ parsed in the onset as the result of resyllabifcation across morpheme boundaries (prefxes and/or word boundaries depending on the dialect). These morphological efects can be refected in the phonology in various ways, such as overapplication and underapplication, that is, processes that appear to have applied in contexts that do not meet their structural description and, conversely, processes that do not apply when the structural description is met. This chapter focuses on these last phenomena only, due to space limitations and to their interesting morphophonological properties. 362

Phonotactics of Spanish morphology

The rest of this chapter will be organised as follows: section 3 reviews the empirical data that will be the focus of this study and that will be analyzed in section 4; section 4 will summarise extant analyses and theoretical questions raised by the data; a summary and some conclusions will be ofered in section 5.

3 Empirical aspects As seen in section  2, Spanish phonotactics and morphology intersect in various ways. Of those, this chapter focuses on phenomena related to phonotactics and morpheme boundaries. The presence of certain morpheme boundaries can alter the output of phonological phenomena when compared to contexts that lack a boundary, resulting in over- and underapplication of a process. In overapplication, the process applies despite the absence of the required context. For example, in some Spanish dialects that aspirate /s/ only in the coda, [h] can appear in the onset across some morpheme boundaries, for example, des [deh] + hacer [a.ser] [de.ha.ser]. In underapplication, despite the presence of the environment necessary for it, the process fails to apply. For instance, an obstruent and a liquid form a complex onset in Spanish; however, the two segments are syllabifed separately across a morpheme boundary (prefx, compound, phrase), for example, a.fo.jar ‘to loosen’ but chef. lo.co *che.fo.co. This section describes the relevant data and processes involved in under- and overapplication over morpheme boundaries. Section 4 will address the analysis and the challenges that it presents for linguistic theory.

3.1 No onset maximisation across morpheme boundaries Whenever possible, Spanish prefers to parse two consonants in a complex onset rather than as two heterosyllabic consonants, one in the coda and one in the onset (Hualde 2005; Colina 2009). This phenomenon is known as onset maximisation and can be understood as a way to avoid coda consonants (and to favour open syllables) at the expense of increasing the complexity of the onset. For onset maximisation to take place, the two onset consonants must comply with the principle of maximum sonority distance (Martínez Gil 1997; Colina 2009, 2016): the frst member of the cluster must be a stop or /f/ (a member of the least sonorous sonority class in Spanish) and the second one a liquid (a member of the most of the most sonorous consonant class) (1a, b). If the consonant cluster violates this principle, the consonants are syllabifed in two diferent syllables (coda and onset) (1c, d). (1) a. hablamos b. afoja c. cansado d. has.ta

[a.βla.mos] [a.fo.xa] *[ka.nsa.ðo] *[a.sta]

*[aβ.la.mos] *[af.lo.xa] [kan.sa.ðo] [as.ta]

‘we talk’ ‘s/he loosens’ ‘tired’ ‘until’

However, onset maximisation does not apply if a morpheme boundary intervenes between the consonants (Colina 1997, 2009, 2012; Hualde 2005, 2014; see also Fábregas, this volume). This morpheme boundary can involve a prefx and derivational base (2b), or two independent words (2c, e). I am not aware of any empirical evidence pertinent to onset maximisation between a base and an infectional sufx; however, based on the behaviour of other infectional sufxes, the prediction is that it would apply normally. In other words, the phenomenon wherein onset maximisation fails to apply afects word boundaries and derivational prefxes and compounds rather than infectional morpheme boundaries. 363

Sonia Colina

(2) a. hablamos b. sub-lunar c. club lindo d. afoja e. chef loco

[a.βla.mos] [suβ.lu.nar] [kluβ.lin̪ .do] [a.fo.xa] [tʃef.lo.ko]

*[aβ.la.mos] *[su.βlu.nar] *[klu.βlin̪ .do] *[af.lo.xa] *[tʃe.fo.ko]

‘we talk’ ‘sublunar’ ‘pretty club’ ‘s/he loosens’ ‘crazy chef ’

Evidence for the heterosyllabic syllabifcation of the cluster in (2b, c, e) lies in that the frst consonant—the coda obstruent—often undergoes coda processes such as deletion and neutralisation, for example, [klu], [klup], [kluβ] ‘club’.

3.2 Onset strengthening In most dialects of Spanish, prevocalic glides that are not preceded by a consonant (i.e. in onset position) surface as [+consonantal] (3c, d); in other words, they become an obstruent whose degree of constriction ranges from a stop or africate to a fricative. This process is known as onset strengthening or glide consonantisation. (3) a. perd-er b. com-er c. cre-er d. o-ir

‘to lose’ ‘to eat’ ‘to believe’ ‘to hear

per.d-[je]n.do ‘losing’ co.m-[je]n.do ‘eating’ cre.-[ʝe]n.do ‘believing’ o.-[ʝe]n.do ‘hearing’ (adapted from Colina 2012)

The process in (3c, d) has been interpreted as a syllable repair mechanism, which turns a [-consonantal] segment into [+consonantal] for reasons of sonority, as a glide would be too sonorous for the onset position in most Spanish dialects (Hualde 1989, 1991, 1997; Harris and Kaisse 1999; Colina 2009, 2012). In the case of an infectional sufx like /-iendo/, a consonant preceding the glide is syllabifed as an onset and the glide is parsed in a complex nucleus (i.e. co.[mjen].do]) (3 a–b), yet when the glide is preceded by a prefx (4b), there is no resyllabifcation, and the glide surfaces as an obstruent; that is, onset strengthening applies. As a consequence, morphological structure (i.e. a prefx boundary) is responsible for the contrast in (4) between desierto ‘desert’ and deshielo ‘thaw’, where only (b) exhibits onset strengthening. (4) a. desierto [de.sjer.to] b. des-hielo [des.ʝe.lo]

‘desert’ ‘thaw’

When the morphological barrier is a word boundary, as in a phrase like ley alterna ‘alternate law’ (5a), onset strengthening fails to apply (i.e. underapplies) in most dialects, despite the illformedness of an onset glide. (5a) vs. (4b) (repeated for convenience as [5b]) and (5c), an example of an infectional sufx, illustrate the diferences in morpheme behaviour. (5) a. ley alterna b. des-hielo c. ley-es

[lej] [des] [lej]

[al̪.ter.na] [ʝe.lo] ley-es

[le.jal̪.ter.na] [des.ʝe.lo] [le.ʝes]

* [le.ʝal̪.ter.na] *[de.sje.lo] *[le.jes]

One could argue that the diference may be associated with the fact that hielo [ʝé.lo] is an independent word, whereas *[ʝal.ter.na] is not. However, this explanation also needs to account for 364

Phonotactics of Spanish morphology

[ʝ] within a word, as strengthening applies across infectional sufxes such as -iendo in (3) and the plural sufx in (5c). I will return to this matter in the analytical section of the chapter (section 4).

3.3 Aspiration and nasal velarisation Aspirating dialects of Spanish realise coda /s/ as [h] (6a, b). However, [h] can also surface in the onset, despite not meeting the structural description of the rule, after a prefx (6c), after the frst member of a compound (6d) and in phrasal constructions when the second word is vowel initial (6e). Nonetheless, /s/-fnal singulars, mes [meh] (6a), have [s] in the plural, [me.seh] (6b). (6) a. mes b. meses c. desecho d. dioses-héroes e. mes austero

[meh] [me.seh] [de.he.tʃo] [djo.se.he.ɾo.eh] [me.hawh.te.ɾo]

‘month’ ‘months’ ‘undone’ ‘god-heroes’ ‘austere month’

Cross-dialectal variation exists with regard to the outcome of prefxation, as some dialects do not aspirate when prefx-fnal /s/ resyllabifes to the onset (7c), and others aspirate only when /s/ is in the coda after all possible instances of resyllabifcation (8), showing no overapplication.1 (7) a. mes b. meses c. desecho d. dioses-héroes e. mes austero

[meh] [me.seh] [de.se.tʃo] [djo.se.he.ɾo.eh] [me.hawh.te.ɾo]

‘month’ ‘months’ ‘undone’ ‘god-heroes’ ‘austere month’

(8) a. mes b. meses c. desecho d. dioses-héroes e. mes austero

[meh] [me.seh] [de.se.tʃo] [djo.se.se.ɾo.eh] [me.sawh.te.ɾo]

‘month’ ‘months’ ‘undone’ ‘god-heroes’ ‘austere month’

Although dialectal variation exists with regard to prefxes, compounds and phrasal constituents, no dialect has [h] in an onset followed by vowel initial plural sufx -es. While I am not aware of additional data for other vowel initial sufxes that would confrm this pattern, the prediction is that they would behave like the plural sufx. This suggests some diferences involving derivational and infectional morphology. I will return to this topic in section 4. Some varieties of Spanish velarise nasals in coda position, for example, tren [tɾeŋ] ‘train’. The patterns of overapplication of nasal velarisation are similar to those observed in /s/ aspiration, afecting the prefx and compound boundary, which in some dialects sometimes overapplies showing velarisation in the onset. However, no variation is observed before the vowel initial plural sufx -es, as observed in the case of /s/ aspiration. (9) a. bien b. bienes c. inhumano d. bien estar e. pon uno

[bjeŋ] [bje.nes] [i.ŋu.ma.no] [bje.ŋes.tar] [po.ŋu.no]

‘good’ ‘goods’ ‘inhumane’ ‘well-being’ ‘put one’ 365

Sonia Colina

3.4 Rhotics In a majority of Spanish dialects, rhotics can be realised as a trill or a tap. Rhotics are trills in word initial position (10a). Sometimes this is referred to as word-initial /r/ strengthening. Trills also appear after an heterosyllabic consonant (10b) and contrastively in intervocalic position (10c, d) (Hualde 2005; Colina 2009). (10) a. [ro.sa] b. [en.ri.ke] c./karo/ d. /pera/

‘rose’ ‘Henry’ ‘car’ ‘female dog’

[ra.ta] [al.re.ðe.ðor] /kaɾo/ /peɾa/

‘rat’ ‘around’ ‘expensive’ ‘pear’

Although technically not word initial, a trill surfaces after a prefx boundary (11a, b) and after the frst member of a compound (11c). When speakers are not aware of the existence of the morpheme boundary, as in cases of opaque derivation, a tap will surface instead, as in erupción [eɾupsión] *[erupsión] ‘eruption’ (Hualde 1989). This is to be expected, as the phonotactics refect a speaker’s morphological competence rather the actual structure of the language as known by the linguist. (11) a. sub-rayar b. ultra-republicano c. mata-ratas

[suβ-ra.yar] [ultɾa.re.pu.βli.ka.no] [ma.ta.ra.tas]

‘underline’ ‘ultraconservative’ ‘rat poison’

In coda position, including word-fnally, a trill or a tap is possible, subject to free or individual variation (12). Even though both allophones are well formed word-fnally, the trill is not possible when the word-fnal, prevocalic rhotic resyllabifes to the onset, resulting in contrasts like the one in (13a–b), where the trill can only appear in the phrase with a word-initial trill, da rocas (Hualde 2005, 184). Consider also (13c–d), where no contrast is possible between the two homophonous examples. (12) a. [dar]~[daɾ] c. [mar]~[maɾ]

‘to give’ ‘sea’

b. [dar.ðo]~[daɾ.ðo] d. [mar.te]~[maɾ.te]

(13) a. da rocas

[da.ro.kas]

‘gives rocks’

b. dar ocas

c. amor es

[amo.ɾes] *[amo.res]

‘love is’

d. amores

‘dart’ ‘Mars’

[da.ɾo.kas] *[da.ro.kas] [amo.ɾes] *[amo.res]

‘to give geese’ ‘loves’ (n. pl.)

3.5 Exceptional hiatuses In general, a sequence of a high vowel and a non-high vowel after a consonant is usually pronounced in one syllable in Spanish, unless the high vowel is stressed, miedo [mjé.ðo] ‘fear’ vs. día [dí.a]. Nonetheless, some vowel sequences that should be part of the same syllable are exceptionally pronounced in two, for example, dien.te ‘tooth’ vs. exceptional cli.en.te ‘client’. These have been referred to in the literature as exceptional hiatuses. Phonologists have found various explanations for most of these exceptional hiatuses (a few truly exceptional ones remain) (Hualde 1997, 1999; Colina 1999), some of which are morphological, such as the presence of a morphological boundary between the vowels, due to a prefx or compound boundary: re-úne ‘gathers’; 366

Phonotactics of Spanish morphology

bi-enio ‘bienium’; boqui.ancho ‘widemouthed’. Exceptional hiatuses also occur with some sufxes, -oso, -al, -ario: respetu.oso ‘respectful’; virtu.oso ‘virtuous’; puntu.al ‘punctual’; manu.al ‘manual’; estu.ario ‘estuary’; santu.ario ‘sanctuary’ (Hualde 1997). These examples are once again evidence that morphological information has consequences for the phonotactics, in this case being responsible for a pattern of syllabifcation which the phonology alone cannot account for.

4 Analytical and theoretical questions This section summarises how generative phonological theories (i.e., derivational and optimality-theoretic accounts) have attempted to explain the data presented in section 3. The goal of a phonological theory is to describe and explain the phonological knowledge of a native speaker. The phonological knowledge of a speaker (including knowledge of acceptable and unacceptable combinations of sounds in a language) must also include morphological information, such as awareness of morpheme boundaries, given that these are refected in and have consequences for the phonology. Advances and changes in phonological theory come about as new models improve upon the explanations provided by former ones. In this section, I synthesise the advances and the challenges encountered by extant analyses of the relevant data for the reader who is encouraged to review additional details by consulting the references provided.

4.1 No onset maximisation across morpheme boundaries As mentioned in the introduction to this section, advances in phonological theory come about as new models improve upon the explanations provided by former ones. Onset maximisation in Spanish ofers a compelling example of how a constraint-based parallel theory of phonology like Optimality Theory (OT) can shed light on the phenomenon in a way in which a serial model, based on ordered rules, cannot (Colina 1997, 2006b, 2009). In a serial model, a rule of onset maximisation that attaches a second consonant to the left of a liquid as a complex onset is said to apply word internally ([a.βlar]) but not across words ([puβ.lin̪ .do], *[pu.βlin̪ .do]). In other words, the rule has a lexical application but fails to apply postlexically. This is unlike the rule of resyllabifcation that syllabifes an intervocalic consonant in the onset when followed by a vowel within a word a.las *al.as (14b) but also when followed a vowel-initial word across words las alas, la.sa.las *las.a.las (14c). One may ask why one rule would have two applications rather than one or vice versa, as referring to two applications of the same rule (vs one) doesn’t provide any signifcant insights into the diference between both phenomena. In contrast, the analysis of the data from the point of view of conficting, ranked requirements (i.e., constraints) on a phonological output yields an important insight into the absence of onset maximisation across words. Resyllabifcation of a coda consonant to the onset of a vowel-initial syllable/word serves the purpose of creating an onset (Onset constraint violation) for an otherwise onsetless syllable. However, this happens at the expense of misaligning the syllable and the word edges in a phrasal context (Align constraint violation) (14c). Misalignment is considered a lesser ofense than being onsetless; in optimality-theoretic terms, Onset dominates Align. The crucial diference between resyllabifcation and onset maximisation is that in the latter the word-initial syllable that would parse the word fnal consonant as a member of a complex cluster, [lin̪ ] in (15b) [lin̪ .do], is not onsetless, and thus the misalignment of the second consonant serves no purpose. When no alignment issues are at stake, that is, word-internally as in ([a.βlar], onset maximisation takes place in order to avoid a coda consonant (i.e., a *Coda violation). No onset maximisation across words means that Align must dominate *Coda as a coda is preferred to misalignment. 367

Sonia Colina

(14) Misalignment to avoid an onsetless syllable a. las ‘the’ b. a.las ‘wings’ c. la.s|alas ‘the wings’ (15) No onset maximisation to avoid misalignment a. pub ‘pub’ b. lin.do ‘pretty c. pub.|lin.do ‘pretty pub’

4.2 Under- and overapplication: onset and /r/ strengthening, /s/ aspiration, /n/ velarisation As seen in the data in section 3, /s/ aspiration and /n/ velarisation overapply because [h] and [ŋ] surface not just in the coda where they meet their structural description but also in the onset when they are the result of resyllabifcation of prefx or an independent word (6c–e; 9c–e). Onset strengthening exhibits no overapplication across words (5a), and /r/ strengthening generally applies as expected (no under- or overapplication). Overapplication/underapplication are examples of what is more generally referred to as opacity, which is arguably one of the strongest challenges faced by OT, as accounting for it often involves some degree of serialism/ordering (e.g. lexical phonological processes usually precede postlexical ones) or, alternatively, other complex mechanisms (e.g., identity, sympathy, harmonic serialism, etc.). Serial models explain opacity through rule-ordering, an apparatus that is more straightforward and more compatible with derivational phonology than with OT, and yet it provides little intuitive insight into the process, as seen in the sample derivations in (16) (adapted from Hualde 1989; Colina 2009). For onset strengthening, the relevant order of phonological and morphological rules in a serial model is: sufxation, syllabifcation, onset strengthening, prefxation and compounding, which explains the contrast between [des.ʝe.lo] and [de.sjer.to] in (16), as the onset strengthening rule applies before the prefx is adjoined in the former but not in the latter, since there is no prefx. Lexically syllabifcation places [j] in onset position in [le.jes] frst so that onset strengthening can apply later; at the postlexical level, when phrasal components are incorporated, [j] is resyllabifed to the onset but remains [j], because onset strengthening no longer applies, [le.jal.ɣu.na]. (16) Onset strengthening: serial derivation Level 1 Sufxation Syllabifcation O-strengthening Level 2 Prefx/Comp. Resyllabifcation Postlexical level Phrasal incorp. Resyllabifcation Output 368

[des[[jel]o]]

[[desiert]o]

[[lej]es]

[lej] [[alɣun]a]

[des[jelo]] [des.[je.lo]] [des.[ʝe.lo]]

[desjerto] [de.sjer.to] [le.ʝes]

[lejes] [le.jes]

[lej] [alɣuna] [lej][al.ɣu.na]

[le.ʝes]

[lej.al.ɣu.na] [le.jal.ɣu.na] [le.jal.ɣu.na]

[des.ʝe.lo]

[des.ʝe.lo]

[de.sjer.to]

Phonotactics of Spanish morphology

OT accounts resort to a constraint against [j] in the onset ([j] is not strong enough for this position), which dominates another that requires faithfulness to the [-cons] specifcation of the input glide. This results in the selection of a consonantal output (with a degree of constriction which ranges from the fricative to a stop) over an onset glide, despite the modifcation of the input (Wiltshire 2006; Colina 2009). Wiltshire (2006) explains failure to consonantise across word boundaries [le.jal.ɣu.na] as a consequence of the domination of a Weak]Pw constraint (that requires weak allophones to the left of the prosodic word boundary) over the requirement to consonantise an onset glide (i.e. fortition). Another way to account for the onset consonantisation data relies on Stratal OT (BermúdezOtero in preparation, 2006, 2011; Kiparsky 2000), which allows for stem, word and phrasallevel strata with diferent constraint rankings. The generalisation that glides are not allowed in onset position in Spanish would apply only within the morphological word, that is, within the lexicon and the word stratum. The constraint against glides in the onset dominates the faithfulness constraint that preserves a glide, as indicated previously, for the word stratum. Across words, in the phrasal-level stratum, [le.jal.ɣu.na], glides can appear in the onset, which is explained through the opposite ranking, in which the ban on onset glides is ranked lower than the one preserving the input. Stratal OT accounts have been criticised on the grounds that they introduce a form of serialism (the stem level precedes the word level and in turn goes before the phrasal one) and they are thus not entirely true to the parallel spirit of OT. Supporters claim that it is possible to have more than one level in phonology, similar to the existence of multiple components in the grammar (Kiparsky 2000; Bermúdez-Otero 2011). A serial analysis for /s/ aspiration is shown in (17) (adapted from Hualde 1989; Colina 2009) (the derivation for n-velarisation proceeds similarly). The ordering of aspiration before prefxation, compounding and resyllabifcation results in [h] in the onset in [de.he.tʃo] and [djo.se.he. ɾo.eh]; similarly, this accounts for onset [h] in phrases like [me.hawh.te.ɾo]. Dialectal variation is explained through diferent ordering of aspiration with respect to morphological operations: prefxation, aspiration and compounding produce [de.se.tʃo], but [djo.se.he.ɾo.eh], [me.hawh. te.ɾo] (7), while prefxation/compounding, phrase incorporation and aspiration result in no onset [h] (only coda [h]) (8). (17) /s/ aspiration: serial derivation Level 1 Sufxation Syllabifcation Aspiration Level 2 Prefx/Comp. Resyllabifcation Postlexical level Phrasal incorp. Resyllabifcation Output

[[mes]es]

[des[[etʃ]o]]

[[dios]es][[eɾoe]s]

[meses] [me.ses] [me.seh]

[des[etʃo]] [des.[e.tʃo]] [deh.[e.tʃo]]

[mes] [awsteɾo] [[dioses][eɾoes]] [[djo.ses][e.ɾo.es]] [mes] [aws.te.ɾo] [[djo.seh][e.ɾo.eh]] [meh] [awh.te.ɾo]

[deh.e.tʃo] [de.he.tʃo]

[djo.seh.e.ɾo.eh] [djo.se.he.ɾo.eh]

[me.seh]

[de.he. tʃo]

[djo.se.he.ɾo.eh]

[mes] [[awsteɾ]o]

[meh awh.te.ɾo] [me.hawh.te.ɾo] [me.hawh.te.ɾo]

As Colina (2002) and Wiltshire (2006) note, the rule ordering needed in (17) is ad hoc and unmotivated. This is particularly obvious in the case of sufxes, which are never afected by 369

Sonia Colina

variation, [meseh], *[meheh]; [bjenes], *[bjeŋes]. The absence of variation in the behaviour of sufxes can only be accounted for through absence of variation in rule ordering, in other words, by stating that only one rule order is possible, that is, sufxation, syllabifcation and aspiration. OT accounts of the previous data include Colina (2002, 2009), Wiltshire (2006), TorresTamarit (2014) (aspiration only) and Ramsammy (2013) (nasal velarisation only).2 Colina (2002, 2009) resorts to identity constraints that ban allomorphy in prefxes, compounds and morphological words, thus arguing that overapplication of aspiration in the onset is due to the need to have only one allomorph, for example, [deh], rather than two, [des] and [deh]. The antiallomorphy identity constraint (Ident PrWd(SL)) dominates the faithfulness constraint that requires identity to input /s/, (Max-IO (SL)). Variation in those dialects that do not aspirate coda /s/ when it is in the onset, [de.sa.ser], is accounted for through variation in the structure of prefxes, which in these dialects are not adjoined to the prosodic word and are thus not afected by identity requirements. Thus, there is no correspondence relation between [deh] and its realisation in [de.se.tʃo]. Dialects that only aspirate in the coda (no overapplication) have the opposite ranking; that is, input faithfulness constraints dominate identity, that is, Max-IO (SL) >> Ident PrWd(SL). Consequently, there is allomorphy in prefxes, compounds and words, which will exhibit aspiration in the coda, and lack of it in the onset. Sufxes exhibit no variation, because they are never prosodic words and thus the antiallomorphy constraint does not apply to them. Also within an OT framework, Wiltshire (2006) explains the aspiration and velarisation data as a consequence of the domination of Weak]syllable and Weak]Pw constraints that require weak allophones to the left of the syllable and prosodic word boundary (i.e., [h] and [ŋ] rather than [s] or [n] before a syllable and a prosodic word boundary). Although Wiltshire does not explicitly discuss this, in her account, sufxed forms do not exhibit aspiration ([meh], and [me.seh], not [me.heh]), because [s] is not to the left of a syllable or prosodic word boundary. Wiltshire does not address variation in prefxes; however, Weak]Pw alone would not sufce to explain it, as the prosodic word boundary would require a weak form in all cases (syllable boundaries change with resyllabifcation, but the prosodic word boundary does not). Torres-Tamarit (2014) proposes an OT analysis of aspiration framed in Harmonic Serialism (HS), a non-stratal derivational version of OT in which evaluation proceeds in stages, so that each candidate introduces only one modifcation with respect to the input, until the fnal optimal candidate is reached and no further improvements are possible. In addition to introducing serialism in OT, Torres-Tamarit’s analysis requires two versions of one constraint (i.e. AlignLeft Stem), one of which can be argued to be stipulative, and a restriction on core syllabifcation that disallows tautosyllabifcation of two adjacent segments if one but not the other is dominated by a higher prosodic category and if there is no other higher prosodic category that encompasses both segments. This prevents incorporation of an /s/-fnal prefx into the base in some dialects where it could result in onset [s] [*de.sa.ser]; for those dialects with [de.sa.ser] as the output, the lower ranking of the aspiration constraints vs. the prosodifcation ones produces the right outcome. Torres-Tamarit’s aspiration analysis is reminiscent of the ordering of morphological operations with respect to phonological ones in a serial account (17). Serial ordering efects are replicated through serial prosodifcation, obtained through the relevant prosodic constraints that apply in stages [(1) Align-Left Stem, (2) Parse Seg., (3) Align-Left [MWd, PWd]. Their ranking with respect to Coda Cond (responsible for aspiration) explains dialectal variation. Lack of variation with infectional sufxes would be explained through the absence of the prosodic constraint relevant to that domain. Ramsammy (2013, 251–52)’s Stratal OT analysis of the overapplication of word-fnal velarisation at the phrasal level requires surface identity between nasals which have undergone place 370

Phonotactics of Spanish morphology

neutralisation in the preceding strata (word-level) and their correspondents in the output of the phrasal stratum. He argues that this is more adequate than relying on stipulative rankings, as StrOT permits phonological processes to target phonological structures in diferent morphosyntactic domains. /r/ strengthening difers from onset strengthening, aspiration and velarisation in that the latter phenomena involve only allophonic realisations, while /r/ strengthening interacts with phonemic segments, given that rhotics in Spanish can be contrastive (10c). As seen in (10a) and (11), only a trill is possible in word-initial and stem-initial position (before prefxes). Colina (2009, 90) argues that a constraint that bans taps from stem initial position (*|[ɾ]: no [ɾ] in stem initial position) is responsible for this. Note also that while there is variation between a tap and a trill in coda position (12) ([dar]~[daɾ]), only the fap is well formed when the coda rhotic is parsed in the onset as the result of resyllabifcation [as seen in (13), repeated here as (19) for convenience]. (19) a. da rocas

[da.ro.kas]

‘gives rocks’

c. amor es

[amo.ɾes] *[amo.res]

‘love is’

b. dar ocas d. amores

[da. ɾo.kas] *[da. ro.kas] [amo.ɾes] *[amo.res]

‘to give geese’ ‘loves’ (n. pl.)

Onset trills are only possible if left aligned with a stem (i.e. stem initial, word-initial or following a prefx) or underlyingly specifed (contrastive) and thus preserved through faithfulness constraints. This suggests that the constraint in Colina (2009) that bans taps in stem-initial position may need to be reformulated to require instead an onset trill to be either stem initial, |Onset/|[r], or specifed as such in the input (contrastive). A faithfulness constraint dominating the stem-initial trill requirement would preserve the underlying contrast (Rhotic-IO >> |Onset/|[r]) in non-stem-initial positions. Since the rhotic in (19c–d) is neither contrastive nor stem initial (rather the result of the re/syllabifcation), [r] would incur a violation of the constraint that requires a trill in stem-initial position |Onset/|[r], and it would be ruled out in favour of [ɾ]. The high ranking of the faithfulness constraint protects underlying contrastive onset taps, such as in [pe.ɾo].

4.3 Exceptional hiatuses As mentioned in 2.5, some exceptional hiatuses have a morphological explanation, that is, the presence of a morphological boundary between the vowels, often a prefx or compound boundary: re-úne ‘gathers’; bi-enio ‘bienium’; boqui.ancho ‘widemouthed’. Exceptional hiatuses also occur with some sufxes, -oso, -al, -ario: respetu.oso ‘respectful’; virtu.oso ‘virtuous’; puntu.al ‘punctual’; manu.al ‘manual’; estu.ario ‘estuary’; santu.ario ‘sanctuary’ (Hualde 1997). Wiltshire (2006) accounts for this behaviour in connection with prefx, compound and word boundaries as the result of Weak]Pw, which associates weakness with increased sonority, and thus a full vowel is preferred to a glide in contact with a prosodic word boundary. Wiltshire’s account, however, cannot explain hiatuses due to a sufx boundary, as there is no prosodic word boundary and Weak]Pw would be vacuously satisfed. Colina (2002, 125–26) resorts to an identity constraint that requires syllabic vocoids (i.e., vowels) in a base to correspond to a syllabic vocoid in a sufxed form of the same base. For instance, for the input /afektuoso/, the optimal output is [afektuoso], rather than *[afektwoso], because the winner preserves the syllabic identity of the last syllable of the base [afekto], satisfying Identσ. Base identity approaches like Colina’s have been criticised on account of the difculties involved in identifying the base. 371

Sonia Colina

5 Conclusions Spanish morphology is undoubtedly shaped by phonotactics. After reviewing various phenomena that illustrate this point, this chapter focused on the interaction between morphological boundaries and operations (e.g., sufxation, prefxation, compounding, phrasal incorporation) and phonotactically driven phonological phenomena (e.g., glide consonantisation, /s/ aspiration, nasal velarisation, rhotic alternations and exceptional hiatuses). The presentation of the data was followed by a summary of extant analyses and the challenges posed to phonological theory. The analyses reviewed demonstrate that the phenomena discussed are perhaps the most challenging in Spanish morphophonology and have the potential to shed light on and shape future advances in general phonological theory.

Notes 1 See Kaisse (1998) for more information on dialects and dialect groups with respect to patterns of aspiration; a more complicated pattern, including also deletion, can be found in Chilean. The interested reader should consult Broś (2019). 2 For a diferent approach, see Strycharczuk and Kolhberger (2016) who, on the basis of acoustic data, challenge the view that resyllabifed [s] is identical to canonical onsets and codas in Peninsular Spanish. They call for a representational account of resyllabifed /s/ rather than the traditional computational analyses summarised in this chapter.

References Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2006. “Morphological Structure and Phonological Domains in Spanish Denominal Derivation.” In Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology, edited by F. Martínez-Gil and S. Colina, 278–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2011. “Cyclicity.” In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology (Vol. 4: Phonological Interfaces), edited by M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, and K. Rice, 2019–48. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bermúdez-Otero, R. In preparation. Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www. bermudez-otero.com/Stratal_Optimality_Theory.htm. Bonet, E. 2006. “Gender Allomorphy and Epenthesis in Spanish.” In Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology, edited by F. Martínez-Gil and S. Colina, 312–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Broś, K. 2019. “Domain Modelling in Optimality Theory: Morphological Cyclicity vs. Stepwise Prosodic Parsing.” Journal of Linguistics 1–41. doi:10.1017/S0022226719000082. Colina, S. 1995. “A Constraint-Based Approach to Syllabifcation in Spanish, Galician and Catalan.” PhD diss., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Colina, S. 1997. “Identity Constraints and Spanish Resyllabifcation.” Lingua 103 (1): 1–23. Colina, S. 1999. “Reexamining Spanish Glides: Analogically Conditioned Variation in Vocoid Sequences in Spanish Dialects.” In Advances in Hispanic Linguistics: Papers from the 2nd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, edited by J. Gutiérrez-Rexach and F. Martínez-Gil, 121–34. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Colina, S. 2002. “Interdialectal Variation in Spanish /s/ Aspiration: The Role of Prosodic Structure and Output-to-Output Constraints.” In Structure, Meaning and Acquisition, edited by J. Lee, K. L. Geeslin, and J. Clancy Clements, 230–43. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Colina, S. 2003a. “Diminutives in Spanish: A  Morphophonological Account.” The Southwest Journal of Linguistics 22 (2): 45–88. Colina, S. 2003b. “The Status of Word-Final [e] in Spanish.” The Southwest Journal of Linguistics 22 (1): 87–107. Colina, S. 2006a. “Output-to-Output Correspondence and the Emergence of the Unmarked in Spanish Plural Formation.” In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, (Selected/Refereed Papers from the 35th LSRL), edited by J. P. Montreuil, 49–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 372

Phonotactics of Spanish morphology

Colina, S. 2006b. “Optimality-Theoretic Advances in Accounting for Spanish Syllable Structure.” In Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology, edited by F. Martínez-Gil and S. Colina, 172–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Colina, S. 2009. Spanish Phonology. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Colina, S. 2012. “Syllable Structure.” In Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, edited by J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, and E. O’Rourke, 133–51. Oxford: Blackwell. Colina, S. 2016. “On Onset Clusters in Spanish: Voiced Obstruent Underspecifcation and /f/.” In The Syllable and Stress: Studies in Honor of James W. Harris, edited by R. A. Núñez Cedeño, 107–37. Boston: De Gruyter. Colina, S. 2020. “Phonotactic Constraints on Syllable Structure.” In The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Phonology, edited by S. Colina and F. Martínez-Gil, 131–44. London and New York: Routledge. Contreras, H. 1977. “Spanish Epenthesis and Stress.” In Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 3: 9–33. Seattle: University of Washington. Crowhurst, M. J. 1992. “Diminutives and Augmentatives in Mexican Spanish: A Prosodic Analysis.” Phonology 9: 221–53. Harris, J. W. 1970. “A Note on Spanish Plural Formation.” Language 46: 928–30. Harris, J. W. 1980. “Nonconcatenative Morphology and Spanish Plurals.” Journal of Linguistic Research 1: 15–31. Harris, J. W. 1983. Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish: A Non-Linear Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harris, J. W. 1991. “The Form Classes of Spanish Substantives.” In Yearbook of Morphology, edited by G. Booij and J. van Marle, 65–88. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Harris, J. W. 1999. “Nasal Depalatalization No, Morphological Wellformedness Sí; the Structure of Spanish Word Classes.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 47–82. Harris, J. W., and E. M. Kaisse 1999. “Palatal Vowels, Glides and Obstruents in Argentinian Spanish.” Phonology 16: 117–90. Hualde, J. I. 1989. “Silabeo y estructura morfémica en español.” Hispania 72: 821–31. Hualde, J. I. 1991. “On Spanish Syllabifcation.” In Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics, edited by H. Campos and F. Martínez-Gil, 475–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Hualde, J. I. 1997. “Spanish /i/ and Related Sounds: An Exercise in Phonemic Analysis.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 27: 61–79. Hualde, J. I. 1999. “Patterns in the Lexicon: Hiatus with High Unstressed High Vowels in Spanish.” In Advances in Hispanic linguistics. Papers from the 2nd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, edited by J. GutiérrezRexach and F. Martínez-Gil, 182–97. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Hualde, J. I. 2005. The Sounds of Spanish. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Hualde, J. I. 2014. “La silabifcación en español.” In Fonología generativa contemporánea de la lengua española, edited by R. A. Núñez-Cedeño, S. Colina, and T. Bradley, 195–215. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Kaisse, E. M. 1998. “Resyllabifcation Precedes All Segmental Rules: Evidence from Argentinian Spanish.” In Formal Perspectives on Romance Linguistics, edited by M. Authier, B. Bullock, and L. Reed, 197–210. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kiparsky, P. 2000. “Opacity and Cyclicity.” The Linguistic Review 17: 351–67. Martínez-Gil, F. 1997. “Obstruent Vocalization in Chilean Spanish: A Serial Versus a Constraint-Based Approach.” Probus 9: 165–200. Moyna, I., and Wiltshire, C. 2000. “Spanish Plurals: Why [s] Isn’t Always Optimal.” In Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millenium: Papers from the 3rd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, edited by H. Campos, E. Herburger, A. Morales-Front, and T. J. Walsh, 31–48. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Prieto, P. 1992. “Morphophonology of Spanish Diminutive Formation: A Case for Prosodic Sensitivity.” Hispanic Linguistics 5 (1–2): 169–205. Ramsammy, M. 2013. “Word-Final Velarization in Spanish.” Journal of Linguistics 49 (1): 215–55. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000187. Saltarelli, M. 1970. “Spanish Plural Formation: Apocope or Epenthesis.” Language 46: 89–96. Strycharczuk, P., and M. Kolhberger. 2016. “Resyllabifcation Reconsidered: On the Durational Properties of Word-Final /s/ in Spanish.” Laboratory Phonology 7 (1): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/labphon.5. 373

Sonia Colina

Torres-Tamarit, F. 2014. “Phonology-Morphology Opacity in Harmonic Serialism.” In Variation Within and Across Romance Languages. Selected Papers from the 41st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL41), edited by M. H. Cotê and E. Mathieu, 39–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wiltshire, C. 2006. “Prefx Boundaries in Spanish Varieties.” In Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology, edited by F. Martínez-Gil and S. Colina, 358–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

374

26 Stress in morphologically simple and complex Spanish words1 Violeta Martínez-ParicioStress in simple and complex words

(El acento en las palabras simples y complejas en español)

Violeta Martínez-Paricio 1 Introduction This chapter describes the most common patterns of stress in simple, derived and compound forms in Spanish. We discuss the specifc prosodic structure of diferent word types and explore the role played by phonological and morphological factors in stress assignment. We will see that whereas the locus of stress is not usually afected by the addition of infectional sufxes, it is almost always afected by derivational sufxes. Given the vast literature available on Spanish stress, the chapter briefy highlights the main ingredients of various traditional and more recent Optimality Theory (OT) analyses of stress, concentrating on Baković’s proposal (2016), which we expand further to account for additional data. Keywords: word-stress; stem; prosodic word; stressed and preaccented afxes Este capítulo presenta una descripción general de los patrones acentuales de las palabras simples, derivadas y compuestas en español. Se refexiona sobre la estructura prosódica que presentan los distintos tipos de palabras y se investiga el papel que desempeñan la fonología y la morfología en la asignación del acento en español. Se observará que, mientras que los sufjos fexivos no suelen condicionar la posición del acento, los sufjos derivacionales sí lo hacen. Dado que la bibliografía sobre el acento en español es muy extensa, en este capítulo nos limitamos a destacar los rasgos más generales de algunos análisis, tradicionales y actuales (estos últimos enmarcados en la Teoría de la Optimidad), prestando especial atención al trabajo de Baković (2016), el cual expandimos para dar cuenta de datos adicionales. Palabras clave: acento; base léxica; palabra prosódica, afjos acentuados y preacentuados

2 Primary stress in Spanish: defnition and basic generalizations Word-level stress is a relational phonological property by which one syllable displays greater prominence than other syllables within the prosodic word. In Spanish, as in many other languages, stress is acoustically signalled through increased intensity, duration, and a higher fundamental frequency. These acoustic cues can be manifested simultaneously, but they can also occur individually depending on the phonological context and the speaker (Llisterri forthcoming). 375

Violeta Martínez-Paricio

Besides some compounds and adverbs ending in -mente, which display two stresses (§6), lexical items in Spanish contain only one stressed syllable per prosodic word (henceforth, ω). Secondary stresses can arise at a post-lexical level, but they are governed by a diferent set of rules/ constraints, and so they will not be discussed in the present chapter (see Roca 1986; Hualde 2007 for details). Nor will the specifc accentual patterns of function words be investigated here, as the focus is on stress in lexical forms. In Spanish, stress is culminative (i.e., all lexical forms contain one stressed syllable) and it can be contrastive. This is illustrated in (1). (Throughout the chapter, examples are given in Spanish orthography, but for clarity, we always signal the stressed syllable with an acute accent and in bold, even when this is not part of the orthographic form.) (1) Triplets illustrating the contrastive function of stress in Spanish (RAE and ASALE 2011, 358) animó ‘to cheer up, 3sg past’ ánimo ‘mood’ anímo ‘to cheer up, 1sg pres’ depositó ‘to place, 3sg past’ depósito ‘deposit’ deposíto ‘to place, 1sg pres’ liquidó ‘to sell of, 3sg past’ líquido ‘liquid liquído ‘to sell of, 1sg pres’ Despite the diferent stress patterns reported for diferent word types (see §2–§6), a basic generalization holds: stress must fall within a three-syllable window from the right edge of the ω. This restriction ensures that primary stress is placed either on the fnal, penultimate or antepenultimate syllable of every ω (2), whether this contains a derived, underived, infected or uninfected morphosyntactic word. The specifc size of this stress window is, cross-linguistically, the maximum reported for accentual window systems (Kager 2012). (2) Possible locations of primary stress a. Final syllable: colosál ‘colossal’, amár ‘to love-inf ’, faralá ‘founce’ b. Penultimate syllable: amígo ‘friend’, cerébro ‘brain’, comémos ‘to eat-1pl.pres’, pequeñíto ‘small-dim’ c. Antepenultimate syllable: cámara ‘camera’, mérito ‘merit’, Júpiter ‘Jupiter’, cantábrico ‘Cantabrian’ The only apparent exception to this constraint is found in sequences of verbs and enclitics (e.g., cómpraselos ‘buy them from them’, llévasela ‘take it to him/her’). However, if one considers the internal morphological structure of these forms (e.g., cómpraV+se3PL.DAT+los3pl.acc) and assumes that the domain of stress is the verbal form, it can be argued that the window restriction is preserved (Hualde forthcoming). More specifcally, as pointed out in Elordieta (2014, 32), assuming that only the lexical head (i.e., the infected verbal form) projects its own ω and that enclitics are directly attached to the next level in the prosodic hierarchy, that is, the level of the phonological phrase (φ), there is no longer any violation of the stress window, for example, ((cómpra)ω selos)φ. Importantly, the patterns in (2) are not equally common; depending on the morphological and phonological make-up of the word, some stress patterns arise more frequently than others. In this chapter, we review the basic generalizations with respect to regular and irregular stress in simple, derived and compound words in Spanish; we discuss the specifc prosodic structure of diferent word types and we explore the role played by phonological and morphological factors in stress assignment. We briefy highlight the main ingredients of various traditional and more recent Optimality Theory analyses of Spanish stress. The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. Section 3 describes the regular and irregular stress patterns in simple nouns, adjectives and adverbs. This section summarizes a fairly recent OT analysis of stress (Baković 2016) and 376

Stress in simple and complex words

extends it to account for a particular type of exception. Section 4 looks at stress in the verbal domain. Section  5 investigates the main stress patterns in derived forms and shows that the analysis presented in §3.2 can also generate the stress patterns in derived forms. Section 6 focuses on the prosodic structure of compounds and adverbs ending in -mente, which were originally compounds in Latin. Section 7 concludes.

3 Stress in simple nouns, adjectives and adverbs: main generalizations and analyses 3.1 The domain of stress: the word? We can distinguish two main groups of analyses of Spanish stress depending on what we consider the domain of stress in nouns, adjectives and adverbs (henceforth referred to as ‘nonverbal forms’). On the one hand, a large number of studies assume that the domain of stress in non-verbal forms is the word (i.a., Harris 1969, 1983; Lipski 1997; Piñeros 2016). According to some of these authors, stress regularly falls on the penultimate syllable when the word ends in a vowel (e.g., camíno ‘path’, delgádo ‘thin’, bastánte ‘enough’), but if the word ends in a consonant, fnal stress is the preferred option (e.g., melocotón ‘peach’, francés ‘French’, jamás ‘never’) (3a). This generalization accounts for the location of stress in around 90% of the forms in a corpus of 91,000 words (Morales-Front 2014, 244; RAE and ASALE 2011, 380) and, given that fnal closed syllables seem to attract stress, it is the basis for positing that stress in Spanish is partially sensitive to syllable structure. Stress patterns that do not follow this generalization are considered exceptional (3b). Note that irregular stress respects the window restriction (the numbers correspond to the percentage of words with this stress pattern in Morales-Front’s corpus). (3) Word-based account a. Regular patterns

a.i) Penultimate stress in V-fnal words: camíno ‘path’ a.ii) Final stress C-fnal words: melocotón ‘peach’ b. Irregular patterns b.i) Final stress in V-fnal words: menú ‘menu’ b.ii) Penultimate stress in -C fnal words: árbol ‘tree’ b.iii) Antepenultimate stress: sábana ‘sheet’, régimen ‘diet’

63.64% 27.08% 0.63% 0.56% 8.9%

Analyses of stress that adopt a word-based account, whether rule-based or constraint-based, generally assume that a few universal metrical principles are responsible for the construction of a trochaic binary foot aligned with the right edge of the prosodic word. When the fnal syllable is open, the trochee is disyllabic, for example, [ca(mí.no)Ft]ω (square brackets here signal ω boundaries, round brackets mark foot edges and dots signal syllable boundaries). When the fnal syllable is closed, the trochaic foot is binary at the moraic level: the fnal consonant projects a mora (µ), contributing to the weight of this syllable, which projects its own foot and, hence, attracts stress, for example, [me.lo.co(tóµnµ)Ft]ω. Within OT, regular stress can easily be modelled via the interaction of well-established metrical constraints that align the right edge of the ω with a trochee (see Martínez-Paricio 2013 among many others). Since stress generally falls on the same syllable in singular and plural forms (e.g., cása ‘house sg.~ cásas ‘house pl’, melón ‘melon sg ~ melónes ‘melon pl’),2 these studies need to assume that the plural -s constitutes an exception to the generalization by which fnal consonants are moraic or, instead, they need to adopt a derivational approach by which the plural is created once stress assignment has taken place. 377

Violeta Martínez-Paricio

To account for irregular stress (3b), all sorts of lexical marking devices have been invoked in word-based analyses: in forms with irregular penultimate (e.g., árbol) and antepenultimate stress (e.g., sábana), the fnal syllable or mora has been marked as ‘extrametrical’ (i.e., invisible for stress assignment purposes) (Harris 1983; Lipski 1997); in words with fnal stress ending in a vowel (e.g., menú), the fnal segment has been specifed with lexical stress. As pointed out by Piñeros (2016) and Roca (2019), the use of these and similar types of lexical specifcations must be accompanied by the introduction of additional principles to adequately restrict the location of exceptional stress to the three-syllable window. Note, for example, that within OT, a highranking faithfulness constraint that preserves specifcations such as underlying stress could have, under certain circumstances, the undesired efect of placing stress outside the three-syllable window. To avoid this type of overgeneration, additional constraints are needed to restrict the location of stress in irregular forms. Despite subtle differences of formalization, word-based accounts of Spanish stress often rely on the hypothesis that stress is sensitive to syllable structure (Piñeros 2016 being an exception). Beyond the attraction of stress to final closed syllables, the idea that Spanish stress is quantity sensitive (and, hence, that coda consonants and glides make a syllable heavy) was further supported by the apparent preclusion of antepenultimate stress in words containing a penultimate syllable with a diphthong or a coda (e.g., aduána *áduana ‘customs’; dinosáurio *dinósaurio ‘dinosaur’; paténte *pátente ‘obvious’) or a final syllable with a diphthong (e.g., Emília, *Émilia) (Harris 1983). However, in recent years, a large number of experimental and theoretical studies have spoken out about quantity sensitivity in Spanish, weakening the word-based accounts of Spanish stress (Roca 1988; Bárkányi 2002; Piñeros 2016 inter alia). On the one hand, some of these studies have shown that, even if the previously mentioned structures are rare in Spanish, they are not entirely absent: (a) words like sécuano ‘related to Sena’, alícuota ‘aliquot’, the toponym Frómista and a wide range of loanwords (e.g., Mánchester, Wáshington  …) present antepenultimate stress even though the penultimate syllable could be characterized as heavy; (b) additionally, there are a few proparoxytones like ventrílocuo ‘ventriloquist’, in spite of containing a diphthong in their final syllable (Roca 1988). On the other hand, as pointed out in Meinschaefer (2015, 16), several non-word production and perception experiments argue that it is improbable that Spanish speakers assign word-stress based on quantity contrasts (e.g., Bárkányi 2002; Face 2004, although see Fuchs 2018). This experimental evidence together with the reported counterexamples to certain stress configurations have led scholars to abandon word-based stress accounts that relied on the quantity-sensitive hypothesis. The scarcity of the alleged configurations has been reinterpreted as “a matter of historical accident”, as Latin stress was weight conditioned (Pensado 1985; Roca 1990) (for additional counterarguments against quantity sensitivity, see Piñeros 2016).

3.2 The domain of stress: the stem? In contrast to word-based analyses, a large number of studies assume that Spanish non-verbal stress is assigned to the stem, not the word (see Felíu, this volume, for these concepts, and Hooper and Terrell 1976; Roca 1988, 2006; Hualde 2012; Baković 2016 i.a.). Non-verbal forms in Spanish consist of a stem and, optionally, a terminal element (TE), also called ‘desinence’ or ‘class marker’ (Harris 1992). This morpheme, which is generally a vowel (most commonly, -o, -a or -e) or a sequence of a vowel plus -s, is unstressed, and it is located at the right edge of the word, before the plural sufx, for example, cás-a ‘house’, cás-a-s ‘house pl’, cas-ít-a-s

378

Stress in simple and complex words

‘house-diminutive pl’. In nouns, pronouns and adjectives, TE are often associated with gender marking, but this is not always the case (e.g., comét-a ‘kite fem’, comét-a ‘comet masc’) (Roca 2019, 258). The examples in (5) are taken from Harris 1992 and Roca 2019 (the hyphen is used to signal the right edge of the stem and other morphological boundaries; see Bermúdez-Otero 2006 for a diferent classifcation of a subset of Vs-stems).3 (5) o-stems a-stems e-stems Vs-stems athematic stems

Sg. tiémp-o cás-a líbr-e cósm-os menúplató-

Pl. tiémp-o-s cás-a-s líbr-e-s cósm-os menú-s plató-s

gender masc fem masc/fem masc masc masc

gloss ‘time’ ‘house’ ‘free’ ‘cosmos’ ‘menu’ ‘set for TV shoots’

The main generalization regarding the location of stress in stem-based approaches is that stress falls on the fnal vowel of the stem (Hooper and Terrell 1976; Roca 1988). Crucially, this generalization accounts for a higher percentage of stress patterns than the word-based account, since words ending in a vowel with fnal stress (e.g., menú- ‘menu’, faralá- ‘founce’), exceptional and unpredictable in word-based models, display regular stress in stem-based models (Roca 2006, 2019; Hualde 2012; Baković 2016). Consequently, the examination of internal morphological structure in Spanish non-verbal forms allows for a greater predictability of the location of stress. Table 26.1 from Baković (2016) summarizes the regular and irregular stress patterns in a stem-based account. Baković (2016) distinguishes between two types of irregular stress: in ‘Class (1) exceptions’, stress falls on the syllable preceding the regular one, that is, the stem fnal syllable (e.g., sában-a ‘sheet’, caníbal- ‘cannibal’); in ‘Class (2) exceptions’, stress falls two syllables before the regular one (régimen- ‘diet’, Júpiter- ‘Jupiter’). Based on this classifcation, Baković (2016) presents a fairly straightforward analysis of regular stress and ‘Class (1) exceptions’ couched in OT. Given its simplicity, we summarize it here and expand it further to account for ‘Class (2) exceptions’. The main idea in Baković’s proposal is that regular stress can be derived from the interaction of two constraints, FinalStress and NonFinality, defned in (6) (Baković 2016, 19).

Table 26.1 Regular and irregular stress patterns in a stem-based account Regular

Irregular (exceptional) Class (1)

V-fnal words

penultimate fnal antepenultimate  . . . σ´ σ# . . . σ´ #  . . . σ´ σσ# sabán-a ‘savannah’ Panamá- ‘Panama’ sában-a ‘sheet’ epístol-a ‘letter’

C- fnal words

fnal . . . σ´ # animál- ‘animal’

penultimate . . . σ´ σ# caníbal- ‘cannibal’

Class (2)

antepenultimate  . . . σ´ σσ# régimen- ‘diet’

Source: Baković (2016, 11)

379

Violeta Martínez-Paricio

(6) a. FinalStress: Assign a violation mark for each tuple such that the stressed syllable precedes the unstressed syllable within the stem (i.e. stress is fnal in the stem) b. NonFinality: Stress is not fnal in the stem (=1 violation) or word (=2 violations) Whereas FinalStress penalizes forms in which stress is not fnal in the stem, NonFinality favours keeping the last vowel in the stem and the word unstressed. The ranking FinalStress >> NonFinality derives the correct patterns of regular stress. This is illustrated in the following tableau, with a word ending in a TE with penultimate stress. The same ranking would correctly locate fnal stress in words without TE (e.g., animál-, dominó-) (7) Regular stress: penultimate stress in words ending in a TE candidat-o

FinalStress

NonFinality *

a.  candidát-o b. candídat-o

*!

c. cándidat-o

**! **!

d. candidat-ó

To account for irregular stress, Baković (2016) employs lexically indexed constraints, that is, constraints that apply exclusively to a set of lexical items (Pater 2010). In particular, Baković posits a lexically indexed version of NonFinality that applies exclusively to ‘Class (1) exceptions’, NonFinality(1). All words in which stress falls one syllable before the regular one will be marked with the subindex (1) and will satisfy this high-ranked constraint. This ensures the correct location of stress in ‘Class (1) exceptions’, as illustrated in tableau (8), which shows that antepenultimate stress may exceptionally arise in forms that end in a TE (e.g., epístol-a). The fact that NonFinality(1) is high in the hierarchy favours the selection of exceptional epístola (8b) over regular epistóla (8a). This same hierarchy correctly predicts penultimate stress in words ending in a consonant without TE (e.g., caníbal). (8)

epistol-a(1) a. epistól-a b.  epístol-a c. épistol-a d. epistol-á

NonFinality(1) *!

**!

FinalStress * **!

NonFinality *

**

Baković (2016) does not specify how to account for ‘Class 2 exceptions’, forms in which stress falls two syllables preceding the regular one (e.g., régimen-, Júpiter-). To explain exceptional antepenultimate stress in words without a TE, we propose resorting to an alignment constraint that refers to the particular phonological makeup of these words. That is, based on recent developments in metrical theory (Martínez-Paricio and Kager 2015; Torres-Tamarit, this volume), we claim that lexical items marked with a subindex (2) will surface with irregular antepenultimate stress due to a high-ranked indexed alignment constraint that forces the emergence of an internally layered ternary (ILT) foot of a trochaic shape [i.e., a bisyllabic trochee with a right adjunct, at the right edge of the ω (i.e. Align-Right(ω, ILT FtTrochaic)(2)]. ILT feet are 380

Stress in simple and complex words

independently and typologically needed to account for, among other things, the maximal size of stress windows (Kager 2012). (9)

regimen-(2) a. regi(mén)Ftb. re(gímen)Ftc. (re(gímen)Ft)Ft´d. ((régi)Ftmen)Ft´-

Align-Right (ω, ILT FtTrochaic) (2) *! *! *!

FinalStress

* * **

NonFinality **

4 Stress in verbs As opposed to non-verbal forms, where phonological and morphological factors shape the location of stress, stress in verbs seems to be purely morphologically conditioned (see, among others, Oltra-Massuet and Arregi 2005; Roca 2006). In most verbs, stress is determined by the presence of a particular morpheme (e.g., the theme vowel, the tense marker.  .  .) (see Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume). There are three main groups of verbal forms in terms of stress patterns (Hualde forthcoming): (a) in the frst group, which encompasses all present tenses and the imperative, stress falls on the penultimate syllable (e.g., cánto ‘sing 1sg pres ind’, cantámos ‘sing 1pl pres ind’), except for the second person of the plural, which has fnal stress (e.g., cantáis ‘sing 2pl pres ind’) and the forms of the irregular verb estar ‘to be’ (e.g., está ‘to be 3sg pres ind’); (b) in the second group, which includes the past tenses and the future subjunctive, stress generally falls on the thematic vowel (e.g., cant-á-ba ‘sing 1sg past imperf ind’, cant-á-ba-mos ‘sing 1pl past imperf ind’, canté ‘sing 1sg past perf ’); (c) in the third group, with future and conditional forms, stress falls on the tense marker (e.g., canta-ré ‘sing 1sg fut ind’, cantaría ‘sing 1sg cond ind’). In all forms, verbal stress respects the three-syllable window. Within OT, there have been diferent attempts to account for these generalizations (Cabré and Ohannesian 2009; Roca 2020 among others). Importantly, what these approaches have in common is the postulation of various alignment constraints that favour the location of stress in a specifc morphological position (e.g., after the root, in the thematic vowel…) or the construction of a foot at some edge of the ω. Additionally, some of these accounts make use of tense/ person-specifc constraints that regulate the position of stress in specifc verbal forms. Their explanatory power lies, hence, in the formulation of a set of constraints that rely on the internal structure of verbs. A diferent formalization is found in Oltra-Massuet and Arregi (2005). These authors provide a morphosyntactic account of Spanish verbal stress within the Distributed Morphology framework, combined with Grid Theory, which basically projects gridmarks and foot edges on specifc morphemes. Their proposal is that stress falls on the vowel preceding the T(ense) node (p. 48). This, together with their specifc assumptions about the structure of Spanish verbs [they assume that the root and v are adjoined to T, as in (10a)], accounts for the location of stress in most verbal forms. To broadly illustrate their approach, consider their account of the position of stress in the imperfective past indicative in the three conjugations. For simplicity, we provide the stress of the frst person of the plural, but the proposal correctly derives the location of stress in the other persons. In the case of the imperfective, the node Tense would be specifed for [+Past] (10a). Based on this, their stress algorithm projects a number of parenthesis and gridmarks so

381

Violeta Martínez-Paricio

that stress is eventually realized on the segment preceding the tense morpheme, which in verbs of the frst conjugation is -á-, (10b.i) but in verbs of the second and third conjugation is -í-, (10b.ii-iii) (Oltra-Massuet and Arregi 2005, 47) (10) a. Morphological structure of verbs T v

T v

˜ v

T Th

T

Agr

b. Stress in the imperfective [√ [v Th]] [[T Th] [Agr] á/í b/∅ a s/mos 1pl cant á b a mos b.i) frst conj. cantar ‘sing’: b.ii) second conj. temer ‘fear’: 1pl tem í ∅ amos b. iii) third conj. partir ‘leave’: 1pl part- í ∅ amos

Th

Their complete account of verbal stress is not always as straightforward as in the imperfective. The authors need to lexically mark some vocabulary items so that stress is eventually placed on a diferent vowel from the one preceding T. For instance, the 3sg forms of the perfective past (e.g., cant-∅-ó, tem-i-ó, part-i-ó) need to be exceptionally specifed with stress on the T/ Agr morpheme. Additionally, the structure of other tenses like the future and the conditional is slightly more complex than the one provided in (10). Still, their account of verbal stress is able to capture the morphosyntactic conditioning of the assignment of stress.

5 Stress in derived forms Prefxes are located at the left edge of the stem and, hence, their presence does not interfere with regular primary stress, which is aligned at the other edge of the stem (see Fábregas, this volume). For the specifc prosodic structure of prefxed forms, we refer interested readers to Elordieta (2014). The accentual patterns of derivative sufxes are more interesting. These sufxes have traditionally been classifed into two groups depending on their accentual behaviour (RAE and ASALE 2011, 391). The frst group encompasses sufxes that generally involve a stress shift from the base, for example, léche ‘milk’ ~ lechéro ‘milk man’, nación ‘nation’ ~ nacionál ‘national’, vérde ‘green’ ~ verdóso ‘greenish’ (although aprendér ‘to learn’ ~ aprendíz ‘apprentice’). What these sufxes have in common is that they are all stressed, as long as they are placed at the right edge of the ω just before the infectional sufxes. That is, in the presence of more than one of these sufxes, the stress will fall on the last one. For example, -al is stressed in nacion-ál ‘national’, but unstressed in nacion-al-íst-a ‘nationalist’. The majority of Spanish derivational sufxes belong to this group. The location of stress in derived forms that contain these sufxes tends to follow the regular principles outlined in §3.2: stress falls on the derivative sufx, which generally corresponds to the last vowel of the stem, as illustrated in the following examples (11). (11) Stressed sufxes: regular stress in the last vowel of the stem (DS = derivative sufx)4 nacionál ‘national’ [[[nacion]Root - álDS]Stem - ∅] nacionalísta ‘nationalistic’ [[[[nacion]Root - alDS] ístDS]Stem - a] lechéro ‘milk man’ [[[lech]Root - érDS]Stem - o] aprendíces ‘apprentice PL’ [[[[aprend]Root - ícDS]Stem - e] - s] verdósos ‘greenish PL’ [[[[verd]Root - ósDS]Stem - o] - s] japonés ‘Japanese’ [[[japon]Root - ésDS]Stem - ∅] 382

Stress in simple and complex words

There are a few stressed sufxes that depart from this accentual behaviour and create derived words with irregular stress, that is, with stress on a diferent vowel than the stem-fnal. This is the case of the sufxes -ísimo and -érrimo, which originate the superlative form of adjectives with antepenultimate stress (e.g., from álto ‘high’, altísimo ‘the most high’). Some scholars consider these sufxes that express degree infectional rather than derivational (for details, see Pastor and Kornfeld, this volume). To derive the correct patterns of stress in these words, we propose that these particular afxes need to be lexically specifed with the index (2) introduced in §3.2, so that they respect Align-Right(ω, ILT FtTrochaic)(2), the alignment constraint enforcing the construction of an ILT foot at the right edge of the ω, for example, [al.((tí.si)Ft mo)Ft´]ω. The second group of derivative sufxes, known as ‘preaccented sufxes’, are always unstressed, and, furthermore, they impose a very specifc restriction on the location of stress: it must fall on the syllable preceding the sufx. There are very few preaccented sufxes in Spanish, for example, -ic(o/a) (cantábrico ‘Cantabrian masc’) and its allomorphs like -ig(o/a) (arábiga ‘Arabic fem’); -il (táctil ‘tactile’) and -(c)ulo (espectáculo ‘show’), the latter no longer productive today (RAE and ASALE 2011, 391; Hualde 2012, 155). Derived forms with preaccented sufxes do not surface with regular stem-fnal stress; instead, stress is located one syllable before the stem-fnal vowel, giving rise to antepenultimate stress (e.g., cantábric-o) or penultimate stress (e.g., táctil-, táctil-e-s ‘tactile PL’). To account for this type of irregular stress, we resort again to the independently motivated lexically indexed constraints NonFinality(1) and Align-Right(ω, ILT Ft)(2) introduced in §3.2. The preaccented sufx -il will be marked with (1) and, hence, NonFinality(1) assigns penultimate stress in derived adjectives with -il; the other preaccented sufxes (-ico, -igo, -(c)ulo) incorporate instead the index (2) so that they surface with a right aligned ternary foot and antepenultimate stress for example, can(tá(bri.co)Ft)Ft´.

6 Stress in compounds There are two main groups of compounds (see Buenafuentes, this volume) in terms of stress properties: compounds with one stress and those with two stresses (Hualde 2007, 2012; Elordieta 2014). In the former, only the second member of the compound maintains its stress (12). [For clarity, the symbol + separates the two members of the compound and the subscripts N(oun), A(djective), V(erb) indicate the category of the bases]. (12) Compounds with one stress Nocheviéja ‘New Year’s Eve’ pelirrójo ‘red haired’ lavavajíllas ‘dish washer’ pintaúñas ‘nail polish’

(nocheN+viejaA) (pelN+iLiking element+rojoA) (lavaV+vajíllasN) (pintaV+uñasN)

In the second type of compounds, each member of the compound preserves its stress: (13) Compounds with two stresses ‘split skirt’ fáldaN pantalónN ‘police barracks’ cása N cuartél N ‘pearl-gray’ grísA pérlaN marxístaA-leninístaA ‘Marxist-Leninist’ Compounds with one stress display greater internal cohesion of their members than compounds with two stresses (Hualde 2012, 161; Buenafuentes, this volume). This is refected in 383

Violeta Martínez-Paricio

their spelling and their plural forms: compounds with one stress are generally written in a single word, and they pluralize by adding the plural morpheme at the end of the compound, just like simple words (e.g., Nocheviéja-s). By contrast, compounds with two stresses tend to be spelled in two separate words, and their plural form is created by inserting the plural morpheme after the frst member of the compound (e.g., fálda-s pantalón), although there are a handful of exceptions in which the plural morpheme must occur after each member of the compound (e.g., guárdia-s civíl-es).5 As argued in Elordieta (2014), the two types of compound display diferent prosodic structures. Compounds with two stresses are clearly parsed in a recursive ω consisting of two internal ω, for example, ((cása)ω (cuartél)ω)ω. Hence, the same algorithm that accounts for regular stress in simple forms (§3) would correctly place stress in each member of the compound (i.e. on their stem-fnal syllable). This same prosodic structure can be posited for derived adverbs ending in -ménte, for example, tranquíla ‘calmed’ ~ ((tranquíla)ω (ménte)ω)ω ‘calmly’, originally compounds in Latin. The presence of two ω in these adverbs is supported by the presence of two stresses. It is not clear whether these display the same degree of stress or whether one should be marked as secondary: stress in the frst ω exhibits the higher F0, whereas the stressed syllable in -ménte seems to be longer (see Llisterri forthcoming for references). An additional argument in favour of positing two ω in these forms comes from deletion under identity in coordination: the fact that one -mente can be deleted when two adverbs are coordinated [e.g., ((símple)ω (ménte) ω)ω y ((tranquíla)ω (ménte)ω)ω ‘simply and calmly’] has been taken as an argument for ω boundaries in other languages (see Vigário 2003 and references therein) The structure of compounds with one stress is less obvious: it could be argued that they are parsed in a unique ω [e.g., (pelirrójo)ω or in a recursive ω in which the frst member of the compound is adjoined to the second member, which forms its own ω, for example, (peli(rrójo) ω)ω]. Both parsings are compatible with the stress facts. Elordieta (2014) opts for the second structure [i.e., (peli(rrojo)ω)ω] based on indirect evidence coming from the distribution of underlying word-initial faps. It is well known that the word-internal contrast between a trill and a fap (e.g., cá[ɾ]o ‘expensive’ vs. cá[r]o ‘cart’) is not present in word-initial position in Spanish. This led scholars to assume that underlying root-initial faps were strengthened in word-initial position, becoming trills (Harris 1983), as evidenced by certain alternations: (14) Root: /ɾect/ di-[ɾ]ecto ‘direct’ Root: /ɾupt/ e-[ɾ]upción ‘eruption’

[r]ecto ‘straight’ [r]uptura ‘rupture’

Elordieta (2014, 48) convincingly argues that, in a made-up one-stress compound like euro+ruptura ‘breaking of (part of) the European Union or the euro’, the second member of the compound must be pronounced with a trill; therefore, this can be taken as evidence of the presence of a word-boundary between the two members of the compound. Again, the algorithm responsible for stress assignment in simple words would correctly account for the position of stress in these compounds, for example, (euro(rruptúr-a)ω)ω (see Torres-Tamarit, this volume, for a similar prosodic structure in some truncated forms with a prefx).

7 Conclusion In this chapter, we have described the most common patterns of stress in simple, derived and compound forms in Spanish. We have explored the role of phonological and morphological domains such as the stem, the ω and the (binary and ternary) foot in shaping the location of regular and irregular stress, and have summarized some of the most relevant features of traditional 384

Stress in simple and complex words

and current analyses of Spanish stress. Even though from a cross-categorical point of view the penultimate syllable in the ω is the common locus of stress (Piñeros 2016), we have demonstrated that an examination of the internal morphological structure of diferent types of words (non-verbs vs. verbs) allows a more accurate prediction of the position of word-stress, which may fall with a certain regularity on the fnal syllable and, exceptionally, on the antepenultimate syllable. In non-verbal forms, this is achieved by an algorithm that places regular stress on the fnal vowel of the stem in both derived and non-derived forms. This accounts straightforwardly for the unstressed nature of infectional sufxes (number, TE, which often expresses gender) and for the location of stress in a large number of words. To account for irregular stress, we resort to the use of lexically indexed constraints (Baković 2016; Roca 2006, 2019 i.a.). In verbs, we have seen that reference to specifc morphemes (e.g., Tense) is needed to account for the locus of stress. Finally, we have discussed the diferent prosodic structures of compounds. Even though, for reasons of space, a large number of studies have not been mentioned in this chapter (for instance, we have not discussed the works dealing with the connection of stress and the syllabifcation of sequences of vowels), we hope to have provided a general overview of the most relevant aspects of Spanish stress in simple and complex words.

Notes 1 I would like to thank the editors of the volume, and Xico Torres-Tamarit, Irene Gil and Gorka Elordieta for their helpful comments and feedback on diferent aspects discussed in the chapter. This research was fnancially supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (AEI) and FEDER (project: FFI2016-76245-C3-3-P). 2 The only exceptions to this generalization are attested in the plural forms of carácter ‘character’ (caractér-es), régimen ‘diet’ (regímen-es) and espécimen ‘specimen’ (especímen-es). In the latter two, stress shifts to preserve the syllable window; in the case of caractéres, we highlight that many speakers are unclear about its plural form. 3 Meinschaefer (2015) states that “whether a word-fnal vowel or a sequence of vowel + /s/ is a class marker or not is more complex than it appears in Harris (1992)”. To determine whether a fnal vowel (or -Vs) is part of the stem or a TE, it is useful to check its derivatives. For instance, Meinschaefer (2015) argues that, given that the noun tríb-u ‘tribe’ derives trib-ál ‘tribal’, this fnal -u can be analyzed as a TE; by contrast, the fact that ímpetu ‘vigor’ derives adjectives like impetu-ós-o can stand as an argument for the stem value of -u. 4 Some of these examples are adapted from Meinschaefer (2015, 7) and Piñeros (2016, 302). 5 Hualde (2007, 75) points out that compounds of two adjectives may show stress deletion (novela italoamericána ‘Italian-American novel’), but sometimes both patterns are attested, for example, políticomilitár and politicomilitár ‘political-military’.

References Baković, E. 2016. “Exceptionality in Spanish Stress.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 15: 9–25. Bárkányi, Z. 2002. “A Fresh Look at Quantity Sensitivity in Spanish: Experimental Evidence.” Southwest Journal of Linguistics 22: 1–12. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2006. “Morphological Structure and Phonological Domains in Spanish Denominal Derivation.” In Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology, edited by F. Martínez-Gil and S. Colina, 278–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cabré, T., and M. Ohannesian. 2009. “Stem Boundary and Stress Efects on Syllabifcation in Spanish.” In Phonetics and Phonology: Interactions and Interrelations, edited by M. Vigário, S. Frota, and M. J. Freitas, 159–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Elordieta, G. 2014. “The Word in Phonology.” In To Be or Not to Be a Word: New Refections on the Defnition of Word, edited by I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano and J-L. Mendívil-Giró, 6–65. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 385

Violeta Martínez-Paricio

Face, T. 2004. “Perceiving What Isn’t There: Non-Acoustic Cues for Perceiving Spanish Stress.” In Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology, edited by T. Face, 117–41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fuchs, M. 2018. “Antepenultimate Stress in Spanish: In Defense of Syllable Weight and GrammaticallyInformed Analogy.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3 (1): 1–34, 80. Harris, J. W. 1969. Spanish Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harris, J. W. 1983. Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish: A Nonlinear Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harris, J. W. 1992. “The Form Classes of Spanish Substantives.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1991, edited by G. Booji and J. van Marle, 65–88. Dordrecht: Springer. Hooper, J., and T. Terrell. 1976. “Stress Assignment in Spanish: A Natural Generative Analysis.” Glossa 10: 64–110. Hualde, J. I. 2007. “Stress Removal and Stress Addition in Spanish.” Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 6: 59–89. Hualde, J. I. 2012. “Stress and Rhythm.” In The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, edited by J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, and E. O’Rourke, 153–71. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Hualde, J. I. Forthcoming. “El acento: descripción fonológica.” In Fonética y fonología descriptivas de la lengua española, edited by J. Gil and J. Llisterri. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Kager, R. 2012. “Stress in Windows: Language Typology and Factorial Typology.” Lingua 122: 1454–93. Lipski, J. M. 1997. “Spanish Word Stress: The Interaction of Moras and Minimality.” In Issues in the Phonology and Morphology of the Major Iberian Languages, edited by F. Martínez-Gil and A. Morales-Front, 559–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Llisterri, J. Forthcoming. “Descripción fonética del acento.” In Fonética y fonología descriptivas de la lengua española, edited by J. Gil and J. Llisterri. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Martínez-Paricio, V. 2013. “The Intricate Connection between Diphthongs and Stress in Spanish.” Nordlyd 40 (1): 166–95. Martínez-Paricio, V., and Kager, R. 2015. “The Binary-to-Ternary Rhythmic Continuum in Stress Typology: Layered Feet and Non-Intervention Constraints.” Phonology 32 (3): 459–504. Meinschaefer, J. 2015. “Right-Alignment and Catalexis in Spanish Word Stress.” Unpublished manuscript. Freie Universität Berlin. Morales-Front, A. 2014. “El acento.” In Fonología generativa contemporánea de la lengua española, edited by R. Núñez Cedeño, S. Colina, and T. G. Bradley. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Pater, J. 2010. “Morpheme-Specifc Phonology: Constraint Indexation and Inconsistency Resolution.” In Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation, edited by S. Parker, 123–54. London: Equinox. Pensado, C. 1985. “On the Interpretation of the Nonexistent: Nonoccurring Syllable Types in Spanish Phonology.” Folia Linguistica 19 (3–4): 313–20. Piñeros, C-Ed. 2016. “The Phonological Weight of Spanish Syllables.” In The Syllable and Stress: Studies in Honor of James W. Harris, edited by R. A. Núñez Cedeño, 271–314. Berlin: De Gruyter. Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2011. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Fonética y fonología. Madrid: Espasa. Roca, I. 1986. “Secondary Stress and Lexical Rhythm.” Phonology Yearbook 3: 341–70. Roca, I. 1988. “Theoretical Implications of Spanish Word Stress.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 393–423. Roca, I. 1990. “Diachrony and Synchrony in Word Stress.” Journal of Linguistics 26: 133–64. Roca, I. 2006. “The Spanish Stress Window.” In Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology, edited by F. Martínez-Gil and S. Colina, 239–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Roca, I. 2019. “Spanish Word Stress: An Updated Multidimensional Account.” In The Study of Word Stress and Accent: Theories, Methods and Data, edited by R. Goedemans, J. Heinz, and H. van der Hulst, 256–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roca, I. 2020. “Spanish Verb and Non-Verb Stress.” In The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Phonology, edited by S. Colina and F. Martínez-Gil. Abingdon and New York: Taylor & Francis. Vigário, M. 2003. The Prosodic Word in European Portuguese. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

386

27 Interfxation María OhannesianInterfxation

(Interfjación)

María Ohannesian

1 Introduction The derivational process known as interfxation has aroused considerable controversy. Ever since the term was coined in the middle of the 20th century, the function of this morphological process, the conditions of its occurrence and even the existence of interfxes as discrete entities have all been objects of vigorous debate in the literature. This chapter presents an overview of not only the variegated features of interfxation but also the principal theories intended to explain it. Two of the most important characteristics of interfxes are, on the one hand, that they always occur in an intermorphemic position in a word, that is, before, after or between roots, and, on the other, that they have mostly been considered devoid of meaning. In addition, although interfxation can afect nouns, adjectives, verbs or adverbs, the combination of root plus interfx per se does not constitute a word. Finally, a summary is ofered of the recent studies which argue that interfxes should not be regarded as true afxes, with alternative analyses shedding light on various facets of this subject. Keywords: interfx; afx; interradical interfx; antesufxal interfx; diminutives El proceso derivacional conocido como interfjación ha suscitado una controversia considerable. Desde que el término fue acuñado a mediados del siglo XX, la función de este proceso morfológico, las condiciones de la ocurrencia e incluso la existencia de los interfjos como una entidad discreta han sido objeto de un vigoroso debate en la literatura. Este capítulo presenta un panorama no solo de los diversos rasgos de la interfjación, sino también de las principales teorías que intentan explicarlo. Dos de las características más importantes de los interfjos consisten, por una parte, en que siempre se hallan en una posición intermorfémica dentro de la palabra, esto es, delante, detrás o entre radicales, y por otra, en que han sido considerados mayoritariamente como no portadores de signifcado. Además, aunque la interfjación puede afectar nombres, adjetivos, verbos o adverbios, la combinación raíz más interfjo no constituye una palabra. Finalmente, se ofrece un sumario de los estudios recientes que argumentan en contra de la consideración de los interfjos como verdaderos afjos, cuyo análisis alternativo clarifca las diversas facetas relacionadas con este tema.

387

María Ohannesian

2 Defnitional issues and main questions Interfxation is one of the most controversial derivational processes. The properties and conditions of interfxes have been examined from a variety of perspectives, posing as they do problems of unequal signifcance that range from mere matters of labelling to a questioning of the very existence of interfxes, as we will see in the following. The term interfx is relatively recent. First proposed by Lausberg in 1949, it was subsequently generalized by Malkiel (1958) to label any kind of afx that is situated between roots or other afxes, is unstressed and is considered meaningless. This phenomenon has received a variety of labels, such as residual afx, antihiatic sound, nonfnal sufx, sufxal string and empty morph, but the most commonly used alternative is infx (for example, with regard to Spanish, Lázaro Carreter’s 1984 entry for interfjo directs the reader to infjo, as does Cerdà Massó 1986, and in relation to Catalan, both Fabra 1912 and Institut d’Estudis Catalans’s 2016 Gramàtica de la llengua catalana refer to afxes occurring between root and sufx as infxes). However, Malkiel (1958) made a distinction between the two phenomena, with an infx being located within the root and typically not devoid of meaning, like the -m- in Latin imperfective forms like ru-m-po ‘I break’, cf. perfect rupi ‘I broke’, whereas interfx placement is peripheral to the root.1 Various authors have argued, following Allen (1976), that interfxes are morphemes fanked by other morphemes. Depending on their position in the word, interfxes can be antesufxal or posterior (see, among others, Malkiel 1958; Dressler 1986; Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1991, 1994; Dressler et al. 1999), which are located, in derivative contexts, between the root and a sufx (e.g., comilón ‘glutton’). Less frequently—a confguration so rare, indeed, that it is often neglected—they can be postprefxal or anterior (see, among others, Malkiel 1958; Almela Pérez 1999), when they are situated between a prefx and a root (e.g., ensanchar ‘to widen’). Interfxes can also be interradical (Mel’čuk and Luelsdorf 1982; Dressler 1986; Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1991, 1994) when they are located between two roots in compounds (e.g., pelirrojo ‘red-haired’). They are distinguished from sufxes because the stem + interfx combination never constitutes a possible word: for example, in hoj-ar-asca ‘fallen leaves’, hoj-ar is not a word, in contrast to oliv-ar-ero ‘olive grower’, where oliv-ar ‘olive grove’ is indeed a word. Next, we must deal with another controversial issue, which is related to the meaning provided by an interfx. Although morphemes are defned as “the smallest individually meaningful elements in the utterances of a language” (Hockett 1958, 123), Pena (1999) leaves out the notion of meaning when he defnes morphemes as the minimal grammatical unit, similarly to Aronof (1976, 18), who argues that the minimal meaningful sign is the word, not the morpheme, whose basic requirement is to be recognized, and Bloomfeld (1933, 161), for whom the meaning of a morpheme “cannot be analyzed within the scope of our science”. In line with this view that meaning is not a necessary condition for an afx, Portolés (1988, 1999) upholds the morphemic status of interfxes. For Pena (1999) too, interfxes are recurrent morphs without meaning, such as -ar- in hum-ar-eda ‘abundant smoke’ or polv-ar-eda ‘dust cloud’. Similarly, Haspelmath and Sims (2010, 139) call them “semantically empty morphemes”. Nonetheless, in many instances, they do seem to act as intensifers in some way (for Portolés 1999, some interfxes can have a rather vaguely defned meaning, which afects their productivity), as in polv-ar-eda or hum-ar-eda, where the interfx -ar- appears between the root of an uncount noun and the sufx -eda, used to form collective nouns, as in arbol-eda ‘grove of trees’ or ros-al-eda ‘rose garden’. The latter examples are also mentioned in Santiago and Bustos Gisbert (1999, 4519) as instances of interfxes. In relation to the meaning of interfxes as well as the conditions that allow their occurrence in words, another issue that has generated debate is the precise function or role that they serve. 388

Interfxation

Finally, the very existence of these afxes in Spanish has been called into question (Martín Camacho 2002). According to this point of view, many instances that have been catalogued as interfxation can be easily explained by diferent means, either diachronically, such as polvar-eda, based on the Latin form pulvere, or by stereotype (Lázaro Carreter 1972/1980), as in rousseau+n+iano ‘related to Rousseau’, a stereotype of -niano in calderon+iano ‘related to Calderón’, ciceron+iano ‘related to Cicero’, where the -n- preceding the sufx -iano belongs to the bases. In the following sections, we will discuss these aspects in greater detail. Section 2 classifes afxes commonly considered interfxes according to their characteristics and functions, section 3 presents and discusses the pros and cons of the most important analyses of interfxes and section 4 presents our conclusions.

3 Interfxes: characteristics, functions and classes The term interfx encompasses a broad set of afxes that have diferent relationships with the root and the adjacent morphemes, although they all share the intermorphemic position in the word, to which they owe their name. In broad terms, it is possible to specify the principal requirements in order for an element to be considered an interfx. Among the authors that accept the interfx as an afx, the basic conditions are that: a) interfxation is a derivational process; b) in general, this derivational process is homogenous; that is, it does not change the category of the base (with exceptions like tijera (N) ‘scissors’ > tijeretear (V) ‘to snip’, Portolés 1999, 5046); c) interfxes are situated after, before or between roots and never in fnal position; d) the base and the interfx, per se, do not constitute a word; e) interfxes are stressless;2 f) they are formed of one (-t-: cafetera), two (-ar-: polvareda), three (-ast-: forastero) or four segments (-ingl-: vocinglero ‘screaming’) and  g) they lack meaning. However, these characteristics are not accepted unanimously. Between Malkiel (1958), who included the interfx in his inventory of afxes and distinguished it from the infx, and Martín Camacho (2002), who argues against the existence of interfxes as a discrete entity, there is a wide range of intermediate positions among scholars, as we will see in the following. Next, we present an attempt to classify the traditionally considered Spanish interfxes, which constitute a multifarious set of afxes. This is not intended to be a complete repertoire but merely a representative sample (for an exhaustive list of interfxes see, for example, Almela Pérez 1999; Portolés 1988, 1999; Rainer 1993). They are classifed here on the basis of three aspects: the position of the interfx, which may be postprefxal (1) (these are few and largely verbs), antesufxal (2) or interradical (3); in the case of antesufxal interfxes, the type of base, which may be non-verbal (2a,b) or verbal (2c), and, fnally, in the case of antesufxal interfxes on non-verbal bases, the interfx may be either before a non-appreciative (2a) or appreciative (2b) sufx. (1) Anterior or postprefxal interfxes -s- ensanchar ‘to widen’ resfriarse ‘to catch a cold’ (2) Posterior or antesufxal interfxes (a) Non-verbal words (a’) interfx non-appreciative sufx -ad-ero -izo

word secadero enfadadizo

‘drying room’ ‘irritable’ 389

María Ohannesian

botonadura polvareda dignatario lodazal pedregal callejero tijeretada peletero cursilada rousseauniano manotada

‘set of buttons’ ‘cloud of dust’ ‘dignitary’ ‘quagmire’ ‘stony ground’ ‘stray (e.g. cat)’ ‘scissor snip’ ‘furrier’ ‘cheesy thing’ ‘related to Rousseau’ ‘slap’

word bonachón bicharraco nubarrón matachín solecito mentirijillas comilón larguirucho barrilejo refunfuñón

‘friendly’ ‘little monster’ ‘storm cloud’ ‘troublemaker’ ‘sun + dim.’ ‘little lies’ ‘glutton’ ‘tall + apprec.’ ‘barrel + apprec.’ ‘grumbling’

(b) Verbs interfx -ach-aj-ard-arr-ej-et-ic-it-orr-ot-u/k/-

word aguachar resquebrajar bombardear despatarrar festejar corretear lloriquear dormitar chisporrotear bailotear besuquear

‘to water down’ ‘to crack’ ‘to bomb’ ‘to spread your legs’ ‘to celebrate’ ‘to run about’ ‘to whine’ ‘to doze’ ‘to spark’ ‘to dance about’ ‘to smother in kisses’

(3) Interradical interfxes -o-i-

word gasómetro pelirrojo

‘gasometer’ ‘red-haired’

-ura -eda -ario -al -al -ero -ada -ero -ada -iano -ada

-ar-at-az-eg-ej-et-il-n-ot(a’’)interfx -ach-arr-ch-ec-ij-il-ir-l-uñ-

appreciative sufx -ón -aco -ón -ín -ito -illa -ón -ucho -ejo -ón

Almela Pérez (1999, 2003) presents a set of three basically morphological and lexical conditions which tend to favour the occurrence of interfxes, namely a) formation by analogy (what Lázaro Carreter calls stereotype; see section 3 subsequently); b) derivation from Latin forms which are lost in contemporary Spanish, such as -or-, as in corporal < corpor- (cf. corpus, corporis) and c) formation from loanwords, such as -ej- in motejar ‘to nickname’, from Italian festeggiare > festejar.

390

Interfxation

In relation to the functions of interfxes, the morphologists that support their existence such as Malkiel (1958), Martínez Celdrán (1978) and Portolés (1999) mention diferent ways of phonological, morphological or lexical conditioning. For example, Malkiel (1958), among other authors, regards the interfx -t- as having an antihiatic function, as in cafetera *cafeera ‘coffee maker’ or tetera *teera ‘teapot’. Portolés (1999) also suggests that interfxes serve to facilitate recognition of the base: for example, a -d- after the theme vowel and before -or, -ero, -ura, -izo (e.g., corredor ‘runner’, bebedero ‘water dispenser’, atadura ‘binding’, movedizo ‘restless’) helps to make the stem stand out. By the same token, the interfx -ec- preceding a diminutive sufx (see Kornfeld, this volume), because of its stressless condition, favours recognition of the base and helps to keep the stress on the base as secondary, as in cuerpo ‘body’ > cuerpecito ‘body + ec + dim.’, while this position would be lost in the also possible cuerpito. This also occurs in monosyllabic words, where the interfx also lengthens the word, as in sol ‘sun’ > solecito ‘sun + ec + dim.’ *solito. For Alvar Ezquerra (1993), even the diminutive formant -it- can be considered an interfx. The verbal sufx e + ar (see Batiukova, this volume) can only be attached directly to nonverbal forms, as in broma ‘joke’ > bromear ‘to joke’, humo ‘smoke’ > humear ‘to smoke’, whereas attachment to verbal stems requires the introduction of an interfx between the stem and the sufx, as in correr ‘to run’ > corretear ‘to run about’ *correar, besar ‘to kiss’ > besuquear *besear. According to Portolés (1999, 5056), the existence of verbs like correr and besar blocks the possibility of adding at the base the frequentative sufx -ear. Thus, the interfx enables -ear to join to the verb, although Portolés acknowledges the co-occurrence of pairs such as martillar ‘to hammer’/martillear ‘to hammer down’ and so on. With regard to the morphological reasons for the appearance of interfxes, Portolés (and other authors) points out that some specifc sufxes cannot follow particular verbal stems. For example, while the sufx -ón can go next to a frst conjugation verb (acusar ‘to accuse’ > acusón ‘tattletale’), with second or third conjugation verbs, an interfx is required between the stem and the sufx: comer ‘to eat’ > comilón, perder ‘to lose’ > perdigón ‘loser in games’. Similarly, suffxes like -ín, -ina, -or and -oso need an antesufxal interfx to occur after verbal bases: parlanchín ‘blabbermouth’ < parlar ‘to chatter’, pegajoso ‘sticky’ < pegar ‘to stick’. Finally, interfxes can occur because of lexical conditions, such as to prevent homonymy. For example, the words dentada ‘serrated fem.’/dentellada ‘bite’ do not have exactly the same meaning. In relation to productivity, interfxes do not exhibit uniform behaviours. Thus, appreciative derivation in diminutives is quite productive, as seen in nuevecito ‘new + dim.’, viejecito ‘old + dim.’ and many similar forms. Also productive are the so-called antihiatic segments, for example, those involving proper names (rousseuniano, mironiano, daliniano), though here their productivity is clearly limited by extralinguistic factors (there are few celebrated personalities whose last name ends in an oxytone vowel). A last question to end this section is related to the morphological structure of interfxes. Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1991, 133), who regard interfxes as belonging to the class of derivational afxes, because “interfxes do not have any syntactic function, but rather a function of morphotactic concatenation within a complex word”, add that interradical interfxes in general “have closer ties with the preceding root”. Because of that, they “behave more like sufxes than like prefxes”, though they are not clear cases, as in English work-a-holic vs. work-aholic. In turn, Portolés (1999) gives verbs that end in -ear a tripartite structure: [basev-interfijo-ear]v. For his part, Almela Pérez (1999) recommends a bipartite structure, with two blocks, consisting of, on the one hand, the base and, on the other, the two afxes: [[base] + [interfx + sufx]]. Rainer (1993, 153–56) in principle considers four possible structures for interfxes:

391

María Ohannesian

one tripartite or ternary, along the lines of [[hoja][ar][asca]], like Portolés’s (1999) structure relative to verbal interfxation, and two binary structures, one with the interfx attached to the base [[[hoja]ar]asca] (stammallomorphische Lösung ‘stem allomorphy solution’), the other with the interfx attached to the sufx [[hoja][ar[asca]]] (sufxallomorphische Lösung ‘sufx allomorphy solution’). A fourth possibility consists of not considering interfxes morphological entities but introducing them via morphophonological rules (morphonologische Lösung ‘morphophonological solution’). Rainer chooses the sufx allomorphy solution. For him, a formation such as XiS contains an interfx i if there is an XS formation whose sufx S has the same semantic relation to the base X as XiS and if the set of formations of the type XiS is smaller than XS formations (Rainer 1993, 156). From the perspective of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), the representation of interfxes has been formalized by de Lacy (1999), who accepts them as a class of afxes, exemplifed with English interradical afxes in compounds (parallel-o-gram, politico-social). In his correspondence theory of morpheme order, he proposes that the direction of attachment is a property of morphemes indicated by an empty position whose location depends on the afx. Interfxes display two empty slots, one at the left edge of the afx, the other at the right edge.

4 Interfx: its legitimacy as an afx Although up until recently, the classifcation of the interfx as an afx was generally accepted in the literature, there has been of late growing disagreement with this position, to varying degrees. Setting aside minor—not to say meaningless—areas of discrepancy, such as labelling, or diferences of opinion about conditions that do not have deep implications, we will focus on the more important controversial issues, which revolve around either the meaning of interfxes or the legitimacy of calling them afxes. These issues can be addressed by asking two questions. First, can a diachronic point of view invalidate viewing the interfx as a diferent class of morpheme? And second, can a morpheme be empty of any meaning, either semantic or functional? There is a third question, albeit possibly less basic than the preceding two but which is a corollary of the second: Is being an antihiatic segment a sufcient condition to consider an interfx an afx, of whatever kind? To answer these questions, we will present an overview of the most signifcant studies dealing with this subject. Lázaro Carreter (1972/1980) recognizes interfxes neither as empty categories nor as Malkiel’s antihiatic consonants. Nonetheless, he criticizes the fact that under the interfx label there have been included both meaningless and meaningful segments. His most important contribution to the subject has been the concept of stereotype, a sort of analogy whereby, for example, the -t- in cafetería is not the result of an antihiatic interfx -t- but rather a loanward from French caféterie, which in turn may serve as a base for new words like cafetal ‘cofee plantation’, cafetero ‘fond of cofee’ or cafetín ‘small café’. Under this concept, the segmentation is cafet-ería (not cafe-t-eria), and thus cafet- becomes a lexical variant of the base café, similar to lact- (lácteo ‘dairy’/ lech- ‘milk’) (Bosque 1983). Nevertheless, Lázaro Carreter argues, there are interfxes in Spanish that exhibit semantic values, such as -an- in aguanoso ‘very wet’ (vs. aguoso ‘watery’). Mascaró (1986, 39), for Catalan, following Fabra’s tradition, refers to interfxes as infxes but feels that their being classed as afxes derives from “an excessively superfcial morphological analysis”. Montes Giraldo (1985) refers to the interfx + sufx sequence as “polymorphic suffxes” (cf. Mascaró’s 1986 polymorphic radicals derived from Latin, as destruir ‘to destroy’, construir ‘to build’, *truir). Following a chronological criterion, Lázaro Mora (1999) observes that a large set of verbal interfxes are appreciative sufxes. This innovative approach has been taken 392

Interfxation

further by Fábregas (2017), and indeed we will centre our attention on appreciative derivation subsequently. The most radical work rejecting that interfxes are a type of afx is the work of Martín Camacho (2002). As Stehlík (2013, 133) notes, Martín Camacho´s work has been largely infuential. In contrast to the Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (Bosque and Demonte 1999), the Nueva gramática de la lengua española (RAE and ASALE 2009)—published ten years later—does not have a specifc chapter on interfxation. In words like cafetero, which were typical examples of interfxation in the past, this grammar mentions that the two most extended analyses treat the -t- segment as part of the root (cafet + ero) or the afx (café + tero). Martín Camacho uses a diachronic perspective to analyze in detail a great number of words containing interfxes. Although he recognizes that speakers do not have any awareness of the diachronic stages of their language, he believes that this should not prevent linguists from resorting to a historical perspective to explain certain facts. He proposes to dismantle the traditional analysis—which he regards as merely mechanistic—of the “so-called” interfxes and ofer instead “an alternative explanation that circumvents the need to resort to a new afx— or morphophonological or phonological element—whose linguistic reality is quite doubtful” (Martín Camacho 2002, 73). He combines his analysis with the Lázaro Carreter’s concept of stereotype. For example, the word polvareda, which derives from Latin pulver-, constitutes the pattern from which to form other similar words like humareda ‘cloud of smoke’ (> humo ‘smoke’) and so on. After this brief description of Martín Camacho’s (2002) analysis, let us return to the frst question we posed previously, about the legitimacy of applying diachronic criteria to refute the morphematic condition of interfxes, or other grammatical questions. Obviously, as could not be otherwise, the diachronic perspective is necessary and important in itself, but it is not suitable to resolve questions related to the grammatical competence of the native speaker, where we feel attention must be focused if the true nature of interfxes is to be clarifed. In fact, etymology neither validates nor invalidates the condition of interfxes3 (see Bosque, this volume, for relevant discussion on the interplay between synchronic and diachronic analyses). Even if polvareda were not derived from Latin pulvere, native speakers would have related the form and meaning of -ar- to the same morphemes in humareda or llamarada ‘blaze’ (> llama ‘fame’). In any case, Martín Camacho (2002) constitutes an important step in the development of research on interfxation. Here we should return to the topic of appreciative derivation, which can shed light on interfxes from two angles, one bearing on semantic and morphological structure and the other related to prosodic structure. First, with regard to semantics and morphology, it should be noted that appreciative afxation is a very productive derivative process in Spanish, which afects nonverbal forms. Nevertheless, as we saw in (2c), most of the interfxes that follow verbal roots are associated with appreciative sufxes as in corretear, llori/k/ear, dormitar, chisporr+otear, bailotear or besu/k/ear (cf. vejete ‘old man + dim’, perrico ‘dog + dim’, casita ‘little house’, ventorro ‘inn+despective’, librote ‘book + apprec., ventanuco ‘window + despective’ respectively) and so on. Thus, evaluative derivation can occur with verbal bases, though less productively than in non-verbal cases. Although there are three kinds of appreciative sufxes, diminutives, augmentatives and pejoratives, frequently their meanings are not clearly diferentiated (see Kornfeld, this volume). Lázaro Mora (1999), basing on Rifón (1994), and also Pena (1993), who proposes three different dimensions of meaning for appreciative morphemes, namely iterative-habitual, intensiveattenuated and pejorative, shows that verbs with appreciative morphemes display analogous combination of these meanings, as exemplifed in (4). 393

María Ohannesian

(4) parlotear ‘to chat’< parlar ‘to chatter’ + habitual + intensive action + pejorative value dormitar ‘doze’ < dormir ‘to sleep’ + iterative + attenuated action besuquear ‘smother in kisses’ < besar ‘kiss’ + iterative + intensive action + pejorative value (Lázaro Mora 1999, 4649) Viewed from this angle, verbal interfxes, in the words of Fábregas (2017, 139), “form a natural class with diminutive, appreciative and pejorative morphemes”, and his self-declared aim is “to supply argumentation to support Lázaro Mora’s unifying proposal”. To this end, he deploys the following six points of evidence (Fábregas 2017, 140–46): 1

2

3

4 5 6

Morphological identity: a large number of appreciative morphemes are also ‘interfxes’ in verbs, as we saw previously. Viewing, for example, -it- in dormitar, as a diferent afx from the identical -it- in casita implies attributing these correspondences to coincidence. Contribution to meaning: Fábregas assumes Rifón’s semantic values presented in (4) and the capacity of either verbal or nominal evaluative morphemes to present a subjectivized perception of the speaker. Categorial change and word marker expression: although appreciative derivation does not usually change the category of the base, there are some exceptions, such as tirar > tirón (Portolés 1999: 5046). The diminutive value preserves the most generalized terminal elements (TEs) in non-verbal forms, that is, -a(s) and -o(s), (following Harris 1991a, b, the TEs are the fve vowels that can be followed by -s). When the word does not have a TE, it adopts the unmarked TE, that is, -a for feminine, -o for masculine: soprano (fem.) > sopranito; mapa ‘map’ (masc.) mapita; lejos ‘far’ > lejitos; león ‘lion’ (masc.) > leoncito. Because nouns without word markers adopt the unmarked TE, verbs derived from diminutive morphemes adopt the unmarked verbal theme vowel, -a-, which belongs to the frst conjugation, as do neologisms like tuit ‘tweet’ > tuitear ‘to publish a tweet’. Appreciative morphemes are also interfxes: in verbs, as well as in non-verbal forms with a TE, this must be to the right of the appreciative morpheme: leon-cit-o *leon-o-cit. In both non-verbal and verbal appreciative derivation, there is considerable variability, as in perr-ito/perr-ete/perr-illo ‘dog + dim.’ or comi-stre-ar/com-isc-ar ‘to eat frequently’. Recursion: appreciative derivation admits recursion both in non-verbs and in verbs: chiquirr-it-ín ‘boy + appr. + dim. + dim.’; pint-arr-aj-ear ‘smear make-up on’.

Thus far, we have looked at the semantic and structural attributes of appreciative morphemes. Let us now turn to their prosodic structure. Scholars who support the notion of the interfx as a type of afx point to their antihiatic and base recognition functions, as we noted previously. Again, appreciative derivation, in particular diminutive formation, can shed light on this point because one feature of diminutive formation is its ability to preserve the prosodic structure of the base. We can exemplify this with the most generalized and productive diminutive morpheme, which presents the two allomorphs -it- and -cit-, and whose selection is governed by principles of structure preservation (I omit exceptional cases), to wit: words ending in TE, the unmarked case, select -it-, as in perrito; words ending in consonant and stressed vowel select -cit-, as in león > leoncito, café > cafecito; and monosyllabic bases, in Peninsular Spanish, add an epenthetic vowel, as in sol-e-cito. Diminutive formation is also faithful to base segment features. A nontonic fnal high vowel becomes a glide before the TE as in lab[j]-o, and diminutive derivation maintains this glide: lab[j]-e-cit-o *labi-ít-o/*lab-it-o vs. Roc['i]-o (name) > Roc[i]-ít-o/*Roc-it-o. Stems with diphthong/pure vowel alternation (viejo ‘old’/vejez ‘old age’, pueblo ‘town’/poblado ‘village’) unexpectedly diphthongize with the form -(e)cito rather than with -it-, especially in 394

Interfxation

Peninsular Spanish (cuerpo > cuerpecito). Moreover, in spite of the fact that Spanish words do not have secondary stress (see, among others, Navarro Tomás 1948/1996; Roca 1986; Ohannesian 2004), this sufx permits a root to preserve the base disyllabic foot with diphthong in the head position (Crowhurst 1992; for more details, see, among others, Harris 1994; Ohannesian 1996, 2020; Lázaro Mora 1999; Colina 2003). These analyses lead us to two conclusions. First, neither -ec- nor -c- is an interfx. On the one hand, -e- is the generalized epenthetic vowel in Spanish, permitting the syllabic good formation of, for example, estop from English ‘stop’ and espagueti from Italian ‘spaghetti’; on the other, -c- forms part of the marked diminutive allomorph -cito. Second, the preservation of base recognition is one of the characteristics of diminutive formation. Once again, interfxes and appreciative derivation converge, adding a new argument to the six given by Fábregas. Another issue concomitant to the epenthetic segments is the antihiatic function attributed to interfxes consisting of single segments, such as -n- in rousseauniano, mironiano, daliniano (cf. cortazariano < Cortázar, borgiano < Borges, machadiano < Machado) or -t- in tetera. Even assuming that they are formed following the pattern provided for Ciceron + iano or cafetera (< caféterie), the insertion of the consonant is intended to improve syllabic structure by avoiding an onsetless syllable. Hence prosodic structure preservation in relation to any constituent of the prosodic hierarchy cannot justify conceding antihiatic segments a morphemic status. If this were so, the epenthetic consonant -d- in vendré (‘I will come’) or in tendré (‘I will have’) would have to be considered interfxes. To fnalize this overview of antesufxal interfxes, we must mention one of the principal arguments deployed to defend their entity as morphemes, namely the fact that the sequence word + interfx does not exist (nor does interfx + word). As a complement to the fourth argument provided by Fábregas previously, we must also bear in mind that this property is not exclusive to the so-called interfxes: the verbal sufx -e- or the nominal sufx -er- cannot occur without the word marker (*hume/humear ‘to smoke’; *caser/casero ‘homemade’). Compound words with interradical interfxes (Dressler 1986; Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1991, 1994; Martín Camacho 2002) can be divided into two groups. One group is made up of compounds derived from Ancient Greek or Latin. When the second word of the compound begins with a consonant, the vowels -o- or -i- are added, the former before Greek roots, as in bibliografía, micrófono, the latter before Latin roots, as in centrípeto, ignífugo (stress is due to the prestressed condition of the second element). The second group consists of words created according to this pattern: politólogo, flmoteca, calorífugo. We must add a third group, which is not based around learned words. In this group, the vowel between radicals is normally an -i- or nothing: we see this between two adjectives or two nouns, as in altibajo ‘setback’, sordomudo ‘deaf-mute’, colifor ‘caulifower’, bocacalle ‘side street’ or in adjectives made up of a noun and adjective like pelirrojo ‘red-haired’. Noun compounds made up of a noun and an adjective usually lack the vowel, as in aguardiente ‘liquor’. Between verbs, we usually fnd the vowel -i-, but in this case, it must be interpreted as a conjunction and consequently a morpheme: correveidile (corre ‘run’, ve ‘see’ y ‘and’, dile ‘tell him’) ‘gossip’. All these considerations seem to lead us to discard viewing these vowels as a category of morpheme but to consider them instead some kind of linking vowel. A few words are in order here about post-prefxal interfxes like ensanchar or resfriar. In the frst case, -s- comes from the vulgar Latin prefx ex- (Malkiel 1958) and, in the second case, from the Portuguese esfriar, which is sufcient reason for various authors, including Martín Camacho (2002), to reject them as interfxes. In fact, from a synchronic perspective, this segment lacks meaning, and it is not possible to attribute to it any prosodic improvement. In this case, it would seem sensible to regard them as an allomorphic relation between prefxes, with both 395

María Ohannesian

cases being lexically marked, since they do not obey any general phonological or morphological conditioning. Before I ofer general conclusions, let us answer the second and third questions we posed at the beginning of section 4. A morpheme, or an afx, must bear some kind of meaning, in the broadest sense of the term, whether semantic or functional. Thus, a segment or segments whose occurrence merely depends on prosodic requirements cannot be a morpheme.

5 Conclusions As we have seen, the term ‘interfx’ encompasses a wide variety of signifcances and characteristics. It refers to antihiatic elements without meaning or to morphemes with diferent degrees of meaning. In the course of this chapter, we have presented the diferent positions that have been taken with regard to interfxation and seen that the postulate that interfxes should be regarded as a type of afx has been refuted from diferent angles. The most important arguments in favour of conceding the interfx an afx status have been dismantled: frst, there are other afxes that cannot be word fnal, and second, the segments called interfxes with antihiatic function are just epenthetic segments and thus cannot claim to have morpheme status. In a wide sense, this argument can be extended to anterior and interradical sufxes. Among the more recent works cited, we have called particular attention to Martín Camacho (2001, 2002), which focuses on the diachronic origin of interfxes and, in combination with the concept of the stereotype, created by Lázaro Carreter (1972/1980), denies interfxes the status of independent morphemes. We have also highlighted Fábregas (2017), who takes Lázaro Mora (1999) a step forward to demonstrate the non-exceptional status of evaluative interfxes, which share meanings and forms with nominal appreciative sufxes and therefore belong to the natural class of evaluative morphemes. Thus, we can eliminate from the set of what are regarded as interfxes all those elements that are phonologically conditioned and also those that form part of evaluative sufxes. As for the interfxes that then remain, further research will be needed, either to confrm the reality of their existence or to appropriately situate them among the other afxes.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by grant FFI2016-76245-C3-1-P.

Notes 1 Almela Pérez (1999) created the term intrafxation as a hypernym whose meaning subsumes both infxes and interfxes (Serrano-Dolader 2003). In fact, it is difcult to accept the existence of infxes in Spanish. Nevertheless, some authors (among others, Jaeggli 1980, Varela 2005) consider the diminutive sufx -it- an infx in some cases, such as Carl-it-os ‘proper male name + dim.’ < Carlos, azuquítar ‘sugar + dim.’ < azúcar. In Carl-it-os, and other similar examples (lej-it-os ‘far + dim.’ adverb < lej-os) the afx occurs after the root (cf. the feminine version, Carl-a, or the derivative adjective lej-ano ‘far’), not inside it like in azuquítar, so it could be interpreted as an infx, although, following Lázaro Mora (1999), diminutives like azuquítar are representative of specifc varieties of Spanish, like Andalusian Spanish, in which pronunciation of the fnal consonant is weakened. 2 Although Almela Pérez (1999) presents counterexamples, such as foráneo ‘foreign’ or encomiástico ‘encomiastic’, the interfx in these cases becomes stressed because -eo and -ico are prestressed sufxes (cf. purpúr-eo ‘purplish’ < púrpura ‘purple’, histór-ico ‘historical’ < historia ‘history’). When sufxes following interfxes -an- and -ast- are not prestressed, the interfx remains stressless: boc-an-ada ‘puf’, for-ast-ero ‘foreign’. 396

Interfxation

3 Another example related to the diachronic perspective might be the case of diphthongization of the Vulgar Latin open mid vowels -e- and -o- in tonic position, as in tierra ‘earth’ > terrenal ‘earthly’ or cuerpo ‘body’ > corporal ‘corporal’. Native speakers make the connection between such vowel/diphthong variants because they are in their lexicon, as variants in complementary distribution (with some exceptions), and not because speakers are aware of their historical evolution from Latin to Spanish. See Armstrong, this volume, and Acedo-Matellán, this volume, for related discussion.

References Allen, A. 1976. “Interfxes Preserve Syllables and Word Roots.” Berkeley Linguistic Society 2: 31–35. Almela Pérez, R. 1999. Procedimientos de formación de palabras en español. Barcelona: Ariel. Almela Pérez, R. 2003 “Bases para una morfología continua del español.” ELUA: 57–80. doi:10.14198/ ELUA.17.05. Alvar Ezquerra, M. 1993. La formación de palabras en español. Madrid: Arco-Libros. Aronof, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bloomfeld, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bosque, I. 1983. “La morfología.” In Introducción a la lingüística, edited by F. Abad and A. García Berrio, 115–53. Madrid: Alhambra. Bosque, I., and V. Demonte, eds. 1999. Gramática Descriptiva de la lengua española. 3 vols. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Cerdà Massó, R. (coord.). 1986. Diccionario de lingüística. Madrid: Anaya. Colina, S. 2003. “Diminutives in Spanish: A Morphophonological Account.” Southwest Journal of Linguistics 22 (2): 45–88. Crowhurst, M. 1992. “Diminutives and Augmentatives in Mexican Spanish: A Prosodic Analysis.” Phonology 9: 221–53. de Lacy, P. (1999). “A Correspondence Theory of Morpheme Order.” In WCCFL (West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics) XVIII, edited by P. Norquest, J. D. Haugen, and S. Bird, 27–45. Arizona: Coyote Working Papers in Linguistics. Dressler, W. 1986. “Forma y función de los interfjos.” Revista de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística 8: 447–60. Dressler, W., G. Libben, J. Stark, C. Pons, and G. Jarema. 1999. “The Processing of Interfxed German Compounds.” In Yearbook of Morphology, edited by G. Booij and J. van Marle, 185–220. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dressler, W., and L. Merlini Barbaresi. 1991. “Interradical Interfxes: Contact and Contrast Languages in Contact and Contrast Essays in Contact Linguistics.” In Languages in Contact and Contrast, edited by V. Ivir and D. Kalogjera, 133–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110869118. Dressler, W., and L. Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin. Fabra, P. 1912. Gramàtica catalana. 16th ed. Barcelona: Teide. Fábregas, A. 2017. “¿Son algunos interfjos morfemas apreciativos?” ELUA 31: 135–50. doi:10.14198/ ELUA2017.31.07. Harris, J. W. 1991a. “The Exponence of Gender in Spanish.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (1): 27–62. Harris, J. W. 1991b. “The Form Classes of Spanish Substantives.” In Yearbook of Morphology, edited by G. Booij and J. van Marle, 65–88. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Harris, J. W. 1994. “The OCP, Prosodic Morphology and Sonoran Spanish Diminutives: A Replay to Crowhurst.” Phonology 11: 179–90. Haspelmath, M., and A. Sims. 2010. Understanding Morphology. London: Hodder Education. Hockett, C. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: The Macmillan Company. Institut d’Estudis Catalans. 2016. Gramàtica de la lengua catalana. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans. Jaeggli, O. 1980. “Spanish Diminutives.” In Contemporary Studies in Romance Languages, edited by F. Nuessel, 142–58. Bloomington, Indiana: IULC. Lausberg, H. 1949. Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. Munich: Hueber. 397

María Ohannesian

Lázaro Carreter, F. 1972/1980. “Sobre el problema de los interfjos: ¿consonantes antihiáticas en español?” In Estudios de lingüística, edited by F. Lázaro Carreter, 11–26. Barcelona: Crítica. Lázaro Carreter, F. 1984. Diccionario de términos flológicos. Madrid: Gredos. Lázaro Mora, F. 1999. “La derivación apreciativa.” In Entre la Oración y el Discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4645–82. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Malkiel, Y. 1958. “Los interfjos hispánicos: problema de lingüística histórica y estructural.” In Miscelánea homenaje a André Martinet, edited by D. Catalán, 107–99. La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna. Martín Camacho, J. C. 2001. “Sobre los supuestos diminutivos infjados del español.” Anuario de Estudios Filológicos XXIV: 329–41. Martín Camacho, J. C. 2002. El problema lingüístico de los interfjos españoles. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura. Martínez Celdrán, E. 1978. “En torno a los conceptos de interfjo e infjo en español.” Revista Española de Lingüística 8: 447–60. Mascaró, J. 1986. Morfologia. Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana. Mel’čuk, I., and P. Luelsdorf. 1982. Towards a Language of Linguistics: A System of Formal Notions for Theoretical Morphology. München: W. Finch. Montes Giraldo, J. J. 1985. “Los interfjos hispánicos: reexamen con base en datos del ALEC.” Anuario de flología hispánica 1: 181–89. Navarro Tomás, T. 1948/1996. Manual de pronunciación española. 26th ed. Madrid: CSIC. Ohannesian, M. 1996. “La formación del diminutivo en castellano.” Unpublished Magister diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. Ohannesian, M. 2004. “La asignación del acento en castellano.” PhD diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. Ohannesian, M. 2020. “Allomorphic Variation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Phonology, edited by S. Colina and F. Martínez-Gil, 288–306. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Pena, J. 1993. “La formación de los verbos en español: la sufjación verbal.” In Formación de palabras, edited by S. Varela, 217–81. Madrid: Taurus. Pena, J. 1999. “Partes de la morfología. Las unidades del análisis morfológico.” In Entre la Oración y el Discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4305–66. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Portolés, J. 1988. “Sobre los interfjos en español.” Lingüística Española Actual 10: 153–69. Portolés, J. 1999. “La interfjación.” In Entre la Oración y el Discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 5041–73. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Prince, A., and P. Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell. RAE and ASALE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. Rainer, F. 1993. Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Rifón, A. 1994. “La derivación verbal en español.” PhD diss., Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Roca, I. 1986. “Secondary Stress and Metrical Rhythm.” Phonology 3: 341–70. Santiago Lacuesta, R., and E. Bustos Gilbert. 1999. “La derivación nominal.” In Entre la Oración y el Discurso. Morfología. Vol. 3 of Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4505–94. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Serrano-Dolader, D. 2003. “Martín Camacho, José Carlos: El problema lingüístico de los interfjos españoles.” Vox Romanica 62: 351–55. Stehlík, P. 2013. “Algunos problemas del análisis de formaciones interfjadas y parasintéticas en español.” Romanica Olomucensia 25 (2): 151–59. doi:10.5507/ro.2013.018. Varela, S. 2005. Morfología léxica: la formación de palabras. Madrid: Gredos.

398

28 Metonymy in Spanish word formation Enrique Gutiérrez RubioMetonymy in Spanish word formation

(Metonimia y formación de palabras en español)

Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio

1 Introduction In this chapter, the existence of a link between metonymy and derivational word formation is presented. More specifcally, a detailed exploration of word formation in Spanish by sufxation, understood in terms of metonymic processes, is ofered. For this purpose, hundreds of derived words in European Spanish were systematically analysed according to three research strategies: a) a study in which a general metonymic classifcation of sufxal word formation in Spanish is presented (based on data extracted from Nueva gramática de la lengua española); b) a frequency analysis based on 700 derived words randomly excerpted from a corpus of contemporary Spanish (CREA); c) a second frequency analysis, in this case focused on the characteristics of the word formation present in Spanish neologisms (based on 500 derived words extracted from Banco de neologismos del Observatori de Neologia). The data presented in this chapter shed light on the main principles that regulate sufxal word formation in Spanish from these three analytical points of view. Keywords: conceptual metonymy; word formation; sufxation; European Spanish; frequency analysis; neology; cognitive linguistics En este capítulo se presenta la relación existente entre metonimia y formación de palabras mediante derivación. Más concretamente, se ofrece un detallado estudio de la sufjación española entendida como proceso de naturaleza metonímica. Con este objetivo, se han analizado de forma sistemática cientos de palabras derivadas del español peninsular siguiendo tres estrategias de análisis: a) un estudio general en el que se presenta una clasifcación metonímica de la sufjación española (basado en los datos obtenidos de la Nueva gramática de la lengua española); b) un análisis de frecuencias con base en 700 palabras derivadas extraídas de forma aleatoria del Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA); c) un segundo análisis de frecuencia, pero en este caso enfocado en las características de la sufjación presente en los neologismos (a partir de 500 palabras derivadas extraídas del Banco de neologismos del Observatori de Neologia). Los datos propuestos en este capítulo arrojan luz sobre las principales tendencias que rigen la sufjación española desde estas tres dimensiones de análisis. Palabras clave: metonimia conceptual; derivación; sufjación; español peninsular; estudio de frecuencias; neología; lingüística cognitiva 399

Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio

2 Metonymy, lexicon, and grammatical phenomena1 2.1 Conceptual metonymy The term metonymy is about 2400 years old. Apparently, it was frst used by the pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus (c. 460–c. 370 BC), at least according to Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s dialogue Cratylus (Álvarez, Gabilondo, and García 1999). The frst defnition of metonymy can be found in the late 80s BC in Rhetorica ad Herenium, an anonymous treatise on rhetoric: “Denominatio est, quae ab rebus propinquis et fnitimis trahit orationem, qua possit intellegi res, quae non suo vocabulo sit appellata”, which, according to Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and Otal Campo (2002, 10), could be translated into English as “Denomination [i.e. ‘metonymy’] is a trope that takes its linguistic form from near and close things and by which we can understand something that is not named by its own word”. This anonymous frst defnition is based on the conception of contiguity or closeness, a key notion even 2100 years later in the most innovative studies on metonymy. In this sense, one of the most efective tools supplied to scholars by cognitive linguistics is the application of metaphor and metonymy to linguistic analysis. This is possible because cognitive linguistics no longer understands these elements as tropes but rather as conceptual mechanisms able to motivate linguistic phenomena. Although at the beginning, much more attention was paid to metaphor than to metonymy, in their seminal publication of this interdisciplinary branch of linguistics, frst published in 1980, Lakof and Johnson assert that: like metaphors, metonymic concepts structure not just our language but our thoughts, attitudes, and actions. And, like metaphoric concepts, metonymic concepts are grounded in our experience. In fact, the grounding of metonymic concepts is in general more obvious than is the case with metaphoric concepts, since it usually involves direct physical or causal associations. (Lakof and Johnson 2003, 39) By “direct physical or causal associations”, Lakof and Johnson are probably referring to the previously mentioned notion of contiguity. However, after this frst reference to metonymy, most cognitivists focused on metaphor, so that no (or at least very little) systematic research on conceptual metonymy was carried out until the second half of the 90s. On the other hand, in just a few years, between 1999 and 2011, at least six monographic works on metonymy from a cognitive perspective were published, which shows the vitality of the issue: Panther and Radden 1999; Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 1999 (in Spanish); Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and Otal Campo 2002; Brdar 2007; Panther, Thornburg, and Barcelona 2009; Benczes, Barcelona, and Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 2011.

2.2 Lexical metonymy Although some scholars have explored new research possibilities by extending metonymy to the grammatical domain (see section 2.3), the main line of cognitive linguistics research on metonymy has its foundations in a lexical approach. Probably the most complete inventory of metonymical patterns “in prototype-theoretical terms” is the proposal made by Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006).2 These authors disagree with the predominant perspective on conceptual metonymy among the cognitivists, that is, the one in terms of vehicles and targets within a domain (or domain matrix) mainly based on Lakof’s Idealized Cognitive Model (ICM). 400

Metonymy in Spanish word formation

This ICM perspective can be observed, for instance, in the defnition of metonymy proposed by Radden and Kövecses (1999, 21): “a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same domain, or idealized cognitive model”. The theoretical framework proposed by Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006, 273) intends to shift the attention from the too-vague notion domain matrix “to the specifc nature of this [metonymic] mapping, which is, for instance, more asymmetric than the one in metaphor”. According to their approach, based primarily on contiguity, metonymy would be a prototypically structured concept that conceptually extends from the prototype (spatial part and whole in the spatial and material domain) to the periphery in two directions—strength of contact (vertically) and boundedness (horizontally) (see Peirsman and Geeraerts 2006, 285). Additionally, they argue that the structure of this spatial and material domain is metaphorically extended to the temporal domain. Additionally, these authors propose a third domain (based on the contiguity in actions, events, and processes) as a result of the combination of the spatial and the temporal domains. Finally, a fourth set of metonymic patterns (such as characteristic for entity, individual for collection, object for quantity, or hypernym for hyponym) are proposed via “the extension of the part-whole relationship to the domain of assemblies and collections” (Peirsman and Geeraerts 2006, 301).

2.3 Metonymy and grammatical phenomena A considerable number of cognitivists have explored the boundaries of metonymy beyond the lexicon. Langacker ofers one of the most thought-provoking proposals about the metonymic nature of grammar: Grammar . . . is basically metonymic, in the sense that the information explicitly provided by conventional means does not itself establish the precise connections apprehended by the speaker and hearer in using an expression. Explicit indications evoke conceptions that merely provide mental access to elements with the potential to be connected in specifc ways, but the details have to be established on the basis of other considerations. Explicit linguistic coding gets us into the right neighborhood, in other words, but from there we have to fnd the right address by some other means. (Langacker 2009, 46) On the other hand, probably the most comprehensive studies of grammatical phenomena motivated by metonymy are to be found in Brdar’s Metonymy in Grammar: Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions (2007) and Panther, Thornburg, and Barcelona’s Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (2009). In addition to this, many other specifc studies relate metonymy to topics as diverse as the role of the direct contents object (Waltereit 1999), English -er nominals (Panther and Thornburg 2001; 2003), predicative adjectives and grammatical-relational polysemy (Brdar-Szabó and Brdar 2004), anaphoric references (Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez Velasco 2004), or indirect directives (Brdar-Szabó 2009), among others. The works of these authors suggest that metonymy has an impact on grammar and even that “metonymic processes are crucially involved in shaping a number of central areas of grammar” (Brdar 2007, 2). After this brief presentation of conceptual metonymy and the role it plays in grammar, in section  3, the existence of metonymic mappings in word-formation processes will be proposed. 401

Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio

3 Metonymy and word formation 3.1 First approaches Probably the frst scholar to suggest the existence of a linking between metonymy (in the sense of semantic contiguity) and word formation was Jakobson, when, as early as 1956, he stated: “Also, as a rule, words derived from the same root, such as grant—grantor—grantee, are semantically related by contiguity” (Jakobson and Halle 2002, 87). It was only many years later that some scholars, such as Koch (1999, 158); Panther and Thornburg (2001; 2003); Rainer (2002, 112); Radden (2005, 18–19); Basilio (2006; 2009); or Palmer, Rader, and Clarito (2009), explicitly mentioned word formation in their works on metonymy. Despite the existence of these studies, Janda (2010; 2011)—the frst scholar to systematically explore the presence of this kind of metonymy in the word formation—stresses the lack of attention that this approach has so far received. However, one of the most interesting remarks regarding the concept of metonymy in the word formation context is the one proposed by Franz Rainer (2002), a linguist who cannot be restrictively described as a cognitivist. In his paper in Spanish, “Convergencia y divergencia en la formación de palabras de las lenguas románicas”, Rainer proposes a comprehensive approach to the mechanisms that regulate word-formation processes in the Romance languages. Among the “mecanismos del cambio de patrones lexicogenésicos” (roughly, the changes regarding the rules that run the processes by which new words are created) Rainer includes reinterpretación. This is a process that occurs when speakers form neologisms by an analogy based on the reinterpretation of existing words: El mecanismo que más frecuentemente da lugar a cambios semánticos en los patrones lexicogenésicos es la metonimia, es decir, la convencionalización de inferencias basadas en la contigüidad de ciertos conceptos. Lo que, por ejemplo, es particularmente grande o fuerte respecto de un ejemplar normal puede ser percibido como tosco o ridículo (cf. acentazo etc.), pero también, en otros casos, como algo altamente deseable (cf. cochazo etc.). Según las circunstancias, los sufjos aumentativos [como el español -azo] tienden, por esa razón, a desarrollar usos secundarios peyorativos o meliorativos.3 (Rainer 2002, 112) Rainer relates another lexicogenetic mechanism to metonymy—aproximación. In the approximation process, the change in the word-formation pattern is based on a non-identical copy of the existing model. Thus, the speakers would make use of a “tolerated” deviation from the current pattern. This mechanism is especially frequent in those cases when there is a metaphoric or metonymic relationship between the model and the copy. Rainer proposes the following example: according to the model cigarro ‘cigarette’ > cigarrera ‘cigarette case’, the Spanish sufx -era denotes “all kinds of containers”, with the material that is contained (cigarro) usually acting as the base word or stem of the word (cigarrera). However, in the 70s of the 20th century, the Spanish pejorative term mariconera, ‘man’s handbag’, was created, a word based on the vulgar substantive maricón, ‘queer’. In this specifc case, it is not the material that is contained which was designated by the neologism but the owner of the container. According to Rainer (2002, 119), the purpose underlying this metonymic approximation was clearly to denigrate the person carrying the handbag. However, unlike cigarrera, it was probably the heterogeneous contents of handbags that allowed this change in the pattern of the word formation by means of the sufx -era. In other words, the lack of a clearly salient contained material complicates the use of the 402

Metonymy in Spanish word formation

prototypical model contained material –> container. Rainer provides another example—fresquera ‘cooler’ (derived from the Spanish adjective fresco ‘cool’). In his opinion, it is again the heterogeneity of the possible contents of the cooler that allows the speakers not to choose the material that is contained as the base word of the new term created by sufxation but to opt for one of its expected characteristics, in particular its capacity to keep foodstufs cool. Rainer’s observations show that metonymy can play a relevant role in Spanish word formation. However, unlike Janda’s approach to this topic (see section  3.2), metonymy would be merely a secondary mechanism able to extend in some cases the semantics associated with a given sufx. Another interesting statement in this vein is that of Radden (2005, 18–19), who afrmed that “Most derivational afxes are polysemous, and the relationships between the senses tend to be metonymic and/or metaphoric”. On the contrary, a cognitivist such as Koch explicitly proposes the existence of some sort of regular relationship between word formation processes and metonymy. Koch argues that the contiguity between fruit and tree is the cause of the metonymic change of meaning and the resulting metonymic polysemy of the Italian word limone, a term that means ‘lemon’, but also ‘lemon tree’. In a similar fashion, Koch (1999, 158) claims that in Spanish (limón –> limonero) and English (lemon –> lemon tree) “we have word formations that are based on exactly the same contiguity between fruit and tree”. In this quote, the precedent to Janda’s approach is to be found ten years before her frst publications on this issue. However, Koch does not take any further steps towards a general theory about the relationship between word formation and metonymic processes.

3.2 Janda’s extensive approach to metonymy in word formation In order to understand Janda’s approach to the role of metonymy in word formation, it should frst be clarifed how exactly the link between metonymy and word formation can be established. Let us start with the defnition of metonymy proposed by Barcelona (2000, 4): “a conceptual projection whereby one experiential domain (the target) is partially understood in terms of another experiential domain (the source)4 included in the same common experiential domain”. According to this defnition, the lexical metonymy in the sentence “Moscow criticizes UN Libya commission report” could be explained in terms of “Moscow” as the source that provides “mental access” to the “Russian Government” or “Russian president”, that is, to the target. This would be an example of location for located metonymy. Janda argues that this sort of mapping in the lexical feld can also be proposed for word-formation processes. Following her methodology, the Spanish derivational shift prisión (‘prison’) > prisionero (‘prisoner’) could be understood as word formation through location for located metonymy, in which “the source corresponds to the source word that the derivation is based on [prisión], the context for the metonymic relationship is the afx [-ero], and the target is the concept associated with the derived word [prisionero]” (Janda 2011, 360). After testing her theoretical and methodological approach on the derivational word formation of Czech, Norwegian, and Russian, Janda argues that “the semantic relationships between stems, afxes, and the words they form can be analyzed in terms of metonymy” (2011, 359). Her analysis of the word formation processes in these three European languages is primarily based on the inventory proposed by Peirsman and Geeraerts (see 2.2), since it is “the most comprehensive systematic inventory available” (Janda 2011, 367) and it probably brings together all the types of lexical metonymy. However, Peirsman and Geeraerts’ classifcation had to be elaborated upon because “the range of metonymy relationships encoded in word-formation is more extensive than that found in the lexicon” (Janda 2011, 372). 403

Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio Table 28.1 Classifcatory terms for sources and targets Relating to Actions

action, state, change state, event, manner, time

Relating to Participants

agent, product, patient, instrument

Relating to Entities

entity, abstraction, characteristics, group, leader, material, quantity

Relating to Part for a whole

part, whole, contained, container, located, location, possessed, possessor

Source: Janda (2011, 372)

In Table 28.1, the four main types of metonymic sources and targets, each of which presents a set of specifc terms, are presented. Moreover, Janda proposes nine word class patterns, each of which consists, just like the metonymy patterns, of a source and a target term—adverb, noun, numeral, qualitative adjective, relational adjective, verb, pronoun, interjection, and preposition (with the last three word classes being much less frequent than the six frst). In the next section, the results of applying Janda’s theoretical proposal to Spanish word formation will be presented. However, it must be clearly stated that some scholars (even within the cognitive domain) view this theoretical and methodological approach with scepticism, mainly because of the overgeneralization of the metonymic processes involved in word formation, as claimed by Brdar and Brdar-Szabó (2014) in a paper that explicitly criticizes Janda’s publications on metonymy and word formation. In the same vein, Panther and Thornburg (2001, 157) afrm that they are “reluctant to adopt the view that the verbal base in -er formations [such as teach > teacher] is metonymic for the simple reason that doing so would make the notion of metonymy too general and therefore border on vacuity”.

4 Metonymy and Spanish word formation 4.1 Metonymic classifcation of sufxal word formation in Spanish (general study) In this section, the methodology and the main results of an empirical study of Spanish word formation understood in terms of metonymic processes will be presented.5 Although the term ‘word formation’ is generally used in this chapter of the book, most of the works regarding metonymy and word formation, including Janda’s papers, are restricted to derivation by suffxation. Logically, in this empirical study of Spanish word formation, too, infectional endings, conversion, compounding, and prefxation were not considered. Moreover, and always following the guidelines proposed by Janda (2011) in her study of Czech, Norwegian, and Russian, some types of words derived by sufxation were also excluded for Spanish, especially those that do not encode systematic metonymic relationships, such as isolated examples or occasionalisms, but also hypocoristics, caritives, comparative adjectives, comparative adverbs, and dialectalisms. In this sense, it is important to note that the data presented in this chapter focus exclusively on Spanish from Spain and, logically, no derived words belonging to American Spanish were taken into account.6 Moreover, Janda culled her data on Czech, Norwegian, and Russian from the three “most comprehensive and authoritative grammars of these languages” (2011, 366). Similarly, the data for Spanish were based on the more than 300 pages that Nueva gramática de la lengua española 404

Metonymy in Spanish word formation

(New Grammar of Spanish) by the Spanish Royal Academy (RAE) devotes to Spanish sufxal word formation. As a result of a systematic analysis of all the derived words culled from this extensive grammar, 113 sufxes, 103 metonymy patterns (as location for located or part for whole), and 26 word class patterns (the combination of a source term, such as qualitative adjective, and a target term, such as adverb) were collected. They form a total of 466 types of metonymy, in other words, 466 unique combinations of one sufx, one metonymy pattern, and one word class pattern in Spanish. In order to illustrate what is meant here by type of metonymy, Table 28.2 shows some examples in Spanish. The frst interesting comparative conclusion is that both languages representing the Slavic group show a higher number of types of metonymy (Russian—747, Czech—562) than the Romance language (Spanish—466) and far more than the Germanic one (Norwegian—177). It is remarkable, though, that this prevalence of the Slavic languages over Spanish in terms of types of metonymy is not caused by the higher capacity of their sufxes for creating metonymy patterns, since the number of these patterns is very balanced in all three languages: 110 for Russian, 106 for Czech, and 103 for Spanish. On the contrary, this higher number of types of metonymy in Czech and especially in Russian is caused by the fact that in these languages, more sufxes can signal metonymy in word formation—274 sufxes in Russian, 207 in Czech, and a mere 113 in Spanish. Although this cross-linguistic analysis shows very promising tendencies regarding the confguration of word formation by sufxation in diferent languages and linguistic groups, these conclusions should be taken to some extent with precaution because of the fact that the data for every language were obtained from diverse sources, with some grammars being more extensive than others. Moreover, this chapter is exclusively devoted to Spanish word formation, and so no further cross-linguistic considerations will be proposed. One of the frst conclusions drawn by applying Janda’s methodology to Spanish is that in this language, some sufxes are much more productive—in terms of their capacity to activate types of metonymy—than others. In this sense, the sufxes that form substantives are the most productive in Spanish, as can be observed in Table 28.3. In this regard, it is nothing new that -ero is a highly productive sufx in Spanish word formation. Traditional grammars refer to -ero as a polysemous sufx. However, analysing word formation in terms of metonymic processes has the advantage of revealing the real capacity for creating new words of every sufx. This is illustrated in Table 28.4, in which the 14 most frequent types of metonymy that -ero can activate in Spanish are presented (ordered alphabetically by metonymy pattern sources). Table 28.2 Illustrative examples of types of metonymy in Spanish Metonymy pattern action for instrument location for characteristics entity for characteristics

Word class pattern verb for subst. subst. for adjective

Sufx -ado -eno/a

Example arar ‘to plough’ > arado ‘plough’ Chile ‘Chile’ > chileno/a ‘Chilean’

subst. for adjective

-esco/a

action for location

verb for subst.

-miento

characteristics for abstraction

adjective for subst.

-ía

Quijote ‘Quixote’ > quijotesco/a ‘quixotic’ aparcar ‘to park’ > aparcamiento ‘car park’ valiente ‘brave’ > valentía ‘bravery’

405

Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio Table 28.3 Top ten sufxes in terms of types of metonymy in Spanish Sufx -ero -ada -ado -ario -ear -ismo -ista -erío -izar -nte

Types of metonymy activated 24 16 15 15 13 13 12 10 10

Word class derived substantive substantive substantive substantive verb substantive substantive substantive verb

10

substantive

Table 28.4 Most frequent types of metonymy activated by the Spanish sufx -ero Metonymy pattern Source abstraction

Target entity

characteristics

abstraction

contained

Word class Source substantive

Target substantive substantive

container

qualitative adjective substantive

entity

group

substantive

substantive

event

entity

substantive

substantive

instrument

agent

substantive

substantive

located

location

substantive

substantive

location

agent

substantive

substantive

location

located

substantive

substantive

material

agent

substantive

substantive

part

whole

substantive

substantive

patient

agent

substantive

substantive

product

agent

substantive

substantive

quantity

entity

numeral

substantive

406

substantive

Example Base word consejo ‘advise’ sordo ‘deaf’ joya ‘jewel’ canción ‘song’ viaje ‘travel’ arpón ‘harpoon’ hormiga ‘ant’ hotel ‘hotel’ prisión ‘prison’ yeso ‘plaster’ limón ‘lemon’ fruta ‘fruit’ zapato ‘shoe’ treinta ‘thirty’

Derived word consejero ‘adviser’ sordera ‘deafness’ joyero ‘jewellery box’ cancionero ‘song book’ viajero ‘traveller’ arponero ‘harpooner’ hormiguero ‘ant’s nest’ hotelero ‘hotelier’ prisionero ‘prisoner’ yesero ‘plasterer’ limonero ‘lemon tree’ frutero ‘fruit seller’ zapatero ‘shoemaker’ treintañero ‘person in his/her thirties’

Metonymy in Spanish word formation

In my opinion, this sort of systematic classifcation of the relationships established between the base word and the derived word on the basis of the metonymic activations involved is much more insightful than the taxonomies of sufxes created ad hoc in traditional grammars. For instance, Nueva gramática de la lengua española (Real Academia Española 2009, 466) proposes the following set of groups of words created by the sufx -ero: professions or occupations, containers, instruments or utensils, pieces of clothing, places, groups, and trees and plants. Besides, when the derived word refers to a profession or occupation, it can denote a person who sells the base word or manufactures, composes, sells, hunts, guards, protects, seeks, ofers, or uses it as a tool (or as a vehicle) (Real Academia Española 2009, 468). Moreover, in this extensive Spanish grammar, the only reference to the lexical category of the base words is that they are mostly derived from substantives, although it is added that some verbal bases can be found. This shows the lack of systematicity of the classifcations proposed by grammars, even by the most extensive and prestigious ones. Besides, it must be taken into account that -ero is far from being an isolated example, since most sufxes are to a greater or lesser extent “polysemous”. If we now focus on word classes instead of sufxes, after looking at Table 28.3, it cannot be surprising that the most frequent metonymy patterns in Spanish are by far those forming substantives, as can be observed in Table 28.5. However, probably the most interesting data in this regard are those which show which the most common metonymy patterns in Spanish are, in other words, the most common semantic shifts that take place in Spanish word formation by sufxation. In Table 28.6, those metonymy patterns related to ten or more types of metonymy in Spanish are presented (together with an illustrative example). The prevalence of location for characteristics and entity for characteristics observed in Table 28.6 points out the huge capacity of the Spanish language to form adjectives on the base of places and persons. This fact could seem to contradict the data presented in Table 28.5, where the most common word class patterns were those that form substantives. However, it makes sense when one considers that adjectives have only one possible metonymic source (characteristics), while substantives have many—agent, product, instrument, entity, abstraction, part, whole, location, and so on (see Table 28.1 for the whole list). An unexpected result is the high number of types of metonymy based on the metonymy pattern entity for group. In fact, after one considers the examples proposed by Nueva gramática de la lengua española, most of the words created by this metonymy pattern seem to be rather uncommon and unproductive in everyday Spanish.7 So, metonymy patterns such as entity for group make it clear that while some types of metonymy seemed to be highly productive or

Table 28.5 Most common word class patterns in Spanish Metonymy pattern Source verb substantive substantive substantive substantive qualitative adjective verb

Target substantive substantive relational adjective qualitative adjective verb substantive qualitative adjective

Types of metonymy activated 125 114 73 35 28 23 21

407

Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio Table 28.6 Most common metonymy patterns in Spanish Metonymy pattern Source

Target

Example Sufx Base word

characteristics

Types of metonymy activated 32

location entity

characteristics

27

-esco/a

action

abstraction

22

-je

action

location

18

-miento

entity

group

17

-ado

characteristics

abstraction

16

-ía

abstraction

characteristics

16

-ático/a

action

instrument

14

-dor/a

action

product

14

-ura

action

agent

13

-ín

action

characteristics

11

-dor/a

entity

abstraction

11

-ada

Quijote ‘Quixote’

material

characteristics

10

-izo/a

cobre ‘copper’

action

event

10

-e

desflar ‘to parade’

-eno/a

Chile ‘Chile’ Quijote ‘Quijote’ arbitrar ‘to mediate’ aparcar ‘to park’ alumno ‘student’ valiente ‘brave’ dogma ‘dogma’ grabar ‘to record’ pintar ‘to paint’ bailar ‘to dance’ madrugar ‘to get up early’

Derived word chileno/a ‘Chilean’ quijotesco/a ‘quixotic’ arbitraje ‘arbitrage’ aparcamiento ‘car park’ alumnado ‘student body’ valentía ‘bravery’ dogmático/a ‘dogmatic’ grabadora ‘recorder’ pintura ‘painting’ bailarín ‘dancer’ madrugador/a ‘morning person’ quijotada ‘quixotic act’ cobrizo/a ‘coppercoloured desfle ‘parade’

at least very common in current Spanish—for example, the metonymy pattern abstraction for characteristic expressed by the sufx -al, as in institución (‘institution’) > institucional (‘institutional’)—there are other patterns and types representing rather non-productive phenomena, even when they are highly ranked in the metonymy pattern scale (see Table 28.6). That is the reason section 4.2 of this study, based on examples culled from a Spanish grammar, will be complemented by the results obtained from a frequency study. Finally, I would like to stress here that in her works, Janda (2010; 2011) claims that in wordformation metonymy, many more metonymy patterns (up to 54) can be found than in the lexicon, but that, on the contrary, only nine of the metonymy relationships cited by Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006) for the lexicon are not observed in Czech, Norwegian, and Russian word formation. However, in the Spanish grammar, two of these nine patterns were documented, specifcally action for time and time for entity. This would reinforce the statement made by

408

Metonymy in Spanish word formation

Janda (2011, 380), according to which “metonymy is not only widespread in word-formation, but also more diverse in that domain that it is in the lexicon”.

4.2 Spanish word formation in the corpus (frequency study) In order to compare the data extracted from Nueva gramática de la lengua española with the actual use of current Spanish word formation, the same sort of analysis was performed on words derived by sufxation extracted from corpus texts.8 For this purpose, 700 derived words were collected randomly9 from 67 European Spanish texts available in CREA (Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual),10 a corpus of Spanish texts published between 1975 and 2004. As a result of the analysis of these 700 words, 68 sufxes, 62 metonymy patterns, and 16 word class patterns were documented, forming 168 types of metonymy. Although the number of words that were analysed is quite limited, many interesting conclusions can be drawn from the comparison of the data obtained with those of the so-called “general study” (see section 4.1). The frst result that is worthy of note is that 50 sufxes out of the data extracted from the Spanish grammar are not documented at all in the frequency study. Moreover, there are 27 suffxes with just one occurrence in the 700 derived words that were analysed. On the contrary, some sufxes appear extremely often in the corpus, especially -ción, with 109 tokens (15.6% of all the occurrences). This lack of balance in the distribution of the occurrences (a relevant but expected conclusion of the analysis) was proved not just for sufxes but also for metonymy patterns, word class patterns, and types of metonymy. So, while some of them are documented several times in the corpus, many others appear rarely or just once. In this sense, the highest frequency corresponds to the metonymy pattern action for abstraction (185) and the combination of a source term verb and a target term noun (263). Not surprisingly, the most frequently documented type of metonymy is the combination of action (verb) for abstraction (noun) expressed by the sufx -ción (97), as in cooperar (‘to cooperate’) > cooperación (‘cooperation’). Moreover, a high frequency of words formed by a specifc sufx in the corpus does not necessarily imply a high number of activated metonymy patterns or types of metonymy by means of this sufx. In this sense, the case of the sufx -ción is especially revealing of this imbalance—109 occurrences are documented by means of only six types of metonymy. On the contrary, the adjective-forming sufx -al shows an extremely high capacity to activate diferent types of metonymy. In fact, it is the most productive sufx in the texts (i.e. the most polysemous), with nine types of metonymy—for just one metonymic target (characteristics), six sources were documented: abstraction, entity, event, group, location, and part (the rest of the types are due to the presence of two sorts of adjectives: qualitative and relational). Nevertheless, the frequency of these nine types is relatively low in the corpus, given that only 28 tokens by means of the sufx -al were documented. As expected, these data prove that there can be a major imbalance between the number of types of metonymy that can be activated in a language and the actual frequency with which these patterns are used in the texts. This phenomenon can be observed in Table 28.7, in which the sufxes that show the highest number of types of metonymy in the corpus are compared with the data obtained from the Spanish grammar in the general study (see 4.1). Table 28.7 shows a major imbalance between the general and the frequency studies. In this sense, just one of the top fve most productive sufxes in the general study (-ado) ranks among the frst ten sufxes of the frequency study (sixth position). According to this, -ero, -ada, -ario, and -ismo (the remaining top fve sufxes) play a much less relevant role when the frequency of use of the sufxes is considered; they rank 16th, 20th, 44th, and 29th, respectively. Moreover,

409

Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio Table 28.7 Frequency study of the top ten types of metonymy (in comparison with the general study) Sufx

Frequency study

General study

Example

Types of metonymy

Occurrences

Rank

Types of metonymy

Rank

Source

Target

-dad

9

47

1

8

13

activo ‘active’

actividad ‘activity’

-al

9

28

2

8

13

cultura ‘culture’

cultural ‘cultural’

-ico

8

38

3

5

30

poeta ‘poet’

poético ‘poetic’

-ar

8

36

4

10

8

privilegio ‘privilege’

privilegiar ‘to favour’

-ción

6

109

5

9

12

informar ‘to inform’

información ‘information’

-ado (sust.)

6

11

6

15

3

apartar ‘to separate’

apartado ‘section’

-ista (sust.)

6

6

7

12

7

crónica ‘chronicle’

cronista ‘chronicler’

-o

5

35

8

7

17

pactar ‘to agree’

pacto ‘pact’

-izar

5

9

9

10

8

análisis ‘analysis’

analizar ‘to analyse’

-e

5

8

10

5

30

viajar ‘to travel’

viaje ‘trip’

in the case of some of the sufxes (and especially -ción) the previously mentioned divergence between the number of types of metonymy and that of occurrences documented in the corpus of the frequency study is observable. The counter-example is the sufx -ista, since it activates six diferent types of metonymy by means of only six occurrences. The last set of data to be presented regarding the frequency study refers again to the most common metonymy patterns in Spanish. This should shed light on which combinations of sources and targets are those most frequently activated in Spanish word formation by sufxation. Table 28.8 compares, similarly to Table 28.7, the data from the frequency study with those from the general study (see Table 28.6). According to the data presented in Table 28.8, it can be stated that the most frequent metonymy patterns are those that activate characteristics as their target (ranking frst, third, and fourth), followed by abstraction (ranking second and ffth and being the most frequent target in terms of number of occurrences). This is evidence for proposing a tendency in Spanish toward a higher target specialization. On the contrary, much more variety is documented regarding the sources, especially among the frst fve positions. However, action seems to be quite a common source in Spanish (although less salient than characteristics and abstraction for the targets). Finally, in section 4.1, an unexpectedly high number of types of metonymy based on the metonymy pattern entity for group was documented (17 types, the ffth highest). However, it was anticipated that the words created by this metonymy pattern would seem rather infrequent in everyday Spanish. This premise has been verifed, since only three occurrences were 410

Metonymy in Spanish word formation Table 28.8 Metonymy patterns with fve or more types of metonymy (in comparison with the general study) Metonymy pattern

Frequency study

Source

Target

Types of metonymy

abstraction

characteristics

17

action

abstraction

location

characteristics

entity

General study

Occurrences

Rank

Types of metonymy

Rank

66

1

16

7

14

184

2

22

3

9

19

3

32

1

characteristics

8

18

4

27

2

characteristics

abstraction

7

52

5

16

6

action

event

7

14

6

10

14

action

characteristics

6

119

7

11

11

action

instrument

5

10

8

14

9

action

location

5

6

9

18

4

documented in the corpus (by means of three diferent sufxes): patronal ‘(employers) management’, humanidad ‘humanity’, and nobleza ‘aristocracy’.

4.3 Neologism and word formation in Spanish (neology study) This section aims to reveal the tendencies characterizing the creation of new words in Spanish. For this purpose, 500 Spanish neologisms (i.e. words “still” not included in dictionaries) formed by sufxation were systematically analysed. The neologisms were also extracted from European Spanish texts (mainly from newspapers published in 2010) and were available at the “Banco de neologismos” accessible through the Centro Virtual Cervantes website.11 As a result of this analysis, 55 sufxes, 55 metonymy patterns, and 15 word class patterns were documented, forming 151 types of metonymy. One of the most interesting conclusions of this third analytical perspective on Spanish word formation is that eight “new” sufxes were documented. Those that stand out among them include -eo (with fve words denoting event or abstraction: famoseo, botelleo, merdelloneo, croqueteo, and aventureo) and the English sufx -ing (which in contemporary Spanish can be used to create names of sports and other physical activities: edredoning). Apart from these eight sufxes that are not included in Nueva gramática de la lengua española, the most salient feature of this study is the lack of balance regarding the data obtained from it and from the frequency study—some sufxes, metonymy patterns, and word class patterns that were not very productive in the frequency study are, on the contrary, very often documented among Spanish neologisms. This is the case of the sufx -ismo, with seven types and 53 occurrences (10.6%) in the neology study vs. just three types and 5 occurrences (0.7%) in the frequency study. Other very productive neologisms are those that activate the metonymy pattern action for characteristic (73 occurrences) and the word class pattern relating a noun as the source and a noun as a target (133 tokens). Additionally, the previously mentioned tendency regarding the targets characteristic and abstraction as the main targets in the frequency study is even stronger among the neologisms— they form all the top ten metonymy pattern targets except for one, group (see Table 28.9). In addition to this, it is remarkable that of the 151 types of metonymy documented in this neology study, 49 were not included in RAE’s Nueva gramática de la lengua española (32.4%), 411

Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio Table 28.9 Top ten metonymy patterns of the neology study (in comparison with the frequency study) Metonymy pattern

Neology study

Frequency study

Source

Target

Types of metonymy

Occ. Rank

Types of metonymy

Occ. Rank

entity

characteristics

11

47

1

8

18

abstraction

characteristics

10

29

2

17

66

1

group

characteristics

9

23

3

3

4

16

action

characteristics

8

73

4

6

119

7

action

abstraction

8

54

5

14

184

2

location

characteristics

8

14

6

9

19

3

characteristics

abstraction

5

34

7

7

52

5

event

characteristics

5

5

8

2

2 27

entity

abstraction

4

31

9

3

2

21

entity

group

4

6

10

3

3

17

location

abstraction

4

6

10

2

2 27

4

which shows the high level of originality in terms of types of metonymy of the new words created in Spanish.

5 Final remarks Despite all the theoretical and methodological controversy about this subject—see Brdar and Brdar-Szabó (2014) and Janda (2014) for the most recent status of the issue—it is irrefutable that the data presented through this chapter shed new light on the main principles that regulate sufxal word formation in Spanish and that this sort of analysis produces much more systematic and enriching information than that provided by traditional taxonomies. Although the main focus has been on the most common types of metonymy patterns (source for target) that take place in Spanish word formation, much other data, especially regarding sufxes and their capacity to activate diferent types of metonymy, have been proposed. Moreover, signifcant divergences between the results obtained from the grammar and the frequency studies have been documented. In other words, many of the sufxes, metonymy patterns, word class patterns, and types of metonymy that appear frequently in Nueva gramática de la lengua española are not often used in the texts. Moreover, the fact that a metonymy pattern or a type of metonymy ranks high in the frequency study does not imply that it is often employed to create new words in Spanish. Finally, it is hoped that the data presented and discussed in this chapter would speak for the applicability of Janda’s theoretical and methodological approach to other languages. Personally, I believe that this scholar is right when she asserts not just that indeed “many types of word formation can be classifed according to the metonymic relationships involved” but also that such a classifcation “is more insightful than traditional taxonomies of sufxes and word classes since it explains a linguistic phenomenon in terms of a general cognitive mechanism” (Janda 2011, 388).

Notes 1 I would like to express my gratitude to the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, the Spanish State Research Agency, and the European Regional Development Fund of the European Union for 412

Metonymy in Spanish word formation

2 3

4 5 6 7

8 9

10 11

the funding granted to the project “Researching conceptual metonymy in selected areas of grammar, discourse and sign language with the aid of the University of Córdoba Metonymy Database (METGRADISL&BASE)” (PGC2018–101214-B-I00). An approach that has been a subject of criticism by other specialists, such as Croft (2006). “The most frequent mechanism causing semantic changes in the lexicogenetic patterns is metonymy, i.e. the conventionalization of interferences based on the contiguity of certain concepts. For instance, something particularly big or strong in relation to a normal exemplar can be perceived as rough or ridiculous (cf. acentazo [noticeable accent] etc.), but also, in other cases, as something highly desirable (cf. cochazo [impressive car] etc.). According to the specifc circumstances, augmentative sufxes [such as the Spanish -azo] tend, for that reason, to develop secondary pejorative or positive uses” (translation by the author). Unlike Barcelona or Janda, other scholars use the term vehicle instead of source for expressing the origin of a conceptual mapping. See Gutiérrez Rubio 2014 (in Spanish) for a more extensive treatment of this issue. For a comparison between word formation in European and American Spanish, see Gutiérrez Rubio 2014, 123–137. An exception to this would be -eda, a relatively productive sufx that forms groves of one type of tree or gardens of one kind of fower (such as álamo ‘poplar’ > alameda ‘poplar grove’ or rosa ‘rose’ > rosaleda ‘rose garden’), or the sufx -ería, used for denoting groups of persons (such as chiquillo ‘kid’ > chiquillería ‘group of kids’) but also groups of constituents other than persons—although this is certainly a much more uncommon pattern—such as palabra ‘word’ > palabrería ‘abundance of hollow words’ (the question of the metonymy pattern entity for group will be discussed later, at the end of section 4.2). Janda (2011, 389) ends her article by remarking on the importance of conducting such a study: “Frequency data would add a dimension to the measurement of prominence among metonymies”. The frst keyword for the random search was “España”. It was used in the frst thematic section of the “Ciencias y tecnología” corpus and just for the parameter “Newspapers”. No more than 15 valid derived words were taken from each text. The 15th suitable word (in this instance “Unión”) was used as the keyword for the second search, in this case using the same thematic section but a diferent genre—“Books”. After the 15th valid word in the section “Books”, the feld “Magazines” was used. After this, I skipped from “Ciencias y tecnología” to the second thematic section of the corpus, “Ciencias sociales, creencias y pensamiento”, looking once again for random keywords in the sequence “Newspapers”, “Books”, and “Magazines” and after that in the third section “Política, economía, comercio y fnanzas” and so on. In those instances when less than 15 valid derived words were documented—in the corpus just fragments of the original texts are available—the last word to be analysed was used as the keyword for the next search. http://corpus.rae.es/creanet.html. cf. http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/banco_neologismos/.

References Álvarez, J. M., A. Gabilondo, and J. M. García, eds. 1999. Proclo: Lecturas del Crátilo de Platón. Madrid: Akal. Barcelona, A. 2000. “Introduction. The Cognitive Theory of Metaphor and Metonymy.” In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A  Cognitive Perspective, edited by A. Barcelona, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Basilio, M. 2006. “Metaphor and Metonymy in Word Formation.” DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 22: 67–80. Basilio, M. 2009. “The Role of Metonymy in Word Formation Brazilian Portuguese Agent Noun Constructions.” In Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar, edited by K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona, 99–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Benczes, R., A. Barcelona, and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, eds. 2011. Defning Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brdar, M. 2007. Metonymy in Grammar: Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Osijek. 413

Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio

Brdar, M., and R. Brdar-Szabó. 2014. “Where Does Metonymy Begin? Some Comments on Janda (2011).” Cognitive Linguistics 25 (2): 313–40. doi:10.1515/cog-2014-0013. Brdar-Szabó, R. 2009. “Metonymy in Indirect Directives. Stand-Alone Conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian.” In Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar, edited by K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona, 323–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brdar-Szabó, R., and M. Brdar. 2004. “Predicative Adjectives and Grammatical-Relational Polysemy: The Role of Metonymic Processes in Motivating Cross-Linguistic Diferences.” In Studies in Linguistic Motivation, edited by G. Radden and K.-U. Panther, 321–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Croft W. 2006. “On Explaining Metonymy: Comment on Peirsman and Geeraerts ‘Metonymy as a Prototypical Category’.” Cognitive Linguistics 17 (3): 317–26. doi:10.1515/COG.2006.008. Gutiérrez Rubio, E. 2014. Metonimia y derivación sufjal en español. Estudio multidimensional de los mecanismos conceptuales que rigen la formación de palabras mediante sufjación en español. Madrid: Liceus. Jakobson, R., and M. Halle. 2002. Fundamentals of Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Janda, L. A. 2010. “The Role of Metonymy in Czech Word-formation.” Slovo a Slovesnost 71: 260–73. Janda, L. A. 2011. “Metonymy in Word-Formation.” Cognitive Linguistics 22 (2): 359–92. doi:10.1515/ cogl.2011.014. Janda, L. A. 2014. “Metonymy and Word-Formation Revisited.” Cognitive Linguistics 25 (2): 341–49. doi:10.1515/cog-2014-0008. Koch, P. 1999. “On the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation.” In Metonymy in Language and Thought, edited by K.-U. Panther and G. Radden, 139–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lakof, G., and M. Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R. W. 2009. “Metonymic Grammar.” In Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar, edited by K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona, 45–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Palmer, G. B., R. S. Rader, and A. D. Clarito. 2009. “The Metonymic Basis of a ‘Semantic Partial’: Tagalog Lexical Constructions with ka-.” In Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar, edited by K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona, 111–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Panther, K.-U., and G. Radden. eds. 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Panther, K.-U., and L. L. Thornburg. 2001. “A Conceptual Analysis of English -er Nominals.” In Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy, edited by M. Putz, S. Niemeyer, and R. Dirven, 151–201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Panther, K.-U., and L. L. Thornburg. 2003. “The Roles of Metaphor and Metonymy in English -er Nominals.” In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, edited by R. Dirven and R. Pörings, 279–319. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Panther, K.-U., L. L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona, eds. 2009. Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Peirsman, Y., and D. Geeraerts. 2006. “Metonymy as a Prototypical Category.” Cognitive Linguistics 17 (3): 269–316. doi:10.1515/COG.2006.007. Radden, G. 2005. “The Ubiquity of Metonymy.” In Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, edited by J. L. Otal Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando, and B. Bellés Fortuño, 11–28. Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I. Radden, G., and Z. Kövecses. 1999. “Towards a Theory of Metonymy.” In Metonymy in Language and Thought, edited by K.-U. Panther and G. Radden, 17–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rainer, F. 2002. “Convergencia y divergencia en la formación de palabras de las lenguas románicas.” In Aspectos de morfología derivativa del español, edited by J. A. García-Medall Villanueva (coord.), 103–33. Lugo: Tris Tram. Real Academia Española, Asociación de Academias de la Lengua. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española: Morfología. Sintaxis I. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 1999. Introducción a la Teoría Cognitiva de la Metonimia. Granada: Colección Granada Lingüística.

414

Metonymy in Spanish word formation

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., and O. I. Díez Velasco. 2004. “Metonymic Motivation in Anaphoric Reference.” In Studies in Linguistic Motivation, edited by G. Radden and K.-U. Panther, 293–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., and J. L. Otal Campo. 2002. Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication. Granada: Comares. Waltereit, R. 1999. “Grammatical Constraints on Metonymy: On the Role of the Direct Contents Object.” In Metonymy in Language and Thought, edited by K.-U. Panther and G. Radden, 233–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

415

29 Morphology and pragmatics Mónica CanteroMorphology and pragmatics

(Morfología y pragmática)

Mónica Cantero

1 Introduction Morphopragmatics studies the relationships of pragmatic aspects concerning word formation. That is, it studies those connotations that relate, from the user’s perspective, to the use of morphological processes in obtaining specifc extralinguistic preferences (efects). This component of morphopragmatics theory is explored in this chapter, which asks both how the meaning features carried by morphemes are selected and how the circumstances/environment in which the speaker employs these communicative strategies difer or are generated. The corpus that could best refect the uses of pragmatic morphological strategies by the speakers and hearers of a given language is to be provided, on the one hand, by written materials and, on the other, by the oral production of speakers of the language as captured spontaneously. I have determined, through interpreting both the written and oral data, that distinct user preferences govern the signifcative morphological output. The focus of this chapter is categorized in two parts. The frst is an introduction to the description and origins of the feld of morphopragmatics. The second explores diferent cases in Spanish where pragmatic uses of lexeme formation rules are applied. These cases discuss how morphological rules intersect with pragmatic functions and their relationship to the contextual and syntactic environment where they occur. Keywords: word formation rules; morphology; pragmatics; morphopragmatics La morfopragmática estudia las relaciones de los aspectos pragmáticos relacionados con la formación de palabras. Es decir, aquellas connotaciones que se relacionan, desde la perspectiva del usuario, con el uso de procesos morfológicos para obtener preferencias (efectos) extralingüísticas específcas. Este componente de la teoría de la morfopragmática es lo que se explora en este capítulo. Se pregunta cómo se seleccionan las características de signifcado de los morfemas y cómo las circunstancias o el entorno en el que el hablante emplea estas estrategias comunicativas diferen o se generan. El corpus que mejor puede refejar el uso de estrategias morfológicas pragmáticas por parte de los hablantes y oyentes de un idioma determinado se proporciona mediante materiales escritos y, mediante la producción oral espontánea de hablantes. A través de la interpretación de los datos escritos y orales, se determinan las preferencias del usuario que gobiernan signifcativamente el resultado morfológico. 416

Morphology and pragmatics

El enfoque de este capítulo se clasifca en dos partes. La primera es una introducción a la descripción y los orígenes del campo de la morfopragmática. El segundo explora diferentes casos en español donde se aplican los usos pragmáticos de las reglas de formación de palabras. Estos casos discuten cómo las reglas morfológicas se entrelazan con las funciones pragmáticas y su relación con el entorno contextual y sintáctico donde ocurren. Palabras clave: reglas de formación de palabras; morfología; pragmática; morfopragmática

2 Overview of morphopragmatics Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994, 1999) coined the term morphopragmatics. In their work, morphopragmatics is defned as a feld of study that covers the area of the general pragmatic meanings of morphological rules. A morphological rule has a morphopragmatic meaning if it contains a pragmatic variable which is necessary within the description of its meaning. This implies that its basic pragmatic meaning(s) cannot be reduced to a semantic meaning (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 2001, 43) In this context, I argue that morphopragmatics is the interface between word-formation rules and their contextual occurrence(s), that is, a morphology structure that is interconnected with its contextual environment by way of how a given morphological structure is used, borrowed, and/or generated and the word-context(s) and purposes in which it is used. This description of morphopragmatics also considers other morphological processes, like blending and borrowing, which I claim are fruitful in morphopragmatics inquiry. According to Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi’s categorization, the study of morphopragmatics corresponds to two elements: morphopragmatics as one of the bases of natural morphology and morphopragmatics as the analysis of the pragmatic aspect of word formation (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1987, 33). Considering the frst theme, Dressler (2005, 267) describes natural morphology as: Whereas ‘natural’ has often been used by linguists in an inductive way as a synonym of intuitively plausible or of cross-linguistically frequent, in Natural Morphology (henceforth NM), ‘natural’ is synonymous with cognitively simple, easily accessible (esp. to children), elementary and therefore universally preferred, i.e. derivable from human nature, or with the terms unmarked or rather less marked: for in NM it is clearly a relative, gradual concept. The study of morphopragmatics fts into the general framework described and understood as one of the bases of natural morphology, because it aims to provide an explanation for models of fundamental universals in morphological behavior, such as the morphological designs and categories that are central to morphology. With respect to substantiating the notion of natural morphology, Wurzel (1989, 9), citing Mayerthaler (1981, 2), writes that not all morphological structures are equally distributed in natural languages, not all morphological processes and structures are required by children at the same time, not all morphological structures are equally afected by language change, not all morphological structures are equally easy to decode. 417

Mónica Cantero

This is relevant because it sets up the theory of natural morphology. The school of natural morphology (Mayerthaler 1981) provides a series of unmarked situations, which are expected to be found in morphological system after morphological system across languages. At the same time, it is recognized that there are language-specifc markedness conventions which may, and often do, overrule the universal marking conventions (Wurzel 1989). Wurzel also seeks to provide a theory of what constitutes a ‘natural’ or ‘unmarked’ morphological system and what laws govern deviations from that natural system. According to Wurzel’s model, the most natural type of morphology is fully transparent, in the sense that every morpheme has one form and one meaning, and every meaning corresponds to exactly one form. Therefore, in Wurzel’s theory, “naturalness is assigned in inverse proportion to markedness: a morphological phenomenon is less marked, the more natural it is, and vice versa. If morphological structures and operations are assigned values of markedness, these values serve to express their complexity” (1989, 9). In this regard, markedness values are not part of the language system itself. Natural morphology is also interested in morphological universals and therefore in the way such morphological universals interact with general cognitive and semiotic principles. With regard to the second domain for morphopragmatics as the analysis of the pragmatic aspect of word formation, it is understood that “a morphological rule has a morphopragmatic meaning if it contains a pragmatic variable which is necessary within the description of its meaning. This implies that its basic pragmatic meaning(s) cannot be reduced to a semantic meaning” (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 2001, 43). The authors suggest looking for “semantically meaningless morphological rules which generate semantically empty morphs”. A good case can be interfxes, meaningless morphs inserted between stem and sufx, for example, Spanish -er-, -eg- (casa -caserón; tos: tosegoso) or Russian -o (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 2001, 43). I argue that the case for the verbal ending -ear when applied to forming verbs using a loan verbal base constitutes a case for pragmatic meaning, because it makes it possible for the verb to assimilate into the Spanish verbal tenses, as described in Section 3.3 of this chapter.

3 Applying the linguistic framework of morphopragmatics In the morphopragmatic approaches to the linguistic structure of words and its contextual phenomena, I consider the convergence of diferent linguistic theories of analysis. The frst is rule-governed grammatical morphology (Aronof 1976, 1994), (Bauer 1983); another is centered around research into the psychological properties of language (Sperber and Wilson 1986) and the use of cognitive processes in morphological theory (Bybee 1985); the third consists of the study of the general pragmatic efects and diferent meanings which are a result of the application of morphological rules (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1987, 1994, 1999; Dressler and Kiefer 1990) and speech acts theory with reference to speakers and hearers (Haverkate 1984). It is important to note that most of the research on morphopragmatics has been conducted within the framework of natural morphology (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994). In that respect, Kiefer (2017, 273) points out that Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi’s research is the only systematic work on morphopragmatics to date. This theoretical background is applied to the study of various cases of word-formation productivity in Spanish such as code-switch and loan-word use of morphological production, context dependence of connotations, and the un/gender-pragmatic aspects of morphology. Data collected for this purpose comes from newspapers, literature, and daily use of language as refected by speakers. It is a body of data with a cross-cultural component, since some of the information comes from the Spanish used in the United States as well as other Spanish-speaking countries. The corpus that could best refect the uses of pragmatic morphological strategies 418

Morphology and pragmatics

by the speakers and hearers of a given language is provided by written materials and by oral production of speakers of the language as captured spontaneously. I have determined, through interpreting both the written and oral data, that distinct user preferences govern the signifcative morphological output. For this chapter on morphopragmatics, this framework will lead to the study of various cases such as the textual pragmatic use of morphology, context dependency of connotations, and socio-pragmatic aspects of morphology.

3.1 Nominal adaptions Kiefer (2017, 273) points out in Morphology and Pragmatics that “the essential question to be asked is whether a morphological rule has pragmatic efects, and if so, which ones”. Kiefer’s point makes clear the agency of pragmatics within the word-formation rules (WFRs). This is essential to understand the study of pragmatic motivations of productive morphological strategies employed by the speaker of a language in order to create and refect in the best way his/ her communicative intentions when making use of the word-formation rules. The purpose is to manipulate and create a new concept(s) or meaning in the language, which in some cases might also carry a visual efect. The interest for Spanish morphopragmatics here is the investigation of the correlative relationships that can be found between word-formation rules of nominal morphemes (through derivational or infectional processes) and the pragmatic information that is carried out by the morpheme used in such a process. A rule of pragmatics must access the morphological structure of the word and its potential afxes in order to compute in a particular formation any given pragmatic use of a lexeme rule. A morphopragmatic rule refects use strategies of morphological rules, which depend on the manipulation and communicative needs of the users. Derivation and infection are uses of morphology in the same way that morphological processes are the mechanisms in a context of intentional communicative strategies as carried out by speakers and hearers of a given language. These strategies result from the performance of perlocutive efects. Infection is the realization of syntax; derivation is the morphological realization of lexeme formation; morphological pragmatics or morphopragmatics is realized by intentions that link lexeme formation rules with the achievement of perlocutive efects, that is, how context afects morphological creation. For instance, in Spanish, gender and number paradigms (see Camacho, this volume) are obligatory and distinctive. All nouns have an assigned infectional class. In Spanish, every noun in the system is provided with infectional categories (number and gender) that function in the language. The fact of pertaining to an infectional class gives status to the word as a systemic element. It is a process of establishing it as a member of a nominal category within a system that distinguishes gender features, which is understood as a type of nominal agreement. Stems coming from other linguistic systems that Spanish speakers then incorporate must be assigned to a given infectional class in order to be activated as ‘native’ lexemes within the language in which they are employed. A particular area of interest is investigating English lexemes that Spanish speakers incorporate into the language, particularly lexemes lacking nominal gender features. I argue that when this type of ‘foreign’ lexeme is adopted in another system that distinguishes gender category—whether syntactically or through a rule—an automatic process must exist to assign these distinct features to this lexeme which allow it to be introduced as a unit within the system as a whole, where it is then used in derivative morphological processes. Let us consider the introduction of the following lexemes in the next examples (Cantero 2000), all of which come from Tunomás Honey by Jim Sagel (1983). Tunomás Honey depicts and uses Spanish and English in the Manito culture of the Southwest United States: 419

Mónica Cantero

bil →bale De una vez pegó un bil de zacate con la llanta grande de la roca . . .  (pg. 26) ‘The huge tire of the truck immediately collided with a bale of hay . . .’ (2) elque → elk Parado atrás de un pino, le esperó el elque en silencio profundo y profesional (pg. 56) ‘He was waiting for the elk, standing behind a pine in absolute and professional silence’ (3) fon → fun Yo también tenía mi “fon” más antes cuando era jovencita, pero ya no. (pg. 20) ‘I used to have my fun too when I was younger, but not anymore’ (4) jaiskul → high school todavía tenía la cara redonda y vacía de un chamaquito de jaiskul. (pg. 80) ‘ . . . he still possessed the round, vacant face of a high school kid’ (5) jalo → hello  . . . en lugar de decir “amén, dijo, en un tono bien político, “jalo” (pg.31) ‘ . . . when Darryl arrived in front of the priest he didn’t say “Amen”. He said “hello”, in a polite introduction to the Holy Eucharist’. (6) juisque → whiskey  . . . dijo su tío, levantando una botella fresca de juisque. (pg.41) ‘ . . . said their uncle, lifting a fresh bottle of whiskey’ (7) pantes → panties con su levita de seda roja y el cabello lleno de toritos, se bajó los pantes a mearse (pg.35) ‘with their red silk coat and hair full of knots, they lowered their panties to urinate’ (8) troca → truck Darryl Galván le miró a su tío borracho gritándole que manejara la troca para la izquierda y a su abuelo enseñándole que iría para la derecha (pg.27) ‘Darryl Galván looked at his drunken uncle yelling at him to turn the truck to the left and at his grandfather signaling to the right’ (8) yaque → jack Su abuelo tuvo que pasar toda la tarde renegando con el “yaque” y la rondanilla . . . (pg.29) ‘Her gra ndfather had to spend the entire afternoon fghting with the jack and the music band’ (9) yeli → jelly  . . . llenándose con tortilla y “yelli” de cerezo que su tía le sacó del trastero (pg.39) ‘ . . . flling up on tortillas with cherry jelly that her aunt took out of storage’ Additionally we document cases of borrowing with English truncations: (10) bro → brother Con un barullo se salieron—después de que el pollo dio la mano a todos, diciendo: “bueno, bro”. (pg. 91) ‘With a racket they left—after the chicken shook the hands of all saying: “Well, bro.”’ (11) caf→ cafeteria Cuando yo veo a las parejas besando ahí atrás del “caf ”, pues, me pongo muy triste ‘When I see couples kissing there behind the caf, well I get sad’. (pg.53) The following examples document derivational processes combining forms that use a foreign base. That is, these are derivational stem-switching processes: (12) junglista → jungle El sonido dub-a-delic de “Evolve” desemboca en un océano polirrítmico y junglista ‘The dub-a-delic sound of Evolve results in an ocean of polyrhythmic and jungle-like sounds’ [RDL (Rock de Luxe) 128:52; 1996] (1)

420

Morphology and pragmatics

(13) speédica → speed Como guindas, speedicas “rock cover songs . . .” ‘To top it of, speedy “rock cover songs . . .’ [RDL 128:44; 1996] (14) troquita → truck Y muchas veces se paseaban en la troquita Ford con el barandal quebrado y el tapón amarrado con alambre ‘And much of the time they rode around in the Ford truck (dim) with the shaky guardrail and the gas cap tied with wire’. [Sagel 75] (15) workahólico → workaholic El workahólico o trabajador compulsivo es un individuo para quien su trabajo lo es todo: ni siquiera el sexo tiene la menor importancia para él en comparación con su obsesión laboral ‘The workaholic or the compulsive worker is an individual for whom their job is everything: not even sex is more important for them in comparison with the work obsession’. [QUO 9:20, junio 1996] (16) soundtrakgrafía → soundtrack lo mejor, la sound-trackgrafía de Danny Elfman ‘The best, the soundtrack of Danny Elfman’ [RDL 128:23; 1996] (17) souleros → soul  . . . sin asumir el rol de acompañantes souleros . . . ‘ . . . without assuming the role of the soul accompanists . . .’ [RDL 128:47; 1996] (18) popero → pop  . . . para desmarcarse de ese aire muzak popero que les caracteriza . . . ‘ . . . to distance themselves from that muzak pop-like air that characterizes them’ [Boogie 2:29; 1988] In the examples presented previously, the adaptation of a foreign unit into the Spanish system involves the immediate acquisition of the morphological features characterizing the nominal categories of the Spanish language. I wish to reinforce the idea that this is a required morphological process: every lexeme that is incorporated into the Spanish language is given, either syntactically or through the assignment of rules, the necessary features for it to conform to an infectional class within the language. This process, I suggest, involves observing that a locutive act be produced and that this act provide both the referent and the meaning for the word, which thus acquires the conditions necessary for it to work as a derivational base within the language and to fulfll the qualifying conditions that enable it to function as such. In Spanish, lexeme rule formation output provides the gender and infectional categories of the base. This is especially important to point out in the case of borrowings that do not belong but that do get assigned to a morphological category through the previously mentioned mechanism. The acquisition of infectional features must occur in conjunction with a process of incorporating the new linguistic unit in order for it to work within the ‘other’ system. We can see in the examples (1–19) three ways in which these English forms are adapted into Spanish. Examples 1–10 show simple phonological adaptations of English nouns to make the forms sound “more Spanish”. Examples 11–12 show truncations of English words. Examples

421

Mónica Cantero

13–19 show derivational stem-switching, where an English stem is combined with a Spanish sufx to create a Spanish form.

3.2 Appreciate sufxes in speech acts Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi applied their morphopragmatics theory essentially in the area of appreciate sufxes (see also Kornfeld, this volume). For these authors, “The main feld of application has been the pragmatics of diminutives and augmentatives” to demonstrate that there is a pragmatic priority for a basis of the meaning of diminutives and augmentatives. They also posited an approach in line with a general theoretical claim that pragmatics is a superordinate of semantics. In addition to the semantic features [small] of diminutives and [big] of augmentatives, we have proposed a still more basic, common pragmatic feature [fctive] for both (specifed as [non-serious] for diminutives). This feature, we have claimed, is responsible for the majority of the pragmatic uses of diminutives (and augmentatives) in Italian and German and in the many other languages that we have investigated. (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 2001, 43–44) This section considers the morphopragmatic analysis on the speaker-and-hearer reference in terms of speech acts and their performance in contextual environments on the production of appreciate sufxes, in particular on the use of the augmentative sufx -azo. The augmentative sufx is considered the marked one in natural morphology. I argue that WFRs are applied to performing of speech acts and text strategies to produce an intentional meaning, therefore demonstrating a pragmatic priority in the attainment of a deliberate meaning. In this framework, appreciate sufx formations are evidence of context-dependent pragmatic substance, which are generated by the morphology processes. This is relevant in morphopragmatics theory because these morphological rules are able to relate the speaker’s intentions to their message and consequently to its interpretation. The success of a speech act implies a mental change or reaction in the listener in the form of cooperation if the act is to be successful. In this regard, applying the concept of relevance set out by Sperber and Wilson (1986) supports the notion that the speaker focuses his/her attention on what he/she believes to be most relevant and benefcial information in the speech act. Therefore, it is understood that the communication provided by a particular speech act has the guarantee of relevance. Speakers make use of language strategies to ensure that their selected speech act has the promise of realization. In that regard, at the argumentative level of speech, speakers decide what to say, how to say it, and where to say it. This contextualization of the speech act is illustrated in verbal exchanges, which are partly determined by the reactions of the interlocutors participating in a given speech act. Haverkate’s (1984) linguistic theory and description-based analysis of speech acts in Spanish, in connection with speaker-hearer relation, decomposes and analyzes the speech act in levels: phonetic, illocution, and propositional acts, which are interrelated, since communicative action prevents contradictions between them. This classifcation enables a functional analysis of pragmalinguistic strategies, traditionally called rhetorical resources and stylistic variation. Using Haverkate’s speech-act theory as framework, the following categories are to be distinguished in the linguistic strategies that occur at the micro level of the speech act: standard, focalizing, and defocalizing. The use of diminutive or augmentative sufxes is optional. They add a nuanced meaning. The speaker wants to signify “something more” in the same referent 422

Morphology and pragmatics

that the word denotes. In cases where the speaker uses diminutive or augmentative afxes using the base of a proper or common name, this acquires attributive purposes. It works in the speechact with specifc pragmatic contents in addition to its referential function, in contrast with its non-derivative use. The augmentative sufx can be used to perform a speech act that considers the individualist function of the action. Then, the speaker may use the augmentative -azo to mark dominance and a protagonist role. Consider, for example, the following interactions (the examples are taken from Haverkate 1984): (19) A: ¿Quién marcó estos goles? who did score those goals? B: ¡Este pecho! This chest! ¡Este pech-ito! this chest-dim ‘That little chest! ¡Este pechazo! This chest-aug ‘The one and only chest’ (not ‘that big chest’) Haverkate indicates that the speaker has the choice of choosing between pecho and pechito as mechanisms of a centralized expression. Interestingly, when we analyze that interaction in my language and linguistics courses, the unanimous choice among male students is pechazo. The augmentative -azo in Spanish is a sufx that can add a connotation of “sudden movement”, “afection”, and “contempt”, among others. This is an interesting context of using two diferent sufxes, -ito (diminutive) and -azo (augmentative), both with the same pragmatic goal of emphasizing [+uniqueness, singularity of the action]. Pechazo is the marked choice and indicates that from the speaker’s point of view, the main contextual strategy is not to be persuasive or convince the listener of the facts but to highlight the notion of +value of greatness and + prominence of self in the stated facts. Therefore, in this context, the sufx -azo acquires traits of positive masculinity (given the traditional context where soccer is still commented upon and played), without an aggressive responsibility. What interests the speaker is not the mitigation or centralizing expression seen in pecho or pechito but the associations of pechazo with deliberate positioning of the self in importance over the event presented to the listener, that is, a pragmatic agency over meaning in the modifcation of the speech act. Another example shows the uses of the augmentative -azo. Here, Rodríguez (2020), responds to a video of another user dancing with Mexican author Margo Glantz: (20) Pues sí, qué envidia, pasar un rato con la maestraza @Margo_Glantz que acaba de cumplir noventa. ‘Well, yes, what envy, spend some time with the great teacher @Margo_Glantz who just turned ninety’ In the previous example, the word maestraza shows a combination of the noun maestra (teacher) + the augmentative -azo taking the feminine ending -a. The pragmatic function of the augmentative in this case is to attract the reader’s attention to the message that is introduced “spending time with one of the greatest Mexican writers ever” and to create a sense of desire and envy in the Twitter community, where the message is distributed. There is a defnitive contrast between its derivative maestraza use and the basic form maestra. The morphological form 423

Mónica Cantero

of the augmentative formation acts in parallel to intentional strategies by creating a want and by establishing a favorable approach to the reader, with the main purpose of obtaining a positive response in the message sent. It marks an agency of control in the speech act and therefore a signal of infuence to the community of readers for whom this message is intended. The augmentative in this case amplifes the text condition of infuencing its audience and situating the speaker in a role of social positioning above its community. Therefore, two important strategies in the act of speaking are established within a control parameter: infuencing its audience and intentionally intensifying the emotional pragmatic feature that informs the message.

3.3 Strategies in verbal production: the case of the verbal ending -ear Spanish verbal formation uses a specifc number of verbal sufxes (see Batiukova, this volume). Morphemes available for creating verb forms are limited, in contrast to adjectival or nominal sufxation, which implies an open inventory of sufxes, with the characteristic that in this open set of sufxes, the introduction of new elements is permissible, and it also functions to assign a lower sufxal productivity to others. The sufx -ear is added to nouns, adjectives, and some pronouns to make verbs that indicate actions or states associated with the original form. For instance: (21) a. relámpago (noun) → relampaguear (verb) b. fojo (adjective) → (fojear verb) c. cosquilla (noun) → cosquillear (verb) d. llorar (verb) → lloriquear (verb) Spanish spoken in the United States incorporates English verbs into the Spanish language through the addition of the sufx -ear to the English base, where -e could be interpreted as an interfx that connects the borrowed base with the Spanish verbal ending -ar. -Ear is one of the most productive verbal formatives in contemporary peninsular Spanish, as well as in Spanish spoken in the United States. The following examples demonstrate the use of the English verb as a base to which the sufx -ear has been added in order for it to be conjugated as a verb within the Spanish verbal paradigm. (22) a. resetear   . . . y la estabilidad solo podra ser restaurada por intervención manual o reseteando el regulador. ‘ . . . the stability can only be restored through manual intervention or resetting the regulator’ [Universidad Politécnica de Barcelona Ingenieros industriales: Regulación automática] b. rappear  . . . como el que imprime rapeando Avenda Khadija Ali. . . ‘ . . . like him who comes rapping Avenda Khadija Ali. . .’ [Rock de luxe (RDL) 126:43, 1996]  . . . sobre la que los invitados rapean con toda normalidad. ‘ . . . those invited who rap with all normalcy’. [RDL 127:52, 1996] c. surfear  . . . con la que solía surfear por encima del público. 424

Morphology and pragmatics

‘ . . . with who tended to crowd surf ’. [Popular 1; 267:29; 1996] d. rockear Allí se puede escuchar rockear en catalán a ELS 4 GATS. . . ‘At ELS 4 GATS one can hear Catalán rock. . .’ [RDL 127:58; 1996] e. Samplear  . . . y cuando más se acerca a Portishead es sampleando a Carmel. ‘ . . . when they are most like Portishead they are sampling Caramel’. [RDL 126:6; 1996] We can also document examples from Southwestern U.S. states, found in literary texts (Sagel): (23) a. parquear Y parqueó el van ahí en el lado del camino mientras que la Alicia. . .  (125) ‘I park the van there next to the road while Alicia.  . ’. b. snapear Y el Librado, cuando al fn snapeó a lo que había hecho, trató a la Alicia un poco mejor (129) ‘And Librado, when he fnally snapped about what had happened, treated Alicia a little better’ c. spotear  . . . que los chamacos grandes lo spotearon como a un chico diferente ‘ . . . the big kids spotted them with a diferent boy’. (30) d. Taipiar  . . . y lo usaba liberalmente como agente de su “justicia”, particularmente en la clase de taipiar.  . . . and used it liberally as an agent of his justice, particularly in typing class’ (135) Finally, there are documented examples from colloquial speech production given by bilingual speakers from Southwestern states. (24) a. batear b. bloquear c. chutear d. danciar e. donquiar f. dompear g. droppear h. lonchear i. pickiar j. taipiar k. wekiar

to bat to block (sometimes spelled bloqiar, bloquiar) to shoot to dance to dunk (sometimes spelled donqiar) to dump to drop to eat lunch to pick to type (sometimes spelled typiar) to wake up (pronounced wekear)

This class of terms is particularly frequent in technology. The following are cited (MCI technoguía. Techno-NoNo’s. Top Ten Most Common Incorrectly Used “Spanglish” Verbs) as the most frequent ones: (25) a. Beepear b. Printiar c. Escapiar

to beep to print to escape

Localizar electrónicamente Imprimir Abandonar 425

Mónica Cantero

d. Faxear e. Postear f. Surfar g. Taipiar h. Clickear i. E-mailiar j. Atachear

to fax to post to surf to type to click to e-mail to attach

Mandar/enviar por fax Registrar Navegar por la red Escribir a máquina Pinchar/hacer click Enviar por correo electrónico Adjuntar

Spanish verbs exist within a paradigm of a verbal conjugation. Verbs must be assigned to a verb class in order to indicate particular verb forms. The infectional class names a set of instructions for constructing infected (conjugated) verb forms. In the previous examples, the -ear sufx is applied to an English base in order to make it productive in Spanish and thus ready to use by the speaker. This is a central point in the Spanish verbal system, given that because the base must have the infnitive verbal ending that characterizes it as belonging to a specifc verbal paradigm, within which it then becomes declinable, no verbs outside of this system can exist. Therefore, a verb like attach will be impossible to acquire or be part of the verbal system without the -ear sufx. The sufx -ear applies to bases that already have verbal categories in the language of origin. The -ear sufx does not modify the syntactic category of the Spanish output, nor does it add any semantic connotation to the base. I argue that the sufx -ear is used to create verbal stem-switching categories. In the locutionary act of verb formation, the -ear sufx assigns Spanish verbal identity to the borrowed stem in the language of reception. During this locutionary act, an infectional paradigm allows it to be conjugated in any personal form or tense; therefore, the verb conforms to the part of the syntax where it has a role. It is a pragmatically and morphologically relevant process that helps to build specifc communicative purposes, because it depends on the intentions and goals of the speaker to fulfll a gap of expression in the target language. The Spanish sufx -ear is used in this way with three aims: 1 2 3

Morphological stem-switching of the same syntactic category between two languages. Filling a cognitive vacuum or the need for an expression or idea in the targeted language. Cero-semantic features or alterations are added or implied. The null result in acquiring a particular meaning shows how pragmatics superordinate semantics, because if there were a change or addition of meaning, that would have been a consequence of applying the verbal sufx or intentional creation of a given meaning by the speaker.

An analysis of this process of lexeme formation demonstrates the following compositional structure: (26) [X]V Where X is a base with syntactic category in the language of origin [[X]] +-[e]-ar]V Where X+[-ear] is the verbal lexeme formation output in the language of code-switching. From a morphological perspective, this process deals with a lexeme word-formation phenomenon that is both derivational and infectional; that is, it simultaneously serves two purposes. Lexeme word formation assigns infectional class-verbal conjugation paradigm of verbs ending with -ar in Spanish to the lexeme word-formation output. The derivational morphological 426

Morphology and pragmatics

realization of this lexeme formation rule is thus of an abstract infectional class. The infectional class then determines the possible conjugation of the lexeme as a Spanish verb within the paradigm of Spanish infnitives ending in -ar.

3.4 The (un)gendering of Spanish: Latinx and todes Gender pertains to noun classifcation and, as such, is a considered a syntactic choice used to express concordance. As a grammatical category, gender interacts with and categorizes social environments. In Spanish, the feminine morpheme is generally -a, and the masculine is the one considered non-marked. When speakers introduce a third option to express a non-binary gender perspective, using a diferent vowel -e, a consonant-symbol -x, or just a symbol -@ to mark gender, it can be argued that gender becomes a sufxal category with no semantic meaning but with pragmatic meaning(s). For speakers to interject empty categories to assign non-binary gender, nouns must lose any of their assigned grammatical classifcation so that gender becomes neutralized in a standardized practice for expressing non-binary gender. Since those categories are not part of the word, and the word might seem ungrammatical, the process is viewed as morphological, since it aims to provide through word-formation rules a replacing mechanism intended to be an “inclusive perspective” when applied to nouns referring to people. This is a social pragmatics–relevant issue in Spanish nowadays: the understanding of gender as a suffx that can change to provide an inclusive gender environment. An article in the Washington Post (December 5, 2019), “A Language for All”, describes how in Argentina, the sufx -e for a gender-neutral language is being ofcially positioned in the country. According to the article, the -e as a gender-neutral form was introduced in media outlets when Natalia Mira, 18, used gender-neutral language in a television interview that made headlines across the Spanish-speaking world last year. The viral video made her the subject of attacks, but now the form is fnding ofcial acceptance” (Washington Post). Now, according to the same article: Departments from at least fve universities across Argentina have announced that they will accept the use of this ‘inclusive’ Spanish in schoolwork. The gender-neutral words are splattered on banners and campaign fiers and grafti in the capital. After a judge stirred controversy by using the form in a recent court decision, an oversight committee of magistrates declared that it is now permissible for judges to use the gender-neutral words. At the same time, social platforms Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook are echoing how new gender-neutral words are emerging to refect an environment that is concerned about how gender inclusiveness is produced in communication. For instance, Latin@, Latinx, LatinX, Chicanx, and amig@ are being used, and, like todes (meaning everyone, plural -es instead of -os or -as), are reason for political debate among Spanish-speakers. It all has to do with the aspect of gender in Spanish and how, given the momentum of social movements like Me Too, gendered language, and in this case Spanish, is being perceived by speakers as perpetuating and reinforcing gender stereotyping through the division between -o and -a endings. Latinx and todes are created to advocate for a language that conforms to a gender-neutral reality as a way to pragmatically correlate gender with equality as perceived by the speaker in a speech act. If we apply the framework of morphopragmatics, it can be argued that in this context of ‘competing’ gender categories, -e signals the highest degree of the property of neutrality referred to by the noun plus the -e sufx. In this sense, -e belongs to pragmatics because the speaker has given it an important role in the speaker’s intentions. Both -e and -x mark the highest degree 427

Mónica Cantero

of neutrality, versus using -a and -o. Moreover, -x names the social issue of gender-neutrality by means of visual efects in combination with communicative intentions and word formation rules often resulting in the formation of new words. Following their incorporation into the lexicon, they represent the visually conceptualized meaning shaped into a written unit, created for a very specifc and unique purpose. The morphological processes implied in the creation of these particular image-like-words reveal strategies of a pragmatic communicative performance and the need to go beyond the word to convey a more dynamic and persuasive meaning. As Kiefer (2004, 326) points out, we can argue that these -e and -x sufxes “ha[ve] some pragmatic consequence, and if it does, what kind of pragmatic consequence it has, with respect to a welldefned semantic range of bases”. The consequence of these sufxes is to relate its interpreters to their notion of a language that allows noun-base inclusivity.

4 Conclusion This chapter serves as an overview of morphopragmatics and some areas where this theory can be applied. The body of data analyzed in this chapter establishes, from a morphopragmatic perspective, a relationship explaining the connection created between word-formation rule output, the hearer’s interpretation, and the speaker’s implied meaning in the process of applying WFRs. From this point of view, morphopragmatics studies the relationships of pragmatic aspects concerning word formation, that is, to those connotations that relate, from the user’s perspective, to the use of morphological processes in obtaining specifc extralinguistic preferences and environmental efects. This component of morphopragmatics theory explores in this chapter both how the meaning features carried by morphemes are selected and how the circumstances in which the speaker employs these communicative strategies difer or are used. Morphopragmatics refects the mental processes which determine how a language user is capable of combining form (morphological structure) and intentionality confated within any of the morphological rules of word formation. Further studies using morphopragmatics are needed, in particular in the use of diminutives, augmentatives, blends, and loans in Spanish, just to name some word formation areas.

References Aronof, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Aronof, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Infectional Classes. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bauer, L. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Cantero, M. 2000. “Adapted Borrowings in Spanish: A Morphopragmatics Hypothesis.” In Research on Spanish in the United States: Linguistic Issues and Challenges, edited by Ana Roca, 177–83. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Dressler, W. U. 2005. “Word-Formation in Natural Morphology.” In Handbook of Word-Formation. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, edited by P. Štekauer and R. Lieber, vol. 64. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_11. Dressler, W. U., and F. Kiefer. 1990. “Austro-Hungarian Morphopragmatics.” In Contemporary Morphology, edited by W. Dressler, H. Luschützky, O. Pfeifer, and J. Rennison, 69–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dressler, W. U., and L. Merlini Barbaresi. 1987. “Elements of Morphopragmatics.” Paper presented at the International Pragmatics Conference, Anwtwerp. Reproduced by L.A.U.D. Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg. Dressler, W., and L. Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 428

Morphology and pragmatics

Dressler, W., and L. Merlini Barbaresi. 1999. “Morphopragmatics.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by J. Verschueren et al. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dressler, W. U., and L. Merlini Barbaresi. 2001. “Morphopragmatics of Diminutives and Augmentatives: On the Priority of Pragmatics over Semantics.” In Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse: a Festschrift for F. Kiefer, edited by I. Kenesei and R. M. Harnish, 43–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Haverkate, H. 1984. Speech Acts, Speakers, and Hearers: Reference and Referential Strategies in Spanish (Pragmatics & Beyond). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. Kiefer, F. 2004. “Morphopragmatic Phenomena in Hungarian.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 51 (3–4): 325–49. Kiefer, F. 2017. “Morphology and Pragmatics.” In The Handbook of Morphology, edited by Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 272–79. London: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mayerthaler, W. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit, Wiesbaden: Athenaion. Rodríguez, C. Twitter Post. February  2, 2020, 12:04pm. https://twitter.com/Rodcarmen6471/ status/1224015629813862400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E12 24015629813862400&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Felpais.com%2Fcultura%2F2020%2F02%2F12%2Fba belia%2F1581500573_007391.html. Sagel, J. 1983. Tunomás Honey. Tempe, AZ: Bilingual Press/Editorial Bilingüe. Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Wurzel, W. U. 1989. Infectional Morphology and Naturalness. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

429

30 Semantic change in the history of Spanish word formation Franz RainerSemantic change in Spanish word formation

(El cambio semántico en la historia de la formación de palabras en español)

Franz Rainer

1 Introduction The present chapter provides an overview of the most important processes operative in semantic change in word formation. In the frst part of the chapter, cases of genuine semantic change are separated from cases of synchronic polysemy arising from pattern confation and borrowing. In the rest of the chapter, the following are identifed as the most important processes of semantic change: irradiation, absorption, paradigmatic realignment, secretion, metaphorical extension, and metonymic switching. All processes are illustrated with case studies from the history of the Spanish language. Keywords: Spanish; semantic change; word formation El presente capítulo ofrece un panorama de los procesos más importantes de cambio semántico que obran en la historia de la formación de palabras. En la primera parte del capítulo, casos genuinos de cambio semántico se distinguen de casos de polisemia sincrónica que fueron el resultado de la fusión de patrones una vez independientes o del préstamo. En el resto del artículo, los siguientes procesos de cambio semántico son identifcados como los más importantes: la irradiación, la absorción, el reagrupamiento paradigmático, la secreción, la extensión metafórica, así como el desplazamiento metonímico. Todos estos procesos se ilustran con estudios de caso sacados de la historia de la lengua española. Palabras clave: español; cambio semántico; formación de palabras

2 Genuine and apparent semantic change Semantic change in word formation will be defned in this chapter as a process whereby a wordformation pattern associated with meaning A at one stage is split at a later stage into two formally identical patterns associated respectively with meaning A and with a new meaning B. The immediate efect of semantic change, therefore, is pattern fragmentation (see Rainer 2003, 2010). While semantic change in word formation by defnition leads to polysemy,1 not all cases of polysemy are the result of semantic change. A pair of patterns with identical forms but diferent 430

Semantic change in Spanish word formation

meanings can also be the result, from a diachronic point of view, of the confation of two patterns that in origin were formally distinct. A well-known case in point is the confation of the Latin instrumental sufx -aculum/a and the Latin collective sufx -alium/a in western Romance languages (see Tuttle 1975; also the critical reviews by Wolf 1976 and Bork 1977). The Spanish regionalism cerraja ‘lock’, for example, goes back to Late Latin serraculum (via the plural serracula), while mortaja ‘shroud’ descends from Latin mortualia. Because of this formal confation of suffxes, the correct etymology is sometimes difcult to ascertain in specifc cases. From a purely synchronic perspective, confation and semantic change are difcult to separate. If we had no Latin documents, one might easily have been tempted to interpret mortaja as an instrument noun formed with the same sufx as cerraja. After all, a shroud serves to wrap a body for burial. What this shows is that arguments about semantic change, in word formation and elsewhere, must be based on solid diachronic data, not synchronic musings. Polysemy can also arise by way of borrowing. In fact, many cases of polysemy in Spanish word formation did not arise by internal semantic change but by imitating a foreign model. The Spanish sufx or, if you prefer, combining form -ícola, for example, has two meanings, ‘living in x’ (e.g. cavernícola ‘cave-dwelling’) and ‘relating to x’ (e.g. agrícola ‘relating to agriculture’). The frst of these two patterns is the original one, cf. Latin silvicola ‘inhabiting woodlands’. How did the relational pattern involving sufx substitution (-ícola replacing -icultura), which was unknown to Latin, arise? As shown in Rainer (2007a), the relational use was imitated from French at the beginning of the 19th century. In French, it had arisen in the last quarter of the 18th century through the reanalysis of noun phrases such as nation agricole, in which the original meaning ‘farming nation’—the French adjective being derived from Latin agricola ‘farmer; lit. person tilling the felds’—allowed a reanalysis according to which the adjective was referred to the corresponding noun in -iculture. A farming nation can also plausibly be defned as a nation dedicated to agriculture. The most famous case of this kind, however, is the polysemy of the sufx -dor (see Rifón, this volume, for a diachronic analysis of the sufx). As is well known, this sufx can have three meanings in nouns: agentive (e.g. cazador ‘hunter’), instrumental (e.g. destornillador ‘screwdriver’), and locative (e.g. comedor ‘dining room’). The origin of this polysemy has long been a puzzle, since in Latin, -torem was exclusively agentive. According to Meyer-Lübke (1894, 562 §526), the agent/instrument polysemy was the result of metaphorical extension, the instrument being conceived of as a kind of metaphorical agent. For the transition from instrument to place, he surmised that containers, which have both instrumental and locative features, might have served as a bridge. This story has often been repeated in studies on Romance word formation. In reality, no semantic extension has ever occurred in the history of Latin and Romance. Malkiel (1988) proposed an Occitan origin of the locative use, while he still accepted metaphorical extension for the agent/instrument polysemy in the wake of Meyer-Lübke. In reality, the instrumental meaning was also due to borrowing, as shown in Rainer (2004, 2011). In both Occitan and Catalan, the Latin agentive sufx -torem and the Latin instrumental-locative sufx -torium merged phonologically into -dor, which is how the polysemy arose in these Romance varieties. In Spanish, by contrast, -torem and -torium had remained formally distinct as -dor and -dero, respectively. In this language, instrument and place nouns in -dor were frst borrowed from Catalan or Occitan in the Middle Ages, possibly with Aragonese serving as an intermediary: obrador ‘workroom’ (1247, Fueros de Aragón), mirador ‘viewpoint’ (1250, Vidal Mayor), cobertor ‘bedspread’ (1267), pisador ‘pestle’ (1268), and so on. Starting from this medieval core, the instrumental use already proliferated in the Golden Age, while the locative use has always kept a low profle. The productivity of the instrumental use was again boosted by a second wave of loan words from French and English beginning with the 19th century, when, in the wake of the 431

Franz Rainer

Industrial Revolution, many new gadgets fooded the Iberian peninsula, bringing their French names in -eur or their English names in -er along with them. Examples of this second wave of borrowing are E. ventilator (1743) > Fr. ventilateur (1744) > Sp. ventilador (1833–34), E. conductor (1745) > Fr. conducteur (1771) > Sp. conductor (1797), E. generator (1794) > Fr. générateur (1845) > Sp. generador (1870–1905), and so on. This case again supports the methodological lesson drawn previously from confation, that is, that it is not advisable to attribute polysemy automatically to a process of semantic extension in diachrony. Synchronic guesswork is no valid substitute for diachronic demonstration. In the rest of this chapter, I  will treat the most common processes of genuine semantic change in word formation. Alternative ways of arranging the processes would certainly be conceivable. Unfortunately, relatively little work has been done in this area, which is why we have no agreed-upon classifcation of processes nor a unifed terminology (see Rainer 2015 for discussion).

3 Irradiation The term irradiation was introduced in Bréal (1892), where it is defned as a process whereby “a sufx with a general and vague meaning seems to acquire a more specialized and precise sense thanks to the word to which it is joined” (p. 20; my translation). The Spanish sufx -ato provides a perfect illustration of this process. The sufx -ato, like -ado, denotes a dignity but also the body of persons holding the dignity, a dignitary’s term of ofce, the premises occupied, and his (rarely her) jurisdiction. All these meanings can already be found in Latin. Besides the ofce itself, consulatus denoted the term of ofce as consul, magistratus the magistrates as a collectivity. The locative meaning appeared at the latest in Medieval Latin. In Du Cange (1954) s.v. ducatus, we read the following quotation from Joannes de Janua: “Ducatus est dignitas ducis, vel ejus terra”. Apart from a territory, the sufx could also denote a building. Episcopatus, according to Ramminger’s Wortliste (n.d.) also meant ‘bishop’s residence’, as in the following quotation from Coluccio Salutati (1331–1406): “extant adhuc . . . portarum monimenta, quae nunc episcopatui connexa sunt”. The polysemy just outlined thus is a Latin heritage. However, in more recent times, -ato has witnessed a genuine semantic extension in Spanish. As shown in Rainer (2007b), the expression Porfriato ‘term of ofce of Porfrio Díaz (1884–1911)’ became a model for other expressions referring to terms of ofce not in a neutral way but with either overtones of authoritarian rule or simply some jocular or derogatory tinge. This sideline of -ato frst appeared in Latin America (e.g. batistato ‘Batista’s rule’), but in the 1980s, it also found imitators among Spanish journalists who use it in a jocular or derogatory way for denoting the terms of ofce of the democratically elected presidents of the country: adolfato (< Adolfo Suárez), felipato and gonzalato (< Felipe González), aznarato (< José María Aznar), and so on. In this new use, the encyclopaedic information ‘authoritarian rule’ associated with Porfrio Díaz came to be part of the pattern itself and could so be transferred to later formations created with this sufx in the political domain. Spanish now has two temporal uses of -ato: a neutral one, as in durante el califato de Marwán II ‘during the Caliphate of Marwan II’, and a jocular-derogatory one in journalistic jargon, as in “el Madrid del trinconeo socialista durante el Felipato” (blurb of a book, 1993; ‘the Madrid of socialist stealing during Felipe González’s government’). A case analysed by Fleischman (1972–73, 635–41) as “collision of homophonous sufxes entailing transfer of semantic content” (title) would probably also better be viewed as one of irradiation. By collision, the author refers to a process in which one pattern of word formation is infuenced semantically at some point in time by a homophonous pattern. Such an interference is said to have been crucial in the explanation of the origin of Spanish action nouns in -ón, such 432

Semantic change in Spanish word formation

as apagón ‘blackout’, reventón ‘burst’, tirón ‘tug’, and so on. According to Fleischman, the -ón of such action nouns does not go back to the individualizing Latin sufx -onem of epulo, -onis ‘banqueter, diner’, and so on that was later reinterpreted as an augmentative sufx but to the action noun sufx -ionem, which also became -ón in Spanish. Fleischman claims that empujón ‘push’, the outcome of Latin impulsionem relatable to empujar ‘to push’ in synchrony, was the leader word of the whole series. As Fleischman herself remarks, empujón “had inherent in its meaning a sense of vigor, force, and brusque movement which tended to be adopted by subsequent derivatives in -ón” (p. 640). If that was the case, one could also simply surmise that the additional semantic features were transferred from this word to the rest of the analogical series, with no intervention from augmentative -ón. What might be attributable to the latter is the gender switch from feminine to masculine (Latin impulsionem f. > Spanish empujón m.).

4 Absorption Absorption is a term introduced by Darmesteter (1904 [1886], 54–60). It can be illustrated with one of the most common processes of semantic change in the history of Latin and the Romance languages. Many Romance sufxes, in fact, have their origin in relational adjectives that became nouns when the head of the noun phrase they were part of dropped out of the language. Already in Latin, -arius became a nominal sufx denoting agents, when, in noun phrases of the type faber ferrarius ‘blacksmith; lit. craftsman concerned with iron’, the head faber was dropped and the blacksmith simply referred to as ferrarius. By this ellipsis, the semantic feature ‘craftsman’ of the word lost its formal signifer (faber), remaining somehow suspended in the air, until it was given a new formal host in the sufx -arius, which in this way acquired the meaning ‘person concerned with’ instead of simply ‘concerned with’. This is how the use of Spanish -ero as an agentive sufx arose, already at the Latin stage. Another example of this kind that probably already goes back to Late Latin is the rise of the locative meaning of Latin -ale and -are. Löfstedt (1959) quotes designations of felds and other places from Latin documents of the Iberian peninsula like linare ‘fax feld’ (867) and arenale ‘sandy area’ (1035). Since this change took place during the second half of the frst millennium, when documents are scarce, we cannot say with certainty which head noun was left out, but it seems obvious that we have to do here with another case of absorption. This new locative function of -al and -ar became very widespread in Spanish, where it pushed aside rival sufxes like -arium/a and -etum/a (Wagner 1930). A third example in which the change seems to have occurred already in Latin times is the rise of the sufx -dera for feminine agents (see Rifón, this volume, for a diachronic analysis of the sufx). Formations such as bailadera ‘female dancer’ are no longer in use but were quite frequent in Old Spanish times. As shown in Rainer (2019), the agentive use of -dera was not due to a semantic extension of the instrumental use of the sufx, which straightforwardly goes back to Latin -toria, but to adjectives in -toria whose feminine head noun in noun phrases was dropped. Adjectives of this kind have survived in a deontic-passive sense until the present day (e.g. muchacha casadera ‘marriageable girl’), while the active sense (present, for example, in Latin lingae latratoriae ‘barking tongues’) has disappeared just like the corresponding agent nouns. The reason we must assume that the process is located at the Latin stage is the fact that similar formations are attested in many Romance varieties, from Romanian to Portuguese, including some Italian and French dialects. A case in point that arose in a more recent period with abundant documentation is the use of -dora to designate machines, as in lavadora ‘washing machine’ (see Rifón, this volume, for a diachronic analysis of the sufx). As argued in Rainer (2009), the oldest formation of this kind 433

Franz Rainer

seems to have been máquina locomotora ‘locomotive engine’, attested around the middle of the 19th century and then shortened to locomotora. Formations of this kind became more frequent in the last quarter of the 19th century: cosedora ‘sewing machine’ (1873), excavadora ‘excavator’ (1882), trilladora ‘threshing machine’ (1882), and so on. The new pattern, however, cannot be attributed only to internal semantic change. Given the technological dependence of Spain in those times, it is unavoidable to grant considerable importance in the process to external infuences from French and English. The semantic feature absorbed cannot only arise via ellipsis. Very frequently, it is due to semantic extension, notably by metonymy. We have already encountered one case in point when presenting the fate of Latin -atus. Single derivatives formed with the sufx sufered a metonymic extension. In that way, a word would designate not only a dignity, but also a time span, a place, or a collectivity. Each such semantic extension could then become the leader word for a new pattern, once the temporal, locative, or collective feature had been reanalysed as part of the sufx’s meaning. Many, especially collective derivatives without counterparts denoting a dignity, bear witness to this fact: besides collective campesinado ‘peasantry’, for example, there is no campesinado ‘dignity of a peasant’ and similarly for estudiantado ‘(body of) students’ and other derivatives. Another example that serves to illustrate this process of absorption of a feature originating in metonymy is the ‘wound’ reading of the sufxes -ada and -azo (Rainer 2010, 23–24). In their core meaning, these sufxes designate blows, shots, and the like, meanings that metonymically gave rise to designations for the ensuing wounds. So cuchillada and navajazo primarily designate a stab with a knife but also secondarily the wound inficted. Once this secondary reading is absorbed by the sufx, new designations of wounds can in principle be formed directly by proportional analogy. However, since, the ‘blow’ reading seems to be available in all cases, it is difcult to know which route a speaker or writer has taken.

5 Paradigmatic realignment What I call paradigmatic realignment here has been known since the very beginnings of historical linguistics. Unfortunately, its various manifestations have gone under a myriad of diferent names, within the same language and across languages, which is why I venture this new cover term. In essence, I hereby refer to all processes in which speakers of a language at a certain point decide to create a new base for some pattern by reanalysis. In one scenario, also referred to as afx telescoping in English, speakers skip the intermediary derivational stage and refer a sufx directly to the base of the intermediary stage. A classic example of this kind is the sufx -ería, which arose as a combination of -ero and -ía, as in carnicería ‘butcher’s shop’, derived from carnicero ‘butcher’, or lechería ‘dairy’, from lechero ‘milkman’ or lechera ‘milkwoman’. Formations of this kind can also plausibly be interpreted in a binary fashion: a lechería is not only a milkman’s or milkwoman’s shop but also a shop where milk is sold. In this latter interpretation, -ería becomes a single sufx: lech-ería. As soon as this paradigmatic realignment has taken place, -ería can be freely attached to bases denoting products, as in bocatería ‘sandwich bar’, derived from bocata ‘sandwich’. This is how speakers spontaneously interpret this word, because the intermediary step bocatero ‘person making sandwiches’ is exceedingly rare. In this case, as in many others, a closer diachronic study would have to address the question of whether the whole process was genuinely Spanish or whether foreign infuences were also at stake. After all, the same process can be observed in French and other Romance languages, and some even locate the afx coalescence at the Latin stage (Gamillscheg 1934). In another kind of paradigmatic realignment, speakers do not alter the syntagmatic complexity of a pattern but replace the traditional base with another member of the morphological 434

Semantic change in Spanish word formation

family. As far as I can see, this type of paradigmatic realignment has never received a name of its own. We have already seen a case in point in section 2 when discussing the origin of the relational use of French -icole.

6 Secretion Secretion is a term introduced by Jespersen (1922, 384) with the following defnition: “By secretion I understand the phenomenon that one portion of an indivisible word comes to acquire a grammatical signifcation which it had not at frst, and is then felt as something added to the word itself ”. This process has always been rare in the history of Spanish word formation. One case in point that at least comes close to Jespersen’s defnition is the origin of the ordinal sense of the sufx -eno in Spanish, which only survives in noveno ‘ninth’ and the rare onceno ‘eleventh’, but was more widespread in Old Spanish. In Latin, -eni was a distributive sufx, a category that must have had a precarious status in spoken Latin since it disappeared from word formation on the way to Romance. Jaberg (1965) attributes its reinterpretation as an ordinal sufx to the fact that speakers no longer understood its original distributive meaning and could therefore infuse it with a new meaning. This new ordinal meaning seems to have been determined by the fact that novena denoted a kind of religious ceremony held on the ninth day after the death of a person. In this way, the original meaning ‘nine . . . each’ was replaced by ‘ninth’. Another potential case are action nouns in -e, of the type baile ‘dance’, from bailar ‘to dance’. The origin of this pattern, however, is still controversial. Meyer-Lübke (1894, 446 §339) thought that it arose by reinterpreting as an action-noun sufx the meaningless ending -e of GalloRomance and Catalan loan words ending in or adapted with this vowel and related to verbs in -ar. If this were valid, we would indeed have to do with a case of secretion. Pharies (2002, 182–83), however, argues that this traditional explanation, which was also partly endorsed by Malkiel (1959–60), seems to be in confict with chronological data. Only an exhaustive chronological list of relevant cases with their respective etymologies could decide this issue. The third example that I would like to mention here is not, strictly speaking, a case of secretion but also comes close to it. The fnal sequence here is not meaningless, but no longer fully understood by the speaker. Like Latin -fer, Spanish -ífero originally meant ‘containing, yielding, producing x’, as in yacimiento petrolífero ‘oilfeld’, compañía petrolífera ‘oil company’, and so on. While in Latin, -fer was still clearly motivated by the verb ferre ‘to bear’, Spanish -ífero is not relatable to any other word of the language. The meaning of this sufx, or combining form, therefore can only be inferred from the noun phrases in which speakers hear or read such adjectives. This is how the original possessive meaning of -ífero was replaced by or supplemented with a relational meaning. Compañía petrolífera, for example, can not only be interpreted as ‘oilproducing company’ but also more generally as ‘company that has to do with oil’. In the DEA (Seco, Andrés, and Ramos 2008), this new relational meaning synonymous with the one of petrolero is dubbed “semiculto” [half-learned] and illustrated with the noun phrases instalaciones petrolíferas ‘oil installations’ and compañía de inspección petrolífera ‘oil inspection company’, as well as the nominalization los petrolíferos ‘the oil workers’. One can even fnd precio petrolífero ‘oil price’, which by no means could be paraphrased as ‘oil-producing price’. In many European languages, new combining forms have been created over the last decades by way of secretion from proper names. In English, for example, at the beginning of the 1970s, an element -gate with the meaning ‘scandal’ was extracted from the proper name Watergate, the name of a building related to the so-called Watergate scandal. On this model, a long series of scandal names have been created, like Winegate, Irangate, Contragate, etc. This naming strategy was then taken over by other languages, among them Spanish. Méndez Santos (2011) found 435

Franz Rainer

CIA-gate in the newspaper ABC as early as 1978, followed by carpetazo-gate (1987), espía-gate (1987), coca-gate (1989), and many more, all with a genuinely Spanish base (dar carpetazo ‘close the fle’, espía ‘spy’, coca ‘cocaine’). Although this pattern is now also productive in Spanish, the process of semantic change took place in English. I am not aware of any clear autochthonous case of secretion of this kind. Shop names in -landia, for example, like Zumolandia, which ultimately derive from Disneyland, also seem to have had a foreign model.

7 Metaphorical extension As argued in Rainer (2005), metaphorical extension can work in tandem with word formation. That is, speakers can use a pattern metaphorically at the very moment of creating a neologism. They thereby do not imitate it 100 percent but add a metaphor and hence deviate from the pattern (which is why I then dubbed the process approximation, the copy only coming close to the model but not matching it exactly). One early case of metaphorical extension of a pattern is constituted by the use in Old Spanish of the sufx -ezno to refer to human beings. The sufx originally designated cubs of wild animals, as in lobezno ‘wolf cub’ and osezno ‘bear cub’. From this core niche, the pattern was then transferred to designations of children of marginalized communities such as Jews and Moors, who were referred to as judeznos and moreznos (Ynduráin 1952). The analogical likening of human beings to animals implicit in this metaphorical extension of the pattern was quite obviously intentional. A parallel process can be observed in the history of the sufx -uno. This relational sufx, which goes back to Classical Latin apru(g)nus ‘of the wild boar’ and Late Latin capru(gi)nus ‘of the roe deer’, was originally only attached to bases designating animals, which still constitute the central niche in Modern Spanish (e.g. caballuno ‘horse-like’, perruno ‘of dogs’, vacuno ‘bovine’, etc.). As pointed out in Malkiel (1959), the pattern witnessed an extension during the Golden Age by being applied metaphorically to bases denoting human beings, as in moruno ‘Moorish’, hombruno ‘mannish’ (said of a woman), lacayuno ‘lackey-like, servile’, and so on. Again, the efect of this implicit likening of persons to animals conveys a negative connotation that is absent from the original use of the sufx. A similar process of metaphorical transfer can be observed in the history of the sufx -ada (Rainer 2010, 38–39). Already in Old Spanish, it had acquired a collective meaning that allowed it to form designations of herds of animals, such as boyada ‘drove of oxen’, caballada ‘drove of horses’, vacada ‘herd of cows’, and so on. During the Golden Age, the pattern was applied metaphorically to socially marginalized groups of human beings with a clearly derogatory intention deriving from the implicit likening of humans to animals: indiada ‘(group of) Indians’, negrada ‘(body of) slaves’, frailada ‘(bunch of) friars’, muchachada ‘(group of) kids’, and so on. By this extension, collective -ada was split into two patterns: the older neutral one and a new one applied to humans with a derogatory tinge. Metaphorical extensions also occur with sufxes or combining forms of learned origin. The combining form -ología, for example, which originally only designated scientifc disciplines (e.g. hidrología ‘hydrology’, etc.), is now also commonly used to designate mock sciences like vaticanología ‘vaticanology’, kremlinología ‘cremlinology’, cubanología ‘cubanology’, ETAlogía ‘expertise concerning ETA’, intrigología ‘art of intrigues’, and so on. As the glosses suggest, this extension frst took place in a language other than Spanish, but it is now also fully available in this latter language. More cross-linguistic research based on reliable chronological data and information about the reality talked about is necessary here. The same uncertainty about the ultimate origin of the new pattern remains in the metaphorical extension of -icidio from ‘murder’ (e.g. 436

Semantic change in Spanish word formation

infanticidio ‘infanticide’, etc.) to less sanguinary crimes (e.g. arboricidio ‘unnecessary tree felling’, economicidio ‘economic suicide’). Another case in point is the jocular pattern in -itis for metaphorical “diseases”, as in franquitis ‘nostalgia for Franco’s regime’, titulitis ‘yearning for titles’, encuestitis ‘proliferation of surveys’, and so on. This jocular pattern arose by transferring the medical sufx -itis denoting infammatory diseases to metaphorical “diseases”. It is yet unclear when and where this pattern, which is common to most European languages, arose. The oldest known examples surprisingly come from Spain, where already in the middle of the 19th century, we fnd examples like “esa sindineritis crónica” ‘this chronic shortage of money’ (Julià Luna 2012, 80) or “un mieditis superbo” ‘tremendous jitters’ (italics in the original, masculine gender; Rainer 2013, 166). A  pattern that might have had autochthonous origin2 are jocular place nouns in -ódromo like rockódromo ‘location of a rock festival’, tontódromo ‘place where—from the point of view of the speaker or writer—stupid young people gather’, botellódromo ‘place where a botellón [bottle party] is held’, and so on. Its origin must be sought in a metaphorical transfer from words with a more specifc locative meaning like hipódromo ‘racecourse’, canódromo ‘dog track’, and velódromo ‘cycle track’.

8 Metonymic switching The phenomenon that I refer to as metonymic switching (Rainer 2003, 208, 2005, 433, 2015, 1775) has often been observed in discussions of individual words but does not seem to have received an established name of its own in the literature. By this term, I refer to cases where change afects the semantic relation between base and afx or between the two bases of a compound, while the conceptual category of the output remains stable. The old and the new semantic relationship are linked by metonymy. The stability of the output category distinguishes metonymic switching from metaphorical extension, which is a process that always creates a new conceptual category. What metonymic switching has in common with metaphorical extension is that it is also a kind of “approximation”, that is, a deviation from the model during the act of creating a neologism. Metonymic switching always takes place frst in individual words. It becomes more relevant for word formation only to the extent that the new semantic relation is imitated in more neologisms. Here are some examples of metonymic switching at the level of individual words. Spanish has a pattern in -era for designating containers, such as sopera ‘soup tureen’, cafetera ‘cofeepot’, cartera ‘wallet’, chequera ‘checkbook’, and so on. The base, in this pattern, designates the objects or stuf contained. When handbags for men came to be used in Spain at some point in time after World War II, they were initially perceived as unmanly, because handbags until then had only been used by women. It is against this background that one can understand why in colloquial speech men’s handbags were called mariconera, a word derived from maricón ‘homosexual’. This formation respects the output category of the pattern (men’s handbags are containers); the category of the base and the semantic relation between base and derivative, however, are diferent. The base no longer designates the objects or stuf contained, but the bearer of the container. In parallel, the semantic relation switches from ‘containing’ to ‘used by’. One reason for this metonymic switch to have occurred probably has to be sought in the fact that men’s handbags cannot be characterized by some typical content, contrary to soup tureens, cofeepots, checkbooks, and so on. Speakers were therefore led to choose another, more salient aspect of the frame associated with the concept ‘men’s handbag’. Here are some more cases of metonymic switching. Words ending in the combining form -teca normally denote places where the objects designated by the base are stored: biblioteca ‘library’, discoteca ‘record store’, fototeca ‘photographic library’, and so on. A bebeteca, by contrast, 437

Franz Rainer

designates a library for small children. The base here no longer designates the objects stored (books) but the potential users. These, by the way, are not necessarily babies (bebés), so the formation contains a second deviation from the core pattern in form of a pars pro toto. Another example concerns the use of -itis, which we have already encountered in the last section. In its medical use, the derivative designates an infammation (e.g. amigdalitis ‘tonsillitis’), the base the organ afected (here, the amigdalas ‘tonsils’). Things are diferent in pañalitis ‘diaper dermatitis’, a term that designates an infammation of a baby’s (circum-)genital region stemming from the use of diapers. The base, here, does not refer to the seat of infammation but to its cause, a metonymically related concept. Again, it is not difcult to see why the metonymic switch took place. Diaper dermatitis can afect several regions, and it is therefore unclear which one to pick out as a base, while the cause of the infammation is unique and therefore salient. The examples mentioned so far seem to have remained isolated. However, formations resulting from metonymic switching can also become the starting point for further neologisms, even for productive new patterns of word formation. Let us frst have a look at the denominal sufx -ada in its action meaning (Rainer 2010, 27–29). This pattern normally designates an act performed by or similar to the ones performed by the person referred to by the base: quijotada ‘quixotic act’, niñada ‘childish behavior’, and so on. Novatada, however, is diferent in that it refers to a practical joke played on a recruit (novato), not performed by him. The reason for the metonymic switch again is transparent: those who perform the act are a group of people whose composition remains fuzzy, while the victim can be characterized unambiguously and therefore is highly salient. This new semantic relation, ‘played on’, however, did not spark of a really productive new pattern. In fact, the only similar formation seems to be its synonym quintada, derived from quinto ‘conscript’. A diferent metonymic switch can be observed in inocentada, a designation for another kind of practical jokes performed on December 28, the Día de los Santos Inocentes ‘Innocent’s Day’. The base here represents the day when such practical jokes are performed, since the day is the most salient aspect here. A case where the new pattern created by metonymic switching has proliferated more thoroughly, to the point of constituting a new productive pattern, are verb-noun compounds with a frst element guarda- ‘to protect’ (Studerus 1978). In its original use, these compounds designate persons or objects that serve to protect what is referred to by the noun: guardabosque ‘forest ranger’, guardacostas ‘coastguard; coastguard vessel’, guardamano ‘guard (on sword)’, and so on. The verb guardar ‘to protect’ can be used in two ways: in one reading, the subject designates the protector and the object the person or thing protected (e.g. Dios guarde al Rey ‘God save the King’), while in the other, there is an additional complement introduced by the preposition de that designates that from which somebody or something is protected (e.g. Que Dios nos guarde de las enfermedades ‘May God preserve us from sickness’). The referents of the two objects are in an obvious relationship of contiguity in the real world, which provides the foundation for the metonymic switch that occurred. In fact, in verb-noun compounds, the noun can also correspond to the de-complement, that is, designate the thing somebody or something is protected from: guardabarros ‘mudguard’, guardafangos ‘splashguard’, guardapolvo ‘overall, housecoat’, and so on. The same reasoning also applies to compounds with the synonymous verb proteger ‘to protect’: a protegeesquinas ‘protector’ does not serve to protect corners but to protect babies and small children from the pointed corners of furniture.

Notes 1 I will use polysemy in a broad sense here, as a cover term including homonymy. 2 It is also attested in (Brazilian) Portuguese. 438

Semantic change in Spanish word formation

References Bork, H. D. 1977. “Review of Tuttle (1975).” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 28: 184–88. Bréal, M. 1892. “De l’irradiation grammaticale.” Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 7: 20–23. Darmesteter, A. 1904 [1886]. La vie des mots étudiée dans leurs signifcations. 7th ed. Paris: Delagrave. Du Cange. 1954. Glossarium mediae et infmae latinitatis. Unveränderter Nachdruck der Ausgabe 1883– 1887. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. Fleischman, S. 1972–73. “Collision of Homophonous Sufxes Entailing Transfer of Semantic Content: The Luso-Hispanic Action Nouns in -ón and -dela/-dilla.” Romance Philology 26 (4): 635–63. Gamillscheg, E. 1934. “Nachschrift.” Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 58: 306–11. Jaberg, K. 1965. “Ordinal- und Bruchzahlwörter.” In Karl Jaberg: Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen und Erlebnisse. Neue Folge, edited by S. Heinimann, 160–76. Bern: Francke. Jespersen, O. 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: Allen & Unwin. Julià Luna, C. 2012. “La recepción del léxico científco en la lexicografía académica: las voces derivadas en-itis.” Revista de lexicografía 18: 77–102. Löfstedt, B. 1959. “Zur Lexikographie der mittellateinischen Urkunden Spaniens.” Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 29: 5–89. Malkiel, Y. 1959. “Nuevas aportaciones para el estudio del sufjo -uno.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 13: 241–90. Malkiel, Y. 1959–60. “Fuentes indígenas y exóticas de los sustantivos y adjetivos verbales en -e.” Revue de Linguistique Romane 23: 80–111; 24: 201–53. Malkiel, Y. 1988. “Las peripecias españolas del sufjo latino -ōriu, ōria.” Revista de Filología Española 68 (3–4): 217–55. Méndez Santos, M.ª del C. 2011. “Sobre -gate: Origen, signifcado y comportamiento morfológico.” Cuadernos del Instituto Historia de la Lengua 6: 23–43. Meyer-Lübke, W. 1894. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Vol. 2: Formenlehre. Leipzig: Fues. Pharies, D. 2002. Diccionario histórico de los sufjos españoles. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Rainer, F. 2003. “Semantic fragmentation in word-formation: The case of Spanish -azo.” In Explorations in Seamless Morphology, edited by R. Singh and S. Starosta, 197–211. New Delhi: Sage. Rainer, F. 2004. “Del nombre de agente al nombre de instrumento y de lugar en español: ¿Cómo y cuándo?” Iberoromania 59: 97–122. Rainer, F. 2005. “Semantic Change in Word Formation.” Linguistics 43 (2): 415–41. Rainer, F. 2007a. “El patrón agrícola ‘relativo a la agricultura’: origen y desarrollo.” Verba 34: 335–40. Rainer, F. 2007b. “De Porfriato a zapaterato.” Lingüística Española Actual 29 (2): 251–59. Rainer, F. 2009. “El origen de los nombres de instrumento en -dora del español.” Vox Romanica 68: 199–217. Rainer, F. 2010. “Sobre polisemia en la formación de palabras.” Hesperia 13 (2): 7–52. Rainer, F. 2011. “The Agent-Instrument-Place ‘Polysemy’ of the Sufx -tor in Romance.” Language Typology and Universals/Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 64 (1): 8–32. Rainer, F. 2013. “Formación de palabras y analogía: aspectos diacrónicos.” In Formación de palabras y diacronía (Anexos de Revista de lexicografía 19), edited by I. Pujol Payet, 141–72. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. Rainer, F. 2015. “Mechanisms and Motives of Change in Word-Formation.” In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, edited by P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, and F. Rainer, vol. 3, 1761–81. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter. Rainer, F. 2019. “The Beneft of the Pan-Romance Perspective: A New Attempt to Solve the tecedor/tecedeira Puzzle.” Word Structure 12 (1): 127–51. Ramminger, J. n.d. Neulateinische Wortliste. Ein Wörterbuch des Lateinischen von Petrarca bis 1700. Accessed January 14, 2020. www.neulatein.de/words/3/000503.htm. Seco, M., O. Andrés, and G. Ramos. 2008. Diccionario del español actual. Madrid: Santillana. Studerus, L. H. 1978. “ ‘Guarda’ Words: Interpretation and Usage.” Hispania 61: 935–40. 439

Franz Rainer

Tuttle, E. F. 1975. Studies in the Derivational Sufx -āculum: Its Latin Origin and Its Romance Development. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Wagner, M. L.1930. “Zum spanisch-portugiesischen Sufx -al.” Volkstum und Kultur der Romanen 3: 87–92. Wolf, H. J. 1976. “Review of Tuttle (1975).” Romanische Forschungen 88: 84–87. Ynduráin, F. 1952. “Sobre el sufjo -ezno.” Archivo de Filología Aragonesa 4: 195–200.

440

31 Argument structure, aspectual structure and morphological marking Margot VivancoStructure and morphological marking

(Estructura argumental, estructura aspectual y marcación morfológica)

Margot Vivanco

1 Introduction Although the refexive clitic SE is not a morpheme strictu sensu, it is well known that it displays a wide range of functions beyond co-referenciality in Spanish, spelling out diferent semantic meanings. This chapter studies its role as a (non-)oppositional voice morpheme—in passives, anticausatives and inherently pronominal verbs—as well as its role as an aspectual marker when combined with transitive verbs. Keywords: voice; lexical aspect; causativity Aunque el clítico refexivo SE no es un morfema strictu sensu, es sabido que desempeña una gran variedad de funciones en español, las cuales van más allá de la mera co-referencialidad. Este capítulo estudia su papel como morfema (no) opositivo de voz—en pasivas, anticausativas y verbos inherentemente pronominales—, así como su papel como marca de aspecto en combinación con verbos transitivos. Palabras clave: voz; aspecto léxico; causatividad

2 Diathesis, voice and lexical aspect According to RAE and ASALE (2009, 41.1a), the term “diathesis” refers to each of the grammatical structures that may express the arguments of a verb and their relations, while the term “voice” refers to the morphosyntactic expression of the diathesis, the exponents that signal the link between syntactic and semantic functions. There are three main kinds of diathesis: i) active, where the agent/cause argument functions as syntactic subject and the patient as direct object (DO) (1a, 2a); ii) passive (1b), where the agent/cause is syntactically demoted—albeit semantically interpreted—and the patient occupies the subject position and iii) middle (2b), where there is only one argument, the patient subject. Therefore, diathesis alternations like (1–2) afect the number of arguments a predicate takes 441

Margot Vivanco

and/or the syntactic position they fnally occupy. Refexive clitics (henceforth ‘SE’) are the main voice markers—morphosyntactic expression of the diathesis—in Spanish. (1) a. Alguien construyó somebody built b. La Torre Eifel the tower Eifel

la Torre Eifel en 1889. the tower Eifel in 1889 se construyó en 1889. se built in 1889

(2) a. El calor derritió el the heat melted the b. El hielo se derritió. the ice se melted

hielo. ice

SE is also the main lexical aspect marker in Spanish. Lexical aspect or Aktionsart is the internal structure of the temporal development of the situation or event denoted by a predicate. Since it is a semantic quality of the verb itself or of the predicate it builds together with its arguments and adjuncts, it tends to have no morphological refection. However, languages like Spanish have certain particles related to Aktionsart contrasts. Thus, (3a), with a bare DO, constitutes an activity predicate, while (3b), with a defnite DO that measures out the event, constitutes an accomplishment. Only the latter may take SE, and the translation would be similar to the English particle up (‘Alex drank a glass of milk up’). (3) a. Alex Alex b. Alex Alex

(*se) bebió leche. se drank milk (se) bebió un vaso se drank a glass

de of

leche. milk

Before proceeding further, section 2.1 presents an overview of Spanish SE-constructions.

2.1 SE-constructions: an overview The main problem of Spanish refexive clitics is that they are syncretic, as shown in Table 31.1 (see other overviews in Otero 1999; Mendikoetxea 1999, 2012; Sánchez-López 2002, 2016; Dobrovie-Sorin 2006, 2017; Cabredo-Hofher 2017; Waltereit 2017). Paradigmatic instances of SE are those with person infection (singular: me frst, te second, se third; plural: nos frst, os second, se third) in agreement with the subject, while the nonparadigmatic ones are restricted to the third person form. A second distinction is that between voice-related SE and the constructions where its presence is not due to argument structure phenomena. Within the former we can further discriminate between oppositional voice morphology (OVM), which appears with alternating verbs to highlight the contrast between their two possible diathetic confgurations, and non-oppositional voice morphology (N-OVM), which appears with non-alternating verbs, that is, verbs that display only one diathesis. Finally, SE may either be sensitive to the aspectual class of the predicate it combines with (cell X) or produce various aspectual efects on it (cells IV, VII, XI), regardless of whether it is also linked to voice phenomena. If it is both related to voice and aspect at the time, it can either change the diathesis of the predicate (from an active unergative predicate to an unaccusative one, cell IV) or behave as a non-oppositional voice morpheme (cell VII). 442

Structure and morphological marking Table 31.1 Spanish SE-constructions

Paradigmatic Se

Non-aspectual-Se

Voice-related se Oppositional voice morphology

Non-oppositional voice morphology

I Antipassives a. Yo negué los hechos (‘I denied the facts’) b. Yo me negé a ir (‘I refused to go’)

VI Inherently pronominal verbs No os arrepentiréis de nada (‘You will not regret anything’)

II Autocausatives a. Tú levantaste la caja (‘You lifted the box’) b. Tú te levantaste (‘You got up’)

Non voice-related SE

VIII Refexives Él se afeitó a sí mismo (‘He shaved himself’)v

IX Reciprocals Ellos se miraron el uno al otro (‘They looked at each other’)

Non-paradigmatic SE

X Accomplishmentselecting SE Alex se bebió un vaso de leche ‘Alex drank a glass of milk up’

Aspect-sensitive SE Aspect-changing SE

Aspectual SE

III Anticausatives a. El calor derritió el hielo (‘The heat melted the ice’) b. El hielo se derritió (‘The ice melted’)

IV Unaccusativising SE a. Fuimos al cine (‘We went to the cinema’) b. Nos fuimos del cine (‘We left the cinema’) V Passives a. Construyeron la Torre Eifel en 1889 (‘They built the Eifel Tower in 1889’) b. La Torre Eifel se construyó en 1889 (‘The Eifel Tower was built in 1889’)

VII Unaccusative SE (Se) ha muerto Hawking (‘Hawking has died’)

XI Other SE-constructions ¡Estáte quieto! (‘Be still!’) Me estoy meando (‘I need to pee’) XII Impersonals Se vive bien en Madrid (‘One lives well in Madrid’)

443

Margot Vivanco

Generic passives a. La gente hace el sake con arroz (‘People make sake from rice’) b. El sake se hace con arroz (‘Sake is made from rice’)

Notice that SE is only used as a true referential pronoun in canonical refexive and reciprocal constructions (see Dobrovie-Sorin 2006). In the occurrences under study SE lacks referential meaning and has gathered functions that go beyond those of a mere pronoun: it is the formal refex of complex semantic nuances and, most importantly, of the relations between semantic and syntactic structure, which is why it is treated as a morphological unit (Burzio 1986; Otero 1986; Zubizarreta 1987; Sánchez-López 2002; Mendikoetxea 2012) and is placed on diferent functional heads within the tree depending on the specifc contribution it makes to each construction. The question remains, however, as to whether a unifed analysis of all, or at least some, SE-constructions is tenable (see Medová 2009 for an overview), based on the idea of reduced valency. Section 3 studies SE as a (N-)OVM, with the exception of autocausatives, which are to some extent close to refexive constructions, and antipassives, which involve a change in the syntactic organisation of the arguments but not on argument structure per se. Section 4 deals with SE as an aspectual marker, focusing on its contribution to transitive predicates (cell X).

3 Argument structure and morphological marking Except for unaccusativising SE (cell IV), that takes the intransitive activity verb ir (‘go’) and turns it into an intransitive achievement irse (leave’), all oppositional uses of SE involve some kind of contrast between a transitive and an intransitive variant of a predicate. Section 3.1 is devoted to SE-passives, while section 3.2 deals with SE-middles.

3.1 Passive voice 3.1.1 Eventive SE-passive Analytic passives (4a), which show person infection, constitute a syntactic means of codifying passive diathesis, whereas SE-passives (4b), restricted to the third person (singular or plural), constitute a morphological passive (Otero 1986). Both are considered unaccusative constructions, since there is only one argument at the syntactic level, bearing the patient role and occupying the subject position. Nevertheless, at the semantic level, the agent role is active, so both allow agentive adverbs and purpose clauses (see MacDonald 2017 and the references therein for discussion on whether such argument is actually projected in the syntax). (4) a. Fuimos invitados al were.1st.pl. invited.masc.pl. to.the 444

congreso congress

(por by

Sol) para dar una charla. Sol to give a talk

Structure and morphological marking

b. El the

congreso se organizó congress se organised.3rd.sg.

en Lisboa in Lisbon

cuidadosamente. carefully

Conversely, anticausative constructions, which denote spontaneous events (middle voice), lack an implicit agent or causer and take other modifers (5b) like causer adjuncts and by itself phrases (Manzini 1983; Kallulli 2007). Change of state verbs might be ambiguous between a passive reading (5a) and an anticausative one (5b) when combined with SE: (5) a. Las copas se secaron cuidadosamente. the glasses se dried carefully (‘The glasses were carefully dried’) b. Las copas se secaron por el the glasses.fem.sg. se dried for the (‘The glasses dried from the heat/by themselves’)

calor/ heat /

por by

sí solas them alone.fem.pl.

The agent phrase, introduced by por (‘by’), is optional in analytic passives (4a), but whether it is possible in SE-passives has been a matter of debate (Lenz 1935; Gili Gaya 1943; De Mello 1978). De Kock and Gómez-Molina (1990) show that examples such as (6) are rare and denote inanimate or collective entities expressing means or causes. (6) Se frmó la se signed.3rd.sg. the

paz peace

por by

los the

embajadores ambassadors

(Gili Gaya 1943, 73)

A key particularity of SE-passives is that this agent argument is interpreted as human (7) and arbitrary—both universal and existential readings—(Cinque 1988), like English ‘one’, which is probably why making it explicit is not fully grammatical. This is a semantic property shared by SE-impersonals (8) (De Miguel 1992). (7) a. Muchas many b. #Se se

casas fueron houses were.3rd.pl. destruyeron muchas destroyed.3rd.pl. many

destruidas por el huracán. destroyed.fem.pl. by the hurricane casas (intended: ‘by the hurricane’) houses

(8) a. Se come mucho en Navidad. se eat.3rd.sg. much in Christmas (‘One eats a lot in Christmas’) b. #Se destruye mucho en el monzón. se destroy.3rd.sg. much in the monsoon (‘One destroys a lot during the monsoon’) Therefore, SE-passives are closer to semantic impersonality than analytic passives and more restricted with regard to the interpretation and explicit inclusion of the agent argument, as well as to person infection. Despite all this, SE-passives are much more productive; they can be built from any transitive verb, while analytic passives disallow verbs with cognate objects, verbs of language and ditransitive verbs, among others. The main diference with respect to SE-impersonals is precisely that these are syntactically impersonal, while SE-passives take an agreeing subject. Crucially, this subject cannot be an animate, defnite NP (9a–b); if this is the case, the impersonal construction is chosen, as we see in (9c), where the NP los camareros is a DO introduced by the accusative preposition a—diferential 445

Margot Vivanco

object marking (DOM). Therefore, the generalisation is that those NPs which would take DOM in the active cannot become subjects in the SE-passive. (9) a. *Se necesitan los camareros (Sánchez-López 2002, 56) se need.3rd.pl. the waiters (Intended: ‘Waiters needed’) b. *Los camareros se necesitan the waiters se need.3rd.pl. c. Se necesita a los camareros se need.3rd.pl. dom the waiters (‘One needs the waiters’) One of the main theoretical questions in the literature is the argumental status of SE in either the passive or the impersonal, in neither construction or in both (see Otero 1986; Campos 1989; Cinque 1988; Mendikoetxea 1992, 2002, 2008; Rivero 2002; Pujalte and Saab 2012 and Ormazabal and Romero 2019). Finally, the unmarked position of the subject is the postverbal one (10a), as a bare noun, although this is not obligatory (10b). The fact that the patient subject may keep the internal argument position is one of the reasons WHY it has been said that passive-SE absorbs accusative case and the external argument’s theta role (Belletti 1982; Mendikoetxea 1992). (10) a. Se necesitan camareros. se need.3rd.pl. waiters (‘Waiters needed’) b. Esto nunca se ha hecho. this never se has.3rd.sg. done In conclusion, as a passive morpheme, SE not only alters the diathesis of the predicate, but it also provides an impersonal meaning. Its distribution with regard to analytic passives is based both on semantic and formal grounds, while its distribution with regard to SE-impersonals is essentially driven by formal factors.

3.1.2 Stative passive meanings: SE and -ble “Generic passives” or “middle passives” (11)—the latter name is misleading, since it does not express middle voice strictu sensu—are SE-passives to the extent that they count with a patient subject and an implicit agent, interpreted as generic and human (García-Negroni 2002), but, unlike eventive passives, they have a stative interpretation: they denote an atemporal property of the subject and thus are only compatible with imperfective verbal tenses. They also involve a modal meaning (‘this chair can be easily folded’) in many languages (Doron and RappaportHovav 1991) that legitimates the adverb, which might be obligatory: (11) Esta silla se pliega this chair se criticise.3.rd.sg. (‘This chair folds easily’)

*(fácilmente). easily

The derivative sufx -ble (see Martín García, this volume) builds deverbal adjectives whose stative meaning of property is analogous to that of generic passives (12), also including the 446

Structure and morphological marking

modal interpretation. -ble has a passive meaning, since it takes a transitive verb and inherits the patient argument, now turned into the holder of the property—subject of predication. The agent argument is also implicit, generic and human: a foldable chair is the one everybody can fold. (12) a. La the b. Esta this

gente people silla chair

puede plegar can fold es plegable. is foldable

esta this

silla. chair

Unlike eventive SE-passives, generic passives require defnite subjects in preverbal position (11) and lack restrictions regarding animacy and DOM (13). For deeper analyses and discussions on whether Spanish generic passives are independent from eventive SE-passives, see GarcíaNegroni (2002) and Suárez-Palma (2019). (13) a. Los the

buenos good

amigos friends

no not

se se

olvidan fácilmente. forget easily

To conclude, SE and -ble have a twofold efect: they create passive predicates and also stative predicates—either verbal or adjectival—from eventive verbs.

3.2 Middle voice 3.2.1 SE as a non-oppositional middle voice morpheme Inherently pronominal verbs (IPVs) (cell VI, Table 31.1) have received little attention in the literature, because of two reasons. First, being obligatory, SE seems to be part of their lexical entry (see RAE and ASALE 2009). Second, they constitute a heterogeneous class both syntactically— some of them take obligatory PPs—and semantically, since, although they all express some sort of middle meaning, many take agentive subjects and/or fail unaccusativity tests (RAE and ASALE 2009; Sánchez-López 2002). Therefore, their classifcation as middles and hence the classifcation of this SE as a N-OVM morpheme is not without its challenges. However, a closer look reveals that PPs are more frequent with agentive verbs and that these agentive verbs with PPs are more prone to fail unaccusativity tests (see 15a–b), while verbs with patient subjects display a steady behaviour as unaccusatives. Table 31.2, with a non-exhaustive list of IPVs, shows this tendency. Spanish lacks reliable unaccusativity diagnoses, but one of the most consistent ones is that of adjectival participles (Bosque 1989; Mendikoetxea 1999), which is applied to the four groups of the table in the following examples: (15) Agentive subject, non-obligatory PP Un hombre acurrucado / fugado a man curled.up escaped (16) Agentive subject, obligatory PP a. *Un delincuente atenido (a las consecuencias)/quejado (de su condena) a criminal abided to the consequences complained of his sentence b. Una mujer atrevida / obstinada a woman bold obstinate 447

Margot Vivanco

(17) Patient subject, non-obligatory PP Un hombre acatarrado / desmayado A man with.a.cold fainted (18) Patient subject, obligatory PP Una mujer arrepentida (de su boda) / enfrascada (en su trabajo) a woman regretful of her wedding absorbed in her work Table 31.2 Inherently pronominal verbs Agentive subject

Patient subject

Non-obligatory PP

Obligatory PP

Non-obligatory PP

Obligatory PP

Passes unaccusativity tests

Acurrucarse (‘curl up’) Agolparse (‘crowd together’) Endeudarse (‘get into debt’) Fugarse (‘break out’) Rebelarse (‘rebel’) Repantingarse (‘sit comfortably’)

Atreverse a (‘dare’) Desvivirse por (‘do anything for’) Esforzarse en (‘make an efort’) Obstinarse en (‘persist in’)

Acalambrarse (‘get cramp’) Acatarrarse (‘get a cold’) Adormilarse (‘get sleepy’) Desdibujarse (‘get blurred’) Desmayarse (‘faint’) Desvanecerse (‘fade’) Enfurruñarse (‘get into a mood’) Ensimismarse (‘get lost in thought’) Gangrenarse (‘become gangrenous’)

Arrepentirse de (‘repent’) Enfrascarse en (‘immerse oneself’) Enterarse de (‘notice’) Resentirse de (‘be resentful’)

Fails unaccusativity tests

Sincerarse (‘be honest’) Pavonearse (‘brag’)

Abalanzarse sobre (‘pounce’) Abstenerse de (‘abstein from’) Adentrarse en (‘go deep’) Adueñarse de (‘take over’) Atenerse a (‘abide by’) Dignarse a (‘deign’) Empecinarse en (‘insist on’) Ensañarse con (‘be cruel’) Incautarse de (‘seize’) Jactarse de (‘boast’) Quejarse de (‘complain’) Regodearse en (‘delight in’)

448

Structure and morphological marking

Although the distribution of IPVs in Table 31.2 is not systematic, it is clear that agentive verbs with PPs are the ones more likely to fail unaccusativity tests, thus disfavouring an analysis as middles. Nevertheless, a more exhaustive study is needed in order to confrm this descriptive generalisation and to explain the reasons underlying it.

3.3 The causative-unaccusative alternation Some predicates have the ability to form active transitive structures as well as middle intransitive (unaccusative) constructions that express a change of state undergone by the sole argument. (19) a. El the b. El the

calor heat hielo ice

derritió el melted the se derritió. se melted

hielo. ice

This phenomenon is restricted to change of state (COS) verbs, but a classic problem (Chierchia 2004; Reinhart 2002; Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou, and Schäfer 2006, 2015; Horvath and Siloni 2008; Schäfer 2008; Vivanco 2016, 2017) has been that, although all alternating verbs are COS verbs, not all COS verbs alternate. On the one hand, authors agree that the reason some transitive COS verbs, like asesinar (‘murder’) (20), lack an unaccusative variant (UV) is that they are agentive (Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995; Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou, and Schäfer 2006). In this vein, all causative sufxes (see Batiukova, this volume), except -ecer, create either alternating verbs (21) or nonalternating agentive COS verbs (22) but not non-alternating middle verbs. (20) a. Chapman asesinó a Lennon. Chapman murdered dom Lennon b. *Lennon se asesinó. Lennon se murdered (21) a. El the b. El the (22) a. El the b. *La the

químico solidifcó el agua. chemist solidifed the water agua se solidifcó. water se solidifed gobierno legalizó government legalised cocaína se legalizó. cocaine se legalised

la cocaína. the cocaine

On the other hand, IPVs are inherently middle and lack a transitive counterpart (23). Thus, the presence of SE is redundant: it makes the middle meaning explicit without contrasting it with a non-middle use of the verb. Other non-alternating middle verbs, like nacer (‘be born’) (24), however, do not take this N-OVM, or, if they do (morir(se), ‘die’), they do it optionally. As for derivative afxes, -ecer (Batiukova, this volume) is the only one creating either non-alternating middle verbs (for-ecer, ‘blossom’, 25) or alternating verbs (en-trist-ecer, ‘sadden’, 26). Therefore, its core meaning is the middle one, while that of -izar and ifcar is the causative one. 449

Margot Vivanco

(23) a. Lope Lope b. *El the

se desmayó. se fainted calor desmayó a Lope. heat fainted dom Lope

(24) a. El the b. *La the

bebé (*se) nació. baby se nació madre nació al bebé. mother be.born dom.the baby

(25) a. *La the b. El the

primavera spring cerezo cherry.tree

(26) a. La the b. Sol Sol

primavera entristeció a Sol. spring saddened dom Sol se entristeció. se saddened

foreció el cerezo. blossomed the cherry.tree foreció. blossomed

Levin and Rappaport-Hovav (1995) claimed that verbs like nacer denote internally caused COS events, so they are monadic and can only display an unaccusative syntax. Conversely, alternating verbs denote externally caused COS events in this lexicalist theory; they are dyadic, and their causer argument can be bound by a lexical operation prior to syntactic insertion, thus deriving the UV. However, it has been shown that “non-alternating” unaccusatives do alternate (27), marginally, in some varieties, which means the system does not prohibit it (see Fernández-Jiménez and Tubino-Blanco 2014, 2015; Pineda 2018 and Pujalte 2013 for Spanish data). Eventually, Rappaport-Hovav and Levin (2012) and Rappaport-Hovav (2014) modifed their proposal and argued that external causation is a property of events, but not of verbs. (27) Lope cayó Lope fell

el the

café. cofee

In Levin and Rappaport-Hovav’s (1995) theory, the UV is obtained from the causative one, and middle morphology is the refection of this derivational operation. Nevertheless, the typological picture (see Haspelmath 1993) tells us that morphology underlies the opposition but does not follow a specifc direction, as languages can mark either variant—the causative alternation, where only the transitive variant is marked, and the anticausative alternation, where only the unaccusative is so (18); they can mark neither variant—the labile alternation—or they can mark both—the equipollent alternation. Focusing on Spanish, it is controversial to claim that SE is the refex of a derivational operation in middles that lack causative counterparts (23) (see Chierchia 2004 for discussion). Furthermore, this language has a small set of verbs undergoing the labile alternation (28), together with others that can optionally take SE (29); however, there are no arguments to claim that labile and anticausative formations involve diferent derivational processes (Vivanco 2016). Therefore, SE acts as an (oppositional)-voice morpheme but not as a derivational morpheme.

450

Structure and morphological marking

(28) a. El the b. Mi my

accidente cambió mi vida. accident changed my life vida cambió. life changed

(29) a. La tormenta despertó a Lope. the storm woke dom Lope b. Lope (se) despertó. Lope se woke.up Constructionist models have proposed two more alternatives about the directionality of the alternation: i) to consider the UV the basic one, since it is semantically simpler (Dowty 1979; Hale and Keyser 1986; Brousseau and Ritter 1991; Ramchand 2008), and ii) to abandon the idea that one variant is basic, claiming instead that they are both obtained from a neutral root (Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulu and Schäfer 2006, 2015; Schäfer 2008; Cuervo 2014). Given that middle diathesis exists regardless of SE (24a, 28b), many authors (see Schäfer 2008 for a critical review) have wondered whether there are syntactic and/or semantic diferences between marked and unmarked middles in a given language. The frst hypothesis on this issue derives from Haspelmath’s works (1993, 2008; also Haspelmath et  al. 2014) and underlies most studies on the alternation. Languages are prone to mark the less expected and/or less frequent option in any opposition, so those verbs that denote events conceptualised as more likely to happen spontaneously do not need to be marked because they are expected to be used in middle constructions and, if they alternate, their UV is more frequently used than the causative one. However, Spanish IPVs like desmayarse (‘faint’) represent signifcant counterexamples to these typological tendencies. As for unmarked middles, Vivanco (2017) claims that these are necessary but not sufcient conditions for Spanish verbs to form labile variants instead of anticausatives. Two more hypotheses have been explored for Romance languages. One is that SE is related to aspect, so that marked middles are necessarily telic, while unmarked middles can be either telic or atelic (Labelle 1992; Folli 2001; Basilico 2010). For Spanish, Vivanco (2016) claims that SE is related not only to aspect but to the scalar nature of COS events. The other hypothesis is that SE focuses on the result state (Labelle and Doron 2010). For Spanish, Cuervo (2014) argues that non-alternating unmarked middles like the one in (24) are monoeventive—they lack a result sub-event—while marked middles are bieventive. In conclusion, SE is the default middle voice marker in Spanish, with alternating and nonalternating verbs (IPVs). The number of unmarked middles is rather small and subject to diatopic variation; the reasons underlying their reluctance to take SE are still a matter of debate.

4 Aktionsart and morphological marking: SE and transitive accomplishments Given that sometimes aspectual-SE is optional, it has been described as emphatic or related to register (see Narbona 1984). Nonetheless, what all these uses of SE have in common is that they focus on some phase of the event (De Miguel and Fernández-Lagunilla 2000). Two types of aspectual-SE can be distinguished (cf. García-Fernández 2015): the one that appears with transitive predicates is sensitive to Aktionsart but does not alter it (cell X, Table 31.1) whereas the one that combines with intransitive verbs shapes their Aktionsart in diferent ways (cells IV, VII, XI, Table 31.1).

451

Margot Vivanco

Another diference is that aspect-sensitive SE is highly productive and shows a steady behaviour, whereas aspect-changing SE combines with a small number of verbs, producing slightly diferent semantic efects on them. This SE appears with a small and heterogeneous set of verbs: movement verbs—ir (‘to go’), venir (‘to come’), volver (‘to return’), caer (‘to fall’) and salir (‘to go out’)—one COS verb—morir (‘to die’)—the stative verb estar (‘to be’) and certain activity predicates denoting body functions like mear (‘to piss’). Despite the fact that morir and movement verbs are widely attested with SE in the frst Old Spanish texts, the clitic has not spread to other unaccusatives such as nacer (‘be born’), entrar (‘go in’) and so on in Standard Spanish, which suggests there is something idiosyncratic in this lexical choice. This is the reason WHY the use of SE with intransitive verbs will be left aside in this chapter, which will focus on the regular and uniform contribution SE makes to transitive predicates. Although it is most commonly found with consumption-like verbs (3, 30a), almost any Spanish transitive predicate may combine with SE under the right circumstances, including COS verbs (30b) (see Zagona 1996 for discussion) and transitivised intransitives (30c). The subject is usually agentive but can also be a causer (30d) or a holder (30e). (30) a. Me se.1st.sg. b. ¿Te se.2nd.sg. c. Me se.1st.sg. d. La lava the lava e. Sol se Sol se

vi dos temporadas de saw two seasons of has secado todos los have dried all the bailé seis tangos en danced six tangos at se tragó Pompeya. se swallowed Pompeii sabe la lección. knows the lesson

Breaking Bad en un día. Breaking Bad in one day platos tú solo? dishes you alone la boda. the wedding

Grosso modo, these sentences convey two meanings that diferentiate them from their SE-less counterparts: i) the subject seems more whole-heartedly involved, and ii) the event needs to be fulflled, that is, SE focuses on the fnal phase of the event. In (30e), with a stative predicate (no phases involved), SE means that Sol knows the whole lesson. As we will see, the theme plays an important role in these constructions. The specifc nature of this “involvement” of the subject depends on pragmatics and the semantics of the predicate as a whole: the event can be a feat and/or something done with all the subject’s will, but there are also examples where the subject is afected instead of agentive (31) and others where there is no such special involvement (32) and the absence of the clitic is rare. Among the latter, there are many daily used verbs, which suggests that this meaning is being lost throughout grammaticalisation. Conversely, the “fulfllment” meaning can never be absent (33). (31) Lope se tragó una Lope se swallowed a (32) Luego?(me) later se.1st.sg. (33) #Sol se Sol se 452

espina sin querer. fshbone without willing

fumaré un cigarrillo. will.smoke a cigarette

leyó Ulises, pero no read Ulysses but not

lo terminó. it fnished

Structure and morphological marking

RAE and ASALE (2009) analyses this SE as a non-argumental dative, but its “involvement” meaning must not be mistaken with that of ethical datives (34), which introduce a new participant, so they are not reflexive clitics (le instead of se) and do not agree with the subject. Furthermore, the fact that aspectual-SE and ethical datives may co-appear confirms they are not the same thing (see De Miguel and Fernández-Lagunilla 2000 for discussion). (34) Lopei sei Lope se

lej ha dat.3st.sg. has

comido el bistec eaten the bistec

entero. whole

The “involvement” meaning derives from the refexive nature of SE and its agreement with the subject (see Bull 1952; Armstrong 2013), but it is also related to the aspectual semantics, since the emphasis on completeness is what makes the event look as something made with efort or as something that afects the subject in a special way. The crucial observation is that SE is incompatible with non-quantised DOs (35). Transitive verbs can have an activity or an accomplishment reading depending on whether they combine with a non-quantised or a quantised object, respectively (36), so (35) indicates that SE chooses accomplishments. (35) *Se bebió leche.

(Fernández-Ramírez 1987, 395)

(36) a. Sol comió pistachos Sol ate pistachios b. Sol (se) comió los Sol se ate the

*en/durante una hora. in for one hour pistachos en / *durante pistachios in for

una hora. one hour

More specifcally, SE requires an accomplishment built with an incremental theme (Nishida 1994; De Miguel and Fernández-Lagunilla 2000; Sanz and Laka 2002; Zagona 1996; Basilico 2010; García-Fernández 2015; Armstrong 2013; MacDonald 2015), that is, a special type of DO that is homomorphic with the event and measures it out—the event of drinking lasts as long as the milk lasts. This hypothesis accounts for contrasts such as (37), where both objects are quantised but only the duration of the flm is homomorphic with the event, and also explains the ungrammaticality of (38), since stative verbs are not eventive and, consequently, cannot be measured by the theme. Those states that accept SE get an eventive reading (30e, 39) (see MacDonald 2015 for discussion) and are subject to the incremental theme requirement: (37) Lope Lope

se vio Los Pájaros de Hitchcock/*los pájaros en el se saw The Birds of Hitchcock the birds on the

(38) *Juan se Juan se

odia hates

las the

acelgas. chard

árbol. tree

(De Miguel and Fernández-Lagunilla 2000, 28)

(39) a. *Sol se cree en el destino. Sol se believes in the fate b. Sol se creyó la mentira/*mentiras Sol se believed the lie lies

453

Margot Vivanco

Finally, the cases this theory fails to explain are those where SE combines with transitive achievements. In (40), it seems that the only contribution of SE is that of involvement, because a punctual verb cannot be measured out by the theme. However, such involvement is still dependent on aspect—achievements are telic—as shown by the fact that activities systematically reject SE (41). (40) Ronaldo se marcó cinco goles en un partido. Ronaldo se scored fve goals in one match (41) *Ronaldo se bailó durante cinco horas. Ronaldo se danced for fve hours To conclude, this kind of SE does not add telicity to a predicate but selects a specifc type of telic predicate in order to focus on its fnal phase. Although it is still optional in some cases, it is becoming a regular marker of incremental theme-based accomplishments.

5 Concluding remarks This chapter has dealt with those facets of SE having to do with argument structure phenomena and Aktionsart. This description of the facts has shown that all SE constructions are closely related but, at the same time, the clitic provides diferent semantic nuances, accompanied by specifc syntactic restrictions, to each predicate. We have summarised the most basic empirical puzzles and pointed out the key theoretical problems. Although passives, anticausatives and some of the aspectual uses of SE have received a great deal of attention in the literature, there are still many open debates. A few other less-studied instances of SE have been briefy mentioned here with the hope of encouraging further research.

References Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou, and F. Schäfer. 2006. “The Properties of Anticausatives Crosslinguistically.” In Phases of Interpretation, edited by M. Frascarelli, 187–211. Berlín: Mouton. Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou, and F. Schäfer. 2015. “External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations. A Layering Approach.” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Armstrong, G. 2013. “Agentive Refexive Clitics and Transitive se Constructions in Spanish.” Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2 (2): 81–128. Basilico, D. 2010. “The se Clitic and Its Relation to Paths.” Probus 22: 271–302. Belletti, A. 1982. “Morphological Passive and Pro-Drop: The Impersonal Construction in Italian.” Journal of Linguistic Research 2 (4): 1–34. Bosque, I. 1989. Las categorías gramaticales. Madrid: Síntesis. Brousseau, A. M., and E. Ritter. 1991. “A  Non-Unifed Analysis of Agentive Verbs.” In Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 20, edited by D. Bates, 53–64. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Bull, W. E. 1952. “The Intransitive Refexive ir and irse.” Modern Language Journal 26: 382–89. Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Riedel. Cabredo-Hofher, P. 2017. “Voice and Voice Alternations.” In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, edited by A. Dufter and E. Stark, 230–71. Berlin: De Gruyter. Campos, H. 1989. “Impersonal Passive se in Spanish.” Linguisticae Investigationes 13: 1–21. Chierchia, G. 2004. “A Semantics for Unaccusatives and Its Syntactic Consequences.” In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, edited by A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, and M. Everaert, 22–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 454

Structure and morphological marking

Cinque, G. 1988. “On si Constructions and the Theory of arb.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521–81. Cuervo, M. C. 2014. “Alternating Unaccusatives and the Distribution of Roots.” Lingua, 141: 48–70. De Kock, J., and C. Gómez Molina. 1990. “Las formas pronominales del verbo y la pasiva.” In Gramática Española 2, edited by J. De Kock. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. De Mello, G. 1978. “On the Use of por + Agent with se Constructions.” Hispania 61: 323–27. De Miguel, E. 1992. El aspecto en la sintaxis del español. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. De Miguel, E., and M. Fernández-Lagunilla. 2000. “El operador aspectual se.” Revista Española de Lingüística 30 (1): 13–43. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 2006. “The SE-Anaphor and Its Role in Argument Realization.” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, edited by M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, vol. 4, 118–79. Oxford: Blackwell. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 2017. “Refexive-Marking in Romance: Voice and Feature Defciency.” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd revised ed., edited by M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk. Oxford: Blackwell. Doron, E., and M. Rappaport-Hovav. 1991. “Afectedness and Externalization.” NELS 21 (1): 81–94. Dowty, D. 1979. Word, Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Time in Generative Semantics and Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Riedel. Fernández-Ramírez, S. 1987. Gramática española 4. El verbo y la oración. Madrid: Arco Libros. Folli, R. 2001. “Constructing telicity in English and Italian.” PhD diss., University of Oxford, Oxford. García-Fernández, L. 2015. “Some Refections on Verbs with Clitic Increase. Verbs of Motion.” In Verb Classes and Aspect, edited by E. Barrajón-López, J. L. Cifuentes-Honrubia, and S. Rodríguez-Rosique, 264–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. García-Negroni, M. 2002. “La construcción media con se.” In Las construcciones con ‘se’, edited by C. Sánchez-López, 275–308. Madrid: Visor-Libros. Gili Gaya, S. 1943 [1983]. Curso superior de sintaxis española. Barcelona: Bibliograph. Hale, K., and S. J. Keyser. 1986. “Some Transitivity Alternations in English.” Lexicon Project Working Papers 7. Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT. Haspelmath, M. 1993. “More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Alternations.” In Causatives and Transitivity, edited by B. Comrie and M. Polinsky, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, M. 2008. “Frequency vs. Iconicity in Explaining Grammatical Asymmetries.” Cognitive Linguistics 19 (1): 1–33. Haspelmath, M., A. Calude, M. Spagnol, H. Narrog, and E. Bamyaci. 2014. “Coding Causal– Noncausal Verb Alternations: A Form–Frequency Correspondence Explanation.” Journal of Linguistics 50 (3): 587–25. Horvath, J., and T. Siloni. 2008. “Active Lexicon: Adjectival and Verbal Passives.” In Generative Approaches to Hebrew Linguistics, edited by G. Danon, S. Armon-Lotem, and S. Rothstein. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jiménez-Fernández, Á., and M. Tubino. 2014. “Variación sintáctica en la causativización léxica.” Revista Española de Linguística 44 (1): 7–37. Jiménez-Fernández, Á., and M. Tubino. 2015. “Causativity in Southern Peninsular Spanish.” In The Syntactic Variation of Spanish Dialects, edited by Á. Gallego, 181–211. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kallulli, D. 2007. “Rethinking the Passive/Anticausative Distinction.” Linguistic Inquiry 38 (4): 770–80. Labelle, M. 1992. “Change of State and Valency.” Journal of Linguistics 28: 375–414. Labelle, M., and E. Doron, E. 2010. “Anticausative Derivations (and Other Valency Alternations) in French.” Probus 22 (2): 303–16. Lenz, R. 1935. La oración y sus partes. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Históricos. Levin, B., and M. Rappaport-Hovav.1995. Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. MacDonald, J. E. 2015. “Spanish Aspectual se as an Indirect Object Refexive: The Import of Atelicity, Bare Nouns and leísta PCC Repairs.” Probus, 29 (1): 73–118. 455

Margot Vivanco

MacDonald, J. E. 2017. “An Implicit Projected Argument in Spanish Impersonal and Passive se Constructions.” Syntax 20: 353–83. doi:10.1111/synt.12146. Manzini, M. R. 1983. “Restructuring and Reanalysis.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Medová, L. 2009. “Refexive Clitics in the Slavic and Romance Languages. A Comparative View from an Antipassive Perspective.” PhD diss., Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Mendikoetxea, A. 1992. “On the Nature of Agreement: The Syntax of ARB SE in Spanish.” PhD diss., University of York, Heslington. Mendikoetxea, A. 1999. “Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas.” In Las construcciones sintácticas fundamentales. Relaciones temporales, aspectuales y modales. Vol. 2 of Gramática descriptiva de lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 1575–630. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Mendikoetxea, A. 2002. “La semántica de la impersonalidad.” In Las construcciones con se, edited by C. Sánchez-López, 235–71. Madrid: Visor Libros. Mendikoetxea, A. 2008. “Clitic Impersonal Constructions in Romance: Syntactic Features and Semantic Interpretation.” In Impersonal Constructions in Grammatical Theory. Special Issue of the Transactions of the Philological Society, edited by A. Siewierska, vol. 106, no. 2, 290–336. Oxford: Blackwell. Mendikoetxea, A. 2012. “Passives and se Constructions.” In The Handbook of Spanish Linguistics, edited by J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, and E. O’Rourke, 477–502. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Narbona, A. 1984. “Construcciones pronominales transitivas no refexivas en español.” Alfnge: Revista de Filología 2: 163–90. Nishida, C. 1994. “The Spanish Refexive se as an Aspectual Class Marker.” Linguistics 32 (3): 425–58. Ormazabal, J., and J. Romero. 2019. “The Formal Properties of Non-Paradigmatic se.” Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 8 (1): 55–84. doi:10.7557/1.8.1.4704. Otero, C. P. 1986. “Arbitrary Subjects in Finite Clauses.” In Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, edited by I. Bordelois et al., 81–109. Dordrecht: Foris. Otero, C. P. 1999. “Pronombres refexivos y recíprocos.” In Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras. Vol. 1 of Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 1427–517. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Pineda, A. 2018. “Causativization of Verbs of Directed Motion.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14. Selected Papers from the 46th Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages, edited by L. Repetti and F. Ordóñez. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pujalte, M. 2013. “Estrategias de causativización en español.” Lingüística 29 (2): 231–69. Pujalte, M., and A. Saab. 2012. “Syncretism as PF-repair: The Case of se Insertion in Spanish.” In The End of Argument Structure? Syntax and Semantics 38, edited by M. C. Cuervo and Y. Roberge, 229–60. Bingley: Emerald. doi:10.1163/9781780523774_011. RAE and ASALE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A  First Phase Syntax. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Rappaport-Hovav, M. 2014. “Lexical Content and Context: The Causative Alternation in English Revisited.” Lingua 141: 8–29. Rappaport-Hovav, M., and B. Levin. 2012. “Lexicon Uniformity and the Causative Alternation.” In The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface, edited by M. Everaert, M. Marelj, and T. Siloni, 150–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reinhart, T. 2002. “The Theta System: An Overview.” Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–90. Rivero, M. L. 2002. “On Impersonal Refexives in Romance and Slavic and Semantic Variation.” In Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition, edited by J. Camps and C. R. Wiltshire, 169–95, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/cilt.216.14riv. Sánchez-López, C. 2002. “Las construcciones con se. Estado de la cuestión.” In Las construcciones con ‘se’, edited by C. Sánchez-López, 13–163. Madrid: Visor Libros. Sánchez-López, C. 2016. “Se y sus usos.” In Enciclopedia lingüística hispánica Vol. I, edited by J. GutiérrezRexach, 773–84. London: Routledge.

456

Structure and morphological marking

Sanz, M., and I. Laka. 2002. “Oraciones transitivas con se: el modo de acción en la sintaxis.” In Las construcciones con se, edited by C. Sánchez López, 309–38. Madrid: Visor. Schäfer, F. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti)causatives. External Arguments in Change of State Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Suárez-Palma, I. 2019. “Stuck in the Middle: Dative Arguments and Middle-Passive Constructions in Spanish.” PhD diss., University of Arizona. https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/633233. Vivanco, M. 2016. “Causatividad y cambio de estado en español. La alternancia causativo-inacusativa.” PhD diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Vivanco, M. 2017. “La conceptualización de los eventos de cambio de estado y la alternancia lábil en español.” ELUA 31: 327–47. Waltereit, R. 2017. “Argument Structure and Argument Structure Alternations.” In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, edited by A. Dufter and E. Stark, 154–88. Berlin: De Gruyter. Zagona, K. 1996. “Compositionality of Aspect: Evidence from Spanish Aspectual se.” In Aspects of Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIV, edited by C. Parodi et al., 475–88. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Zubizarreta, M. L. 1987. Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

457

32 Periphrases, idioms and other units Begoña Sanromán VilasPeriphrases, idioms and other units

(Perífrasis, locuciones y otras unidades)

Begoña Sanromán Vilas

1 Introduction This chapter provides an overview of some multi-word expressions, most of them functioning as single units—either syntactically or semantically—that represent a challenge for the traditional limits between morphology, syntax and the lexicon. The main focus of the study are verbal expressions, which are further divided into four groups: 1) periphrases (echarse a + infnitive ‘to start + -ing’, estar + gerund ‘to be + -ing’), 2) idioms (echar(se) a perder ‘to go bad’, dar un golpe ‘to rob’), 3) collocations (sortear un obstáculo ‘to overcome an obstacle’, romper una promesa ‘to break a promise’) and 4) light verb constructions (dar un golpe ‘to hit’, hacer cola ‘to queue’). These expressions are mainly addressed either grammatically (Section 2) or lexically (Section 3) or both (Section  4). On the one hand, the grammatical viewpoint takes into consideration syntactic and morphological aspects for the description of the expressions, normally treated as sets of rules studied in the grammar. On the other hand, the lexical perspective focuses on lexical restrictions that tend to be consigned in a dictionary. Within the grammatical approach, periphrases are frst analysed using criteria identifed in the literature and contrasted to other verbal constructions. The lexical view, on the other hand, takes idioms as the departure point for the description and compares them to other idiomatic expressions. Questions such as what acts as a syntactic and/or semantic head, what their dependency relations are or facts such as the desemantisation of units and semantic (non-)compositionality are addressed. The examination from these angles aims to enable us to understand how the diferent factors are intertwined to get a clearer image of the complexity of the phenomena. The fnal section sums up the main points and mentions some open questions which still need further research. Keywords: periphrases; idioms; collocations; light verb constructions; phraseology En este capítulo se presenta una visión panorámica de algunas expresiones multilexémicas que, en su mayoría, funcionan como una sola unidad, sintáctica o semántica, constituyendo un reto para los límites tradicionales entre la morfología, la sintaxis y el léxico. El capítulo se centra en las expresiones verbales, que forman cuatro grupos: 1) perífrasis (echarse a + infnitivo, estar + gerundio), 2) locuciones (echar(se) a perder, dar un golpe ‘atracar’), 3) colocaciones (sortear un obstáculo, romper una promesa) y 4) construcciones con verbo ligero (dar un golpe ‘golpear’, hacer 458

Periphrases, idioms and other units

cola). Estas expresiones se analizan desde un punto de vista gramatical (Sección 2), léxico (Sección 3) o desde ambos (Sección 4). Desde la perspectiva gramatical, se observan los aspectos sintácticos y morfológicos de las expresiones, normalmente tratados en tanto que conjuntos de reglas de la gramática. Desde la léxica, se consideran las restricciones de selección léxica que suelen aparecer consignadas en los diccionarios. En la sección dedicada al análisis gramatical, se examinan las perífrasis siguiendo los criterios señalados en la bibliografía especializada y se comparan con otras construcciones verbales. En la sección destinada a los aspectos léxicos, se toman las locuciones como punto de partida de la descripción contrastándolas con otras expresiones idiomáticas. En general, se tratan cuestiones como qué elemento funciona como núcleo sintáctico, cuál lo hace como núcleo semántico y qué relaciones de dependencia se establecen entre los miembros; se consideran también factores como la desemantización de las unidades y la (no) composicionalidad semántica de los elementos constitutivos. La descripción desde estos dos ángulos pretende mostrar cómo se entrecruzan los diferentes factores para obtener así una imagen más clara de la complejidad de los fenómenos. En la última sección se presenta una recapitulación y se mencionan cuestiones sobre las que todavía es necesario seguir investigando. Palabras clave: perífrasis; locuciones; colocaciones; construcciones con verbos ligeros; fraseología

2 Periphrases and the grammar 2.1 Defnition As multi-word expressions, periphrases are sequences of at least two verbs, directly combined (poder ‘can’ + infnitive, seguir ‘to continue’ + gerund; tener ‘to have’ + participle) or mediated by a linking element (tener que ‘must’ + infnitive, ir a ‘to be going to’ + infnitive), which constitute monoclausal structures, that is, two verbs functioning as a single unit (see Olbertz 1998; García Fernández 2006; RAE and ASALE 2009, §28; García Fernández and Krivochen 2019; Fábregas 2019, among others). Morphologically, the second of the two verbs, known as the auxiliated verb, is a non-fnite form (an infnitive, a gerund or a participle), while the frst, or auxiliary verb, is infected varying in person, number, tense and mood (see Bravo 2016). From a semantic viewpoint, the auxiliary verb is desemantised and has only grammatical content. Instead, the auxiliated verb carries the lexical meaning of the periphrasis.

2.2 Grammatical characteristics The diference between echarse in the following sentences is that in (1b), echarse is a full verb meaning ‘X puts himself in a horizontal position’, whereas in (1a), it is an auxiliary verb that only tells about how the action expressed by llorar has taken place, that is, ‘it has started all of a sudden’, but it does not contain conceptual meaning related to holding a particular body position. (1) a. Pedro se echó a llorar desconsoladamente. ‘Pedro started crying uncontrollably’ b. Pedro se echó en la cama a descansar. ‘Pedro laid down on the bed to rest’ In a similar way, auxiliaries ir and volver in the periphrases in (2a) and (3a) have lost their original meaning as movement verbs (2b, 3b) to express future (2a) and reiteration (3a): 459

Begoña Sanromán Vilas

(2) a. Pedro va a comprar zanahorias en la tienda del pueblo. ‘Pedro is going to buy carrots at the village shop’ b. Pedro va a la tienda del pueblo a comprar zanahorias. ‘Pedro goes to the village shop to buy carrots’ (3) a. Volvió a visitar el Prado. ‘S/he visited again the Prado Museum’ b. Volvió de Madrid sin visitar el Prado. ‘S/he came back from Madrid without visiting the Prado Museum’ The desemantisation of auxiliaries and their monoclausality are considered the main features to recognise a periphrasis. As a consequence of the frst, the auxiliated verb represents the semantic head of the construction and, accordingly, selects the arguments. In (1a), llorar is the verb that has the lexical meaning and selects the external argument (Pedro). In (2a) and (3a), the semantic selection is done by comprar and visitar, respectively. If the auxiliated verbs are eliminated from periphrases in (a), the sentences become ungrammatical, for example, *Pedro se echó desconsolamente (1a). In the examples in (b), however, the selection of the external argument is carried out by echar (1b), ir (2b) and volver (3b) because they are full verbs. In these cases, if the second verb is eliminated, the sentence remains grammatically acceptable, for example, Pedro se echó en la cama (1b). Note, however, that in both sentences (a–b), the grammatical subject depends on a syntactic head infected in the third person singular—se echó (1), va (2) and volvió (3). Regarding monoclausality, periphrases in (a)—se echó a llorar (1a), va a comprar (2a), volvió a visitar (3a)—which behave syntactically as single clauses can be contrasted with biclausal structures in (b), where two semantic and syntactic heads are involved: echarse (1b), ir (2b) and volver (3b) in the main clause and descansar, comprar and visitar in the second, a purposive subordinate clause. Further evidence of the monoclausal confguration in periphrases can be found in their behaviour with clitics. As the two verbs of periphrases function as a single unit, clitics can be located in two positions: enclitic, after the second verb, or proclitic, before the frst verb. Thus, the result of pronominalising the direct object (DO) in (2a) and (3a) can be expressed as (4) and (5), respectively: (4) Pedro las va a comprar. . ./ Pedro va a comprarlas . . . ‘Pedro is going to buy them’ (5) Lo volvió a visitar./ Volvió a visitarlo. ‘S/he visited it again’ The two positions of clitics can also be found in other non-periphrastic infnitive constructions such as those containing a causative (6), perception (7) or control (8) verb. (6) Mandó estudiar la lección. La mandó estudiar./ Mandó estudiarla. ‘S/he ordered to study the lesson’ ‘S/he ordered to study it’ (7) Oíste decir mentiras. Las oíste decir./ Oíste decirlas. ‘You heard tell lies’ ‘You heard tell them’ (8) Prometió hacer el postre. Lo prometió hacer./ Prometió hacerlo. ‘He promised to do the dessert’ ‘He promised to do it’

460

Periphrases, idioms and other units

However, when sentences contain two pronouns, infnitive periphrastic constructions tend to group both clitics in the same position (9), while non-periphrastic infnitive constructions can locate each clitic in a diferent position (10) (Rodríguez Ramalle 2005, 300): Pedro nos las va a comprar. . ./ Pedro va a comprárnoslas . . . / *Pedro nos va a comprarlas . . . ‘Pedro is going to buy them to us’ (10) a. Les mandó estudiarla./ Se la mandó estudiar. ‘S/he ordered them to study it’ b. Me oíste decirlas./ Me las oíste decir. ‘You heard me tell them’ c. Os prometió hacerlo./ Os lo prometió hacer. ‘He promised you to do it’

(9)

There are other indications that auxiliary and auxiliated verbs in periphrases pertain to the same syntactic domain; however, tests show a great variability among periphrases (RAE and ASALE 2009, §28.5d–u). There is a low probability to fnd interpolated constituents between the two verbs (11a), but certain adverbs are accepted (11b), evidencing that periphrases do not form a morphological unit. As a rule, auxiliated verbs cannot be directly negated (12a), but there are some exceptions (12b); for some periphrases, it is infeasible to allow subject inversion (13a); for others, it is possible (13b). Auxiliated verbs cannot usually be omitted (14), but they can often be coordinated (15). (11) a. Pedro va (*zanahorias) a (*zanahorias) comprar. Pedro is.going (carrots) to (carrots) to.buy b. Pedro va siempre a comprar zanahorias. . . Pedro is.going always to to.buy carrots (12) a. Está (*no) pensando. ‘S/he is not thinking’ b. Puedo no tener razón. ‘Maybe I am not right’ (13) a. *¿Ha María recibido una llamada? ‘Has María received a call?’ b. ¿Se echó Pedro a llorar? ‘Did Pedro start crying? (14) Andamos pidiendo frmas, pero ella no anda (??pidiéndolas). ‘We have been asking for signatures, but she hasn’t’ (15) Estuvo por llamar y contármelo. ‘He was close to phone and tell it to me’ Constraints on auxiliary verbs also include the impossibility to appear in the passive form (16a), but auxiliated verbs accept it (16b). (16) a. *El proyecto es tenido que fnanciar. the project is had to to.fnance b. El proyecto tiene que ser fnanciado. ‘The project has to be fnanced’

461

Begoña Sanromán Vilas

There are two exceptions to the previous rule (RAE and ASALE, §41.2j-ñ): the “raised passive”, in which the auxiliary of passive (ser) is located on the left of the auxiliary verb of the periphrasis (17), and the “double passive”, in which both verbs, auxiliary and auxiliated, take the passive morphology (18). These constructions are only possible with a restricted number of auxiliaries, those which focus on the phases of an event—empezar, acabar and so on—and volver. (17) El Prado fue vuelto a visitar. The Prado Museum was come.back to to.visit (18) El Prado fue vuelto a ser visitado. The Prado Museum was come.back to be visited ‘Prado was visited again’

2.3 Classifcation of periphrases Periphrases can be classifed according to the form of the auxiliated verb into infnitival (deber + inf., etc.), gerundial (andar + ger., etc.) and participial (tener + part., etc.) periphrases. Besides formal, there are also semantic classifcations, which face diferent problems due to the lack of consensus about the meaning of each periphrasis, the ways grammatical contents should be categorised and how to treat the so-called “semi-periphrases”, that is, those combinations of verbs that do not fulfl all the properties for periphrases. Considering these problems, Bravo and García Fernández (2016, 792–93) classify periphrases into six groups: 1) modal periphrases (haber de + inf., poder + inf.); 2) temporal periphrases (haber de + part., ir a + inf.); 3) periphrases of grammatical aspect (progressive aspect: estar + ger.; habitual aspect: soler + inf.); 4) periphrases of lexical aspect (ingressive: empezar/comenzar a + inf.; terminative: dejar de + inf.); 5) passive periphrases (ser + part., verse + part.) and 6) discursive, scalar, serial or dispositional (empezar/ comenzar por + inf., ir/venir a + inf.). García Fernández and Krivochen (2019), however, classify aspectual periphrases together and introduce another category for some verbal combinations that do not ft easily into the previous: periphrases which denote pluralised events such as andar + gerund (Andan buscándola ‘They are looking for her’) and periphrases with both verbs in a fnite form (Entonces cogió y se marchó ‘So he just left’).

3 Idioms and the lexicon This section deals with phraseologised multi-word expressions, also called “phrasemes” (Mel’čuk 2015), taking idioms as the departure point and followed by collocations. For this description, a simplifed version of Mel’čuk’s work on phraseology (2006, 2015) within the Meaning-Text Theory (MTT; Mel’čuk 1997) is adopted in its general lines, along with aspects taken from representative studies in Spanish phraseology (Ruiz Gurillo 2001; García-Page 2008; Penadés Martínez 2012, among others). Therefore, as characteristic of this approach the explanations are presented from the viewpoint of production. Before starting with the description of the phraseological units, some basic concepts are introduced.

3.1 Basic concepts and classifcation of phraseologised multi-word expressions As stated, the fundamental diference between periphrases and idioms is the fact that the latter are phraseologised units. For this reason, there is a need to clarify what it means for a multiword expression to be phraseologised. According to Mel’čuk (2015), to be a phraseologised 462

Periphrases, idioms and other units

multi-word expression (phraseme or phraseologised phrase) is the opposite of being free, which in turn means being non-restricted and compositional (see Gutiérrez Rubio, this volume). Thus, three pairs of concepts are defned in this section: free and non-free phrase, along with non-restricted and restricted phrase and compositional and non-compositional phrase. To be a free phrase means that the selection of each component of the phrase is not constrained by any other component. A free phrase is also non-restricted. Therefore, any lexeme can theoretically be replaced by another without afecting the correctness of the phrase, for example, un café/bebida excelente ‘an excellent cofee/drink’ or un café excelente/delicioso ‘an excellent/delicious cofee’. On the contrary, to be a non-free phrase means that the selection of at least one of the components is done in a constrained way, that is, as a function of the lexical identity of another component. A non-free phrase is also restricted. If I want to express the meaning ‘cofee without milk’ in Spanish, I will say café solo ‘cofee alone’ because solo in combination with café means ‘without a dairy product’, but in English, the same meaning is expressed by black cofee. Regarding compositionality, a multi-word expression is said to be compositional if the meaning of the whole expression originates from the sum of meanings of its constituents; it is therefore a regular sum of the signifeds, signifers and syntactics of its components. Both examples, café delicioso and café solo, are compositional because their meanings result from the sum of meanings of their signifers in those combinations. Instead, an expression is non-compositional when the meaning of the whole phrase is no longer the outcome of the sum of meanings of its components. This is the case for cortar el bacalao ‘to be the boss’, whose meaning is not related to the meaning of its individual components, cortar ‘to cut’ and bacalao ‘cod’. In this chapter, the focus is only on lexical phrasemes, that is, on idioms and collocations. In the production of these phrasemes, the speaker freely chooses the meaning s/he wants to express, but the lexical components (all or some) are selected in a restricted way. The application of the previous defnitions to the set of multi-words expressions results in the classifcation in Table 32.1, which will next be used to explain each of the phrasemes.

3.2 Idioms An idiom is a non-compositional phraseme. In this respect, its meaning does not correspond to the sum of the meaning of each of its components, as explained previously for cortar el bacalao ‘to be the boss’. Semantically, idioms can be classifed regarding the degree of its transparency/opacity into three subclasses. For this characterisation, the notion of semantic pivot is required. According to Mel’čuk (2015), the semantic pivot of the signifed of a phrase is that part of its meaning which

Table 32.1 Classes of phrases Type of phrase

Free phrases (un café delicioso)

Feature of the phrase

Non-free phrases = phrasemes Non-compositional phrasemes:

Compositional phrasemes:

idioms

collocations

Impossible combination

(cortar el bacalao)

(café solo)

Non-restricted

+

–

–

+

Compositional

+

–

+

–

Source: Adapted from Mel’čuk (2015, 304)

463

Begoña Sanromán Vilas

corresponds to the argument, the other part being the predicate. In a free phrase like study music, ‘study(music)’, ‘music’ is the semantic pivot; in comfortable chair, ‘comfortable(chair)’, it is ‘chair’. As expected, the semantic pivot of the signifed of an idiom does not have to coincide with the lexical meaning of one of its components: in buscarle tres pies al gato lit. ‘to.look for three feet on a cat’, the semantic pivot of its meaning ‘to.complicate(matters)’ is ‘matters’. Accordingly, idioms can be classifed into full idioms, semi-idioms and quasi-idioms. The defnition of full idiom corresponds to the general one of idiom given previously. In addition to cortar el bacalao, beber los vientos ‘to be madly in love with sb’ or saltar a la vista ‘to be evident’ are full idioms. The fact that in saltar a la vista, we fnd an underlying metaphor with a clear interpretation does not prevent the idiom from being categorised as a full idiom, because, as noted previously, our approach takes the direction of production rather than understanding. An idiom is called a semi-idiom when the signifed of the idiom includes the signifed of one of its components, but not as a semantic pivot, and does not include the signifed of the other component. The meaning of conocer el percal ‘to know well the issue under consideration’ includes the meaning ‘conocer’ ‘to know’, but not as semantic pivot, which is ‘issue’: ‘know(issue)’, and it does not include the meaning of percal, ‘a type of weave’. Other examples of semi-idioms are costar la torta un pan ‘to cost a lot’ or confundir el tocino con la velocidad ‘to mix up two completely diferent things’. As noticed, semi-idioms have a higher degree of transparency than full idioms. Finally, the most transparent of the idioms are quasi-idioms. The signifed of a quasi-idiom includes the signifed of its components plus an additional meaning. Thus, the meaning of dar pecho ‘to.give breast’ (= ‘to feed a baby giving milk from the breasts’/‘to breastfeed’) includes the meaning ‘dar’/‘to.give’ and ‘pecho’/‘breast’, but also ‘to feed with milk’. Other examples of quasi-idioms are decir adiós ‘to.say goodbye’ (= ‘to be present with somebody in order to say goodbye’/‘to see of’) and dar la espalda ‘to.give the back’ (= ‘to turn one’s own back to somebody who was previously in front’). Although idioms are semantically non-compositional to the extent that they are considered single lexical units, where the components have overcome a process of lexicalisation, syntactically, they can exhibit the same structure of free phrases. (19) V + DO + DI: pedir peras al olmo ‘to ask the impossible’; V + DO + Pred.: hacer oídos sordos ‘to turn a deaf ear to sth’; V + PrepO: tirar de la lengua ‘to make sb talk’; However, idioms are not involved in normal syntactic operations without losing their idiomatic meaning (20). In Mel’čuk’s (2015, 309) viewpoint, syntactic transformations are semantically blocked. (20) Passivisation: *El bacalao es cortado por él. ‘The cod is cut by him’ Pronominalisation: *Lo corta él. ‘He cuts it’ Relativisation: *Es bacalao lo que cortó. ‘It is cod what he cut’ Interrogation: *¿Qué bacalao cortó? ‘Which cod did he cut?’ Despite their fxation, idioms admit some variation (21): (21) Presence/absence of articles: sentar (la) cabeza ‘to settle down’. Changes in prepositions: dar en/con la tecla ‘to get it right’ Singular/Plural: dar la(s) última(s) pincelada(s) ‘to put the fnal touch/es’ 464

Periphrases, idioms and other units

Changes in the order: confundir el tocino con la velocidad/la velocidad con el tocino ‘to mix up two completely diferent things’. Replacement of words: venir de perlas/de perilla/al pelo ‘to suit perfectly’. In addition to the semantic classifcation, idioms can be also formally classifed into nominal (patas de gallo ‘crow’s feet’), adjectival (de mírame y no me toques ‘fragile’), verbal (estirar la pata ‘to die’), adverbial (a pies juntillas ‘blindly’), prepositional (de cara a ‘in the face of ’) and so on idioms, depending on whether they have the use or function of a noun, adjective, verb, adverbial, preposition and so on (Mel’čuk 2006; García-Page 2008).

3.3 Infnitive verbal idioms and infnitive verbal periphrases This section focuses on a small group of verbal idioms consisting of two verbs, the last one being an infnitive (22), due to its formal coincidence with the infnitive verbal periphrases described in section  1 (see Blasco Mateo 1999, 187–208; Gómez Torrego 1999, §51.1.6; García-Page 2008, 135–37). (22) a. El conferenciante sacó a relucir cuestiones inesperadas. ‘The speaker raised unexpected issues’ b. Al fnal, todo viene a parar en lo mismo. ‘In the end everything ends up in the same way’ c. El negocio se echó a perder. ‘The business was thwarted’ d. Kiitos quiere decir ‘gracias’ en fnés. ‘Kiitos means ‘thank you’ in Finnish’ Among the similarities of infinitive idioms (22) with infinitive periphrases, we see that, in addition to having two verbs, the first in a finite form and the second in the infinitive, both verbs can be directly jointed (22d) or linked by a particle, a (22a–c). Moreover, there is sometimes a coincidence regarding the first verbs of idioms and periphrases, as is the case for venir (22b)—a lexicalised structure, probably originating from the discursive periphrasis venir a + inf.—echar(se) (22c)—without any relation with the homonym aspectual periphrasis echarse a + inf.—or even querer (22d)—related to querer + inf. (see Fábregas 2019, 9). Concerning the diferences, one of the most important is that the frst verb of idioms is not an auxiliary that merely adds modal, aspectual, temporal or discursive values to the second verb, as happens with the frst verb of periphrases. To explain idioms, literature proposes diferent solutions: some authors consider the frst verb of idioms a full verb that selects the arguments (Gómez Torrego 1999, §51.1.6; García-Page 2008, 137); others describe the whole idiom as a reanalysed construction where both verbs are blended and together select the arguments (Mendívil Giró 1999); a third group (Mel’čuk 2015), based on a dependency grammar, postulates that semantically there is a single predicate, that is, idioms occupy a single node in the deep syntactic representation, however, in the superfcial syntax, they are represented by several nodes in a tree. Accordingly, idioms behave syntactically as free phrases: in (22a), the frst verb, sacó, is the syntactic head; el conferenciante, the grammatical subject; cuestiones inesperadas, the DO and a relucir the predicative object referred to the DO. As to the second verb, the main diference between periphrases and idioms is that in the former, the infnitive is just a slot to be flled with any verb, unless there are some particular 465

Begoña Sanromán Vilas

restrictions; in the latter, however, the infnitive is a fxed lexical unit that cannot be replaced by other infnitives. In a similar way that there are periphrases with both verbs in a fnite form, it is also possible to fnd verbal idioms with this structure (23), but the frst verb of idioms is not an auxiliary and both verbs—here also the complement—function as a semantic unit. (23) Tuvimos suerte porque llegamos y besamos el santo. ‘We were lucky because we pulled it of at the frst attempt’ Unlike periphrases, idioms do not admit enclitic pronouns to the infnitive (El presidente se lo dio a entender ‘The president suggested it to them’, but not *El presidente dio a entendérselo ‘the president gave to to.understand.them.it’). Regarding the passive, when an idiom accepts it, the whole combination of verbs appears in the passive (Los resultados fueron dados a conocer ‘The results were made known’, but not *Los resultados dieron a ser conocidos ‘the results gave to to.be known’).

3.4 Collocations A collocation is a compositional phraseme. It consists of two components: a base, the lexical unit freely chosen by the speaker, and a collocate, the lexical unit selected as a function of the base. Collocations are said to be compositional because their meaning can be divided into two parts, one corresponding to the base and the other to the collocate. However, it must be understood that the meaning of the collocate is lexically restricted by the base, that is, the collocate acquires a particular meaning in combination with the base. In romper una promesa, the speaker freely chooses the base promesa ‘promise’ to express the sense ‘a statement by which a person is committed to do sth’, but the selection of romper is done by promesa to express the sense ‘to fail to fulfl the commitment’; otherwise, the meaning of romper is ‘to break’. Collocations do not constitute single lexical units, but in many cases, the specifc meaning of collocates needs to be registered in the dictionary under the entry of the base and/or the collocate. In MTT, collocations are divided into two major groups according to the meaning the collocate adds to the collocation. When the meaning of the collocate (in small capitals) can be applied to many bases, the collocation is standard (GUARDAR rencor/cariño/luto/secreto ‘to.keep grudge/love/mourning/secret’, SORTEAR un/a obstáculo/barrera/problema/trampa ‘to overcome an obstacle/barrier/problem/trap’). Instead, when only one base uses the meaning, then the collocation is called non-standard (café SOLO ‘black cofee’, año BISIESTO ‘leap year’). Collocations are also classifed regarding the syntactic category of the collocate into verbal (ROMPER una promesa ‘to break a promise’), nominal (REBANADA de pan ‘loaf of bread’), adjectival (destello FUGAZ ‘brief fash’), adverbial (buscar ESTÉRILMENTE ‘to seek in vain’) or prepositional [POR correo ‘by (means of) mail’] collocations. Compared to idioms, collocations are more transparent and fexible. They accept syntactic operations: passivisation (El obstáculo fue sorteado ‘The obstacle was overcome’), pronominalisation (El obstáculo lo sorteamos juntos ‘the obstacle it we.overcame together’), relativisation (El interrogatorio a que fue sometido ‘the interrogation to which s/he.was subjected’) and interrogation (¿Qué promesa rompió? ‘Which promise did s/he break?’).

4 Light verb constructions While for some authors, light verb constructions (LVCs) are a diferent phenomenon than collocations (García-Page 2008, 195), for others (Alonso-Ramos 2002), LVCs are a particular 466

Periphrases, idioms and other units

type of collocation where a predicate noun, the base, selects a verb, the collocate, in a lexically restricted way to acquire a clausal confguration. According to Alonso-Ramos (2002), the function of light verbs is to add grammatical information about tense, mood and person, as well as to provide syntactic positions to the arguments of the predicative noun in a clause. From this description, it follows that an LVC—dar un grito ‘to give a shout’, tomar una decisión ‘to take a decision’, poner un castigo ‘to give a punishment’ and so on—is equivalent to a verb that is morphologically derived from the predicate noun within the construction—gritar ‘to shout’, decidir ‘to decide’, castigar ‘to punish’. The most frequent light verbs in Spanish are dar ‘to give’, hacer ‘to do/make’, tener ‘to have’, tomar ‘to take’, coger ‘to catch’, poner ‘to put’ and echar ‘to throw’. Although the inventory of verbs is quite limited, LVCs are semi-productive expressions, partly because they are widely used to verbalise nouns (grito > dar un grito) and form paraphrases (gritar > dar un grito) and partly because they are regulated by lexical restrictions. From a semantic viewpoint, some theories assume that light verbs are semantically empty. Others, taking into account that in a language there is always a formally identical verb to the light verb (24a), called a heavy verb (24b), assume that there is a polysemous relation between them. A third group directs the attention to the possible links between the light verb and the predicate noun within the LVC, claiming that they pertain to the same aspectual class and there is semantic agreement among them (Bosque 2004). Whatever the approach taken, it is generally accepted that light verbs are desemantised, and when their particular content is analysed, it is frequently mentioned that it is taxonomic/generic, contributes to defne the aspectual class of the LVC and relates to the volitionality of the subject. (24) a. Pedro daLV un beso a Ana. ‘Pedro gives a kiss to Ana’ b. Pedro daHV una for a Ana. ‘Pedro gives a fower to Ana’ The most debated question regarding LVCs is how to explain the correspondence between the semantic roles and the syntactic positions in these constructions. In general, LVCs are considered complex predicates that form monoclausal confgurations. They consist of two semantic predicates (one expressed by the light verb, the other by the noun) but only one syntactic head (the light verb). The light verb has inherited the syntactic structure from its heavy counterpart but not the semantic roles, which are taken from the predicate noun. In (24), both the light and the heavy verb are trivalent, having a grammatical subject, a DO and an IO. However, while the semantic roles of ‘dar’ in (24b) are a giver ‘Pedro’, a given entity ‘for’ and a receiver ‘Ana’, those of ‘dar’ in (24a) are a kisser ‘Pedro’, the predicate ‘beso’ and a kissed individual ‘Ana’. LVCs do not show a uniform behaviour regarding syntactic operations (25), but they seem to be more fexible than idioms. (25) Presence/absence of determiners: Hizo (una) mención ‘S/he made a mention’; Echó *(una) siesta ‘S/he took a nap’ Noun modifcation: Hizo confesión general ‘S/he made a general confession’; *Dio aviso rápidoadj. ‘S/he gave quick notice’ Passivisation: La decisión fue tomada enseguida ‘The decision was taken immediately’; *El baño es tomado por él ‘The bath is taken by him’ Pronominalisation: Hago cola para pagar, ¿tú la haces? ‘I queue to pay, and you?’; Doy crédito a sus palabras, ?¿tú lo das? ‘I believe in his words, and you?’ 467

Begoña Sanromán Vilas

Relativisation: Lo que le hizo fue daño ‘what s/he did to him was harm’; *Lo que tomó fue asiento ‘what s/he took was a sit’ Some researchers claim that when LVCs have a zero article (dar orden ‘to order’, poner remedio ‘to solve’, tomar nota ‘to take note’, etc.), they constitute reanalysed complex predicates, where the noun is no longer a syntactic argument of the verb but part of the verbal predicate (Mendívil-Giró 1999). LVCs are diferent from collocations because light verbs are highly grammaticalised. This characteristic seems to bring LVCs (dar un golpe ‘to.give a hit’) closer to idioms (dar un golpe ‘to. rob’), but in idioms, rather than considering that the verb is grammaticalised, it is more appropriate to explain that the verb together with the other constituents have lexicalised. Thus, while idioms are single lexical units, LVCs consist of two lexical units, the light verb pertaining to a semi-lexical category.

5 Conclusions Within the verbal domain, this chapter separates multi-word expressions into two groups: non-phraseologised and phraseologised multi-word expressions. The former is represented by periphrases (ir a + inf. ‘’to be going + inf.’), the latter takes idioms (dar un golpe ‘to rob’) as the most characteristic units but also includes verbal collocations (romper una promesa ‘to break a promise’) and, partially, LVCs (dar un golpe ‘to give a hit’). Morphologically, periphrases do not form a unit because they allow interpolating elements. They difer from phrasemes because they usually consist of two verbs, an auxiliary and an auxiliated verb. Phrasemes typically have one verb followed by a nominal or prepositional phrase, with the exception of a small group of idioms, which can be made up of two verbs. Semantically, periphrases do not constitute a lexical unit: the auxiliary verb is grammaticalised, and the auxiliated verb is the only semantic head of the construction. The behaviour of phrasemes is varied: frst, idioms are non-compositional. Their meaning does not result from the sum of meanings of its components, which have overcome a process of lexicalisation. Examined from the synthesis direction, idioms are single lexical units with a separate entry in a dictionary. Second, verbal collocations are compositional phrasemes where the verb or collocate is selected as a function of the noun or base. Their degree of fxation is lower than in idioms, and they do not constitute a single lexical unit. Third, LVCs are considered a type of collocation, free phrases with lexical restrictions or reanalysed complex predicates, depending on the authors. Here they are analysed as collocations. The grammaticalisation of light verbs brings LVCs closer to periphrases, but in the case of LVCs, the verb does not entirely behave as an auxiliary because it preserves part of its conceptual meaning. Morphological and lexical information in periphrases has been divided into two separated word forms, similarly to the passive forms of verbs, but, syntactically, they function as monoclausal entities. Regarding idioms, they behave as free phrases with the exception that they do not admit syntactic operations, which are semantically blocked. Collocations are also syntactically regular expressions with a variation in their acceptance of syntactic operations depending on particular combinations. Finally, LVCs are similar to periphrases because they also constitute monoclausal structures. However, LVCs contain two semantic predicates, one of them only partially grammaticalised, which are organised in a single sentence confguration. As implications, periphrases are better analysed from a grammatical than from a lexical viewpoint. In relation to their grammatical status, it is not easy to decide whether periphrases should be included in the morphological or syntactic level of representation. According to some 468

Periphrases, idioms and other units

authors (see Bonami 2015), they pertain to the interface syntax-morphology. Phrasemes need to be studied in the interface between morphology, syntax and the lexicon. In this sense, further research is needed to better establish the borders among them and other structures, for instance, compound words, not addressed in this chapter.

References Alonso-Ramos, M. 2002. Las construcciones con verbo de apoyo. Madrid: Visor. Blasco Mateo, E. 1999. “Los límites entre perífrasis verbales y unidades fraseológicas verbales.” PhD diss., Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona. Bonami, O. 2015. “Periphrasis as Collocation.” Morphology 25: 63–110. doi:10.1007/s11525-015-9254-3. Bosque, I. 2004. “Combinatoria y signifcación. Algunas refexiones.” In REDES. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo, directed by I. Bosque, lxxv–clxxiv. Madrid: SM. Bravo, A. 2016. “Verbos auxiliares.” In Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica, edited by J. Gutiérrez-Rexach, 152–62. London: Routledge. Bravo, A., and L. García Fernández. 2016. “Perífrasis verbales.” In Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica, edited by J. Gutiérrez-Rexach, 785–96. London: Routledge. Fábregas, A. 2019. “Periphrases in Spanish: Properties, Diagnostics and Research Questions.” Borealis: An International Journal of Spanish Linguistics 8 (2): 1–82. doi:10.7557/1.8.2.4944. García Fernández, L. 2006. “Perífrasis verbales en español.” In Diccionario de perífrasis verbales, edited by L. García Fernández et al., 9–58. Madrid: Gredos. García Fernández, L., and D. G. Krivochen. 2019. Las perífrasis verbales en contraste. Madrid: Arco Libros. García-Page Sánchez, M. 2008. Introducción a la fraseología española. Barcelona: Anthropos. Gómez Torrego, L. 1999. “Los verbos auxiliares: Las perífrasis verbales de infnitivo.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, directed by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 3323–89. Madrid: Espasa. Mel’čuk, I. 1997. Vers une linguistique Sens-Texte. Paris: Collègue de France. Mel’čuk, I. 2006. “Parties du discours et locutions.” Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 101 (1): 29–65. doi:10.2143/BSL.101.1.2019821. Mel’čuk, I. 2015. “Phrasemes.” In Semantics: From Meaning to Text, edited by D. Beck and A. Polguère, vol. 3, 293–362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mendívil Giró, J. L. 1999. Las palabras disgregadas: Sintaxis de las expresiones idiomáticas y de los predicados complejos. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias. Olbertz, H. 1998. Verbal Periphrases in a Functional Grammar of Spanish. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Penadés Martínez, I. 2012. Gramática y semántica de las locuciones. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá. RAE and ASALE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. Rodríguez Ramalle, T. M. 2005. Manual de sintaxis del español. Madrid: Castalia. Ruiz Gurillo, L. 2001. Las locuciones en el español actual. Madrid: Arco Libros.

469

33 The status of clitics María Cristina CuervoThe status of clitics

(El estatus de los clíticos)

María Cristina Cuervo

1 Introduction This chapter centres on the internal properties, distribution and nature of Spanish clitics, a set of personal pronouns which share properties with both free words and afxes. Their behaviour (distribution, position, linearization, co-occurrence restrictions, variation) indicates that clitics are sensitive to their own internal featural composition as well as to prosodic, syntactic and morphological features of their local environment. Keywords: clitics; phi-features; feature geometry; clitic clusters, syncretism, linearization Este capítulo trata acerca de las propiedades internas, la distribución y la naturaleza de los clíticos del castellano, que conforman un conjunto de pronombres personales que comparten propiedades tanto con las formas libres como con los afjos. El comportamiento de los clíticos (su distribución, posición, linearización, restricciones de co-presencia, variación) indica que los clíticos son sensibles a su propia composición interna así como a rasgos prosódicos, sintácticos y morfológicos de su entorno local. Palabras clave: clíticos; rasgos-phi; geometría de rasgos; grupos de clíticos, sincretismo, linearización

2 The nature of clitics Personal pronouns in Spanish, like in many languages, have a strong and a weak form. The weak forms for object and refexive pronouns are clitics, a form that shares properties with both free and bound morphemes (words and afxes). Traditionally, form and meaning have been the focus of morphological, diachronic or variation studies, while formal syntax has focused on their nature and distribution. Fernández Soriano (1999) presents a comprehensive overview. Spanish clitics are personal object pronouns which obligatorily appear strictly adjacent to the verb, lack stress, cannot appear in isolation and cannot be coordinated, as illustrated in (1). In these properties, they contrast with both strong subject and prepositional pronouns (e.g., ella ‘she’, usted ‘you’, mí ‘me’, as in para mí) and non-pronominal noun phrases (mi vecina ‘my neighbour’, esos chicos ‘those kids’) 470

The status of clitics

(1) a. No la invitaron. not her invited.3PL ‘They didn’t invite her’ b. ¿A quién invitaron? to whom invited.3PL ‘Who did they invite?’

*La no invitaron. her not invited.3PL

*No LA invitaron. not HER invited.3PL

—*La her —‘Her’

—*La y lo invitaron. her and him invited.3PL —‘They invited her and him’

Although each clitic form has a strong pronoun counterpart (a followed by the prepositional pronoun: me ~ a mí; te ~ a ti), not every instance of a clitic can be replaced by—or co-appear with—the strong form or a lexical phrase. This is the case of refexive clitics in obligatorily refexive verbal forms (such as quejar-se ‘complaint’), and clitics used as expletive forms, that is, clitics without referential properties, mainly found in collocations and idioms, as in (2). (2) a. La pasaron bien it.ACC.F spent.3PL well ‘They had a good time’ b. ¡Ánda-le!; ¡Da-le! go.2SG-it.DAT give.2SG-it.DAT ‘Come on!’ Third person clitics can typically refer to both animate and inanimate entities, while strong subject and object pronouns are restricted to animate or human referents. Unlike strong pronouns, which have always been considered phrasal, clitics have alternatively been analyzed as the morphological spellout of agreement heads (for accusative and dative clitics), aspectual heads or argument structure heads, such as Aspect, Voice or light v (for refexives and se) and Applicative (for dative clitics); see Cuervo 2015, 2020; Vivanco, this volume, and cites therein. Spanish clitics work like pronouns in object (accusative), indirect object (dative) and refexive functions and, besides case, they express distinctions for person, number and gender (see Camacho, this volume). The forms for frst and second person derive from the corresponding Latin accusative strong pronouns (me, te, nos, vos), while third person pronouns originate from Latin demonstratives (ille, illa, illud), an origin they share with the strong subject pronouns (él, ella, ello) and the defnite articles (el, la/s, lo/s)—which also have clitic properties.

2.1 Feature composition Clitics express distinctions for person, number, gender and case, although no single Spanish clitic marks a contrast in all these four dimensions. Table 33.1 shows that participant clitics (frst and second person, or “marked” person) contrast for person and number but not for case or gender. In turn, among third person clitics (also used as clitic counterpart of the second plural form ustedes), accusative clitics contrast in gender and number, and dative clitics contrast just in number, while refexive se does not mark any contrast at all. There is also a neuter clitic lo, corresponding to neuter demonstratives esto, eso and aquello, and the neuter strong pronoun ello. As a result, functionally diferent clitics (such as a dative masculine second person singular and a refexive feminine second person singular) share the same form. As Harris (1995, 174) puts it, “syncretism is rampant” in the paradigm. Clitics share with the corresponding strong pronouns, possessives or defnite determiners an initial consonant that varies for person and number combinations: m- for frst person 471

María Cristina Cuervo Table 33.1 Spanish clitic pronouns Person

Case

Accusative

NUMBER 1 2

Dative

Sg

me

Pl

nos

Sg

te

Pl

Refexive

(os) ~ (los/las; les; se) GENDER

3

Fem

Masc

Sg

la

lo

le

Pl

las

los

les

se

singular, as in mi, mí, mías; t- for second singular informal (irrespective of whether tú or vos is the corresponding strong form used), as in tu, tú, ti, tuyas; n- for frst plural, as in nosotros, nuestra; l- for (defnite) third person as in el, ellas; s- for refexive, as in sí (mismo), sus. The specialized second plural form os found only in varieties that use vosotros has no initial consonant (the v- has been lost). This initial consonant can be considered the stem of the clitic pronoun, encoding person, with suppletive forms n- and ∅- for frst and second person in the context of plural. As with regular nouns, (see Camacho, this volume) the consonantal stem of Spanish clitics is followed by a vowel -e, -o or -a. As can be seen in Table 33.1, for participant clitics, which do not mark gender or case, the vowel is -e in singular forms (me, te) and -o for plural (nos, os); in third person clitics, -a marks (accusative) feminine, -o appears in (accusative) masculine or default gender and in neuter lo, while -e appears in dative le and in reflexive se. Among the third person clitics, these three markers are subject to extensive dialectal variation and are associated with varying features in leísta, loísta and laísta dialects (see §5.1). With respect to number, only plural is overtly marked with -s. The -s in nos and os can be analysed as a regular plural morpheme in addition to the suppletive plural forms; this is indirectly supported by the -s following -mo- in subject agreement form for first person plural -mos. Alternatively, -os could be a single word marker, as attested in Carlos and lejos ‘far’ and evidenced by diminutives Carl-it-os and lej-it-os, and lej-an-o (see Harris 1991). In formal approaches to personal pronouns, it has been proposed that phi-features (person, number, gender) are organized in hierarchical structures, forming, similarly to phonology, feature geometries in which some contrasts constitute organizational features and others are feature values as terminal nodes. Heap (2002) provides such an analysis of Spanish clitics, in which Participant (which covers frst and second person), Other (which distinguishes third person) and Class (which dominates case distinctions) are organizational features. The terminal features [speaker], [group], [feminine] and [dative] specify marked values for their corresponding organizational nodes ([speaker] signalling frst person as more specifed than second person; [group] is plural). Clitics under Other can either be specifed as the marked gender feature [feminine], they can have a marked case [dative] (but not mark gender) or they can be unspecifed, in which case they are interpreted as default values (accusative masculine).

472

The status of clitics

(3)

Internal structure of Spanish object clitics (Heap 2002) CL Participant [speaker]

Other [group]

Class[feminine] [dative]

A hierarchical structure such as (3) provides several advantages over the analysis of clitics as an unordered set of features. First, by appealing to constraints on markedness, it can naturally express the syncretisms in the Spanish paradigm: if a clitic contrasts for person, it does not for gender or case; if it contrasts for gender, it does not for case, and vice-versa. Second, the structures provide the basis for stating the associations of certain features with the specifc morphemes which compose clitic forms: [speaker] is spelled out as m-, while frst person plural is spelled out as both suppletive n- (for [speaker] in the context of [group]) and -s for [group]); a clitic with a dependent under Other is expressed by l-, to which a class marker -a, -e or -o is added according to which the dependent feature is. As we shall see in the next sections, a hierarchical approach can also provide the analytical tools to account for clitic combinations and variation phenomena.

2.2 Clitic doubling Clitic doubling refers to the co-presence of a clitic with a full argument phrase, which can be pronominal, as in (4a), or nominal, as in (4b–c). (4) a. La invitaron a ella primero. her.ACC.F invited.3PL A her frst ‘They invited her frst’ b. La silla la compró Alex. the chair it.ACC.F bought.3SG Alex ‘The chair, Alex bought it’ c. (Le) entregamos el archivo a Alex. him/her.DAT handed.1PL the fle A Alex ‘We handed Alex the fle’ d. *La vemos una silla. it.ACC.F see.1PL a chair ‘We see a chair’ Depending on properties of the sentence and/or features of the clitic or the argument phrase, clitic doubling may be obligatory (as with pronominal arguments in 4a; defnite dislocated arguments as in 4b), optional (as with dative recipients, as in 4c) or unacceptable (as with indefnite NPs or inanimates without accusative marker a, as in 4d). Availability of doubling also varies across varieties of Spanish, with interesting patterns of dialectal variation in terms of conditions on doubling possibilities. While doubling of pronominal phrases and dislocated arguments is obligatory in all dialects, several dialects (such as

473

María Cristina Cuervo

Riverplate Spanish and Spanish in contact with Quechua, Basque or Guarani) allow doubling of non-pronominal accusative phrases (typically with animate, defnite referents and containing the marker a) and generalize doubling to all types of dative arguments. Doubling data has been central to discussions on the nature of clitics at two levels, particularly in the context of Romance languages. A central debate concerns whether clitics are better understood as syntactic heads or as phrases; another is focused on whether Spanish clitics are pronominal elements with referential properties, determiners or object agreement markers. Availability of doubling in Spanish, particularly in “doubling” varieties, highlights the diference in function between clitics and lexical or pronominal phrases, suggesting that clitics are not phrasal and are better understood as syntactic heads, spelling out agreement at various functional heads. Diferences in doubling among clitics (along case, animacy, person) suggest that it may not be possible to provide a unifed analysis of all clitics (see Bleam 2000; Tortora 2014, a.o.). Besides clitic doubling, clitic repetition in clitic climbing contexts, a common phenomenon in Chile (se quieren sentar ~ quieren sentarse ~ se quieren sentarse ‘They want to sit down’; see Tortora 2014), clitic climbing, and the use of le instead of les when the clitic doubles an overt plural dative argument are further cases of phenomena that apply selectively to certain clitics (Hof and Schwenter 2019).

3 Position of clitics Spanish clitics are prosodically dependent on the verb. The question on the defciency of clitics and why they attach to the verb has been answered within phonology (they are prosodically defcient), morphology (clitics are afxal) and syntax (e.g., clitics are purely functional phifeature bundles with no substantive content which must attach to a root, Nash and Rouveret 2002). The details of clitic position can illuminate the debate on the nature of clitics as pronouns, determiners or spellout of functional heads.

3.1 Simple verbal forms The position of clitics in the clause is always determined with respect to the verb: clitics appear either immediately before the verb (proclisis) or after the verb (enclisis) depending on the verb’s infectional properties. A clitic (or clitic cluster) must appear before a conjugated verb (5a) and must appear after an infnitive, a gerund or an imperative form (5b–d). A clitic cannot appear either before or after a participle. (5) a. Ya la invitaron. (cf. *Ya invitáron-la) already her.ACC.F invited.3PL ‘They have already invited her’ b.  . . . para invitar-la. (cf. *para la invitar) to invite.INF-her.ACC.F ‘ . . . in order to invite her’ c. Oímos a Alex invitándo-la. (cf. * . . . la invitando.) heard.1PL A Alex invite.GER-her.ACC.F ‘We heard Alex inviting her’ d. ¡Invíten-la! (cf. *¡La inviten!) invite.IMP-her.ACC.F ‘Invite her!’ 474

The status of clitics

This selection for a specifc syntactic category is found among afxes and distinguishes Spanish pronominal clitics both from free morphemes and Spanish articles, which attach phonologically to a word that follows, whatever its category (la=cabaña ‘the cabin’, la=gran cabaña ‘the big cabin’, la=que quieras ‘the (one) you want’).

3.2 Complex verbal forms The positioning of clitics with respect to the verb can also be seen in cases of complex verbal phrases, as is the case for certain tenses (perfects and progressives, future ir a +inf), passive forms, aspectual phrases (e.g., empezar a +inf ‘begin to’; seguir +ger ‘go on V-ing’), modals or quasi-modals (poder + inf ‘can/ be able to’; querer + inf ‘want to’) and others (intentar + inf ‘try to’). These cases involve an auxiliary or functional verb followed by an infnitival, gerund or participle. Clitics thematically selected by the lexical verb can be prosodically associated with it (except for participles) or, alternatively, with the higher verb, as in (6). This last case is known as “clitic climbing”, in reference to the clitic “moving” from the lower position to the higher verb. (6) a. La van a invitar / Van a go.3PL to her.ACC.F go.3PL to invite.INF ‘They are going to invite her’ b. La han invitado / *Han have.3PL her.ACC.F have.3PL invite.PART ‘They have invited her’

invitar-la. invite.INF-her.ACC.F invitado-la. invite.PART-her.ACC.F

Complex tenses, modals and periphrastic verbal forms thus provide a context where clitics can optionally attach to diferent hosts. This optionality, however, does not translate into an even distribution between proclisis and enclisis, and rates of climbing heavily depend on the type of verbal phrase. The more grammaticalized the frst verb (haber, estar, ir a), the more frequent proclisis is. In corpus data, for ir a, Davis (1995) found a rate of climbing approaching 80%, while Colantoni and Cuervo (2013) found 97% in a later corpus of Argentine Spanish. Even with these grammaticalized verbal phrases, certain elements block clitic climbing, as negation no (Quieren no invitar-nos ~ *Nos quieren no invitar ‘They want to not invite us’). Two central questions concerning the position of clitics with respect to their verbal host (proclisis vs. enclisis; clitic climbing) are the nature of the positions clitics occupy when frst merged in a clause and at the point of linearization and spell-out, and whether their position is determined by syntactic or morphological processes. Typically, clitic climbing has been understood as the result of syntactic movement of the clitic and thus as evidence for the relative syntactic freedom of clitics in comparison to bound morphemes. Given certain conditions of “clause reduction” or complex verb formation, a clitic can rise to be in the local environment of the higher verb. These studies have been mainly carried out without reference to the contrast between enclisis and proclisis. From an observational point of view, this is surprising, given that the contexts for clitic climbing (usually a tensed modal, temporal or aspectual auxiliary followed by an infnitival, gerund or participle) are in the surface contexts of optionality which result in proclisis if clitics “climb” to take the auxiliary as host and enclisis otherwise, as illustrated in (6). Most approaches to clitic climbing focus on the conditions in which clitics climb. They determine that clitic climbing is a type of construction (e.g., clause reduction, morphological complex verb formation) which, if it holds, forces the clitics to climb. Conversely, if a clitic remains with the lexical thematic verb, the conclusion is that that the clitic climbing confguration does not hold. There is an alternative to these approaches: the clitic-climbing confguration 475

María Cristina Cuervo

is just a case in which a clitic has two possible sites of attachment: typically proclitic if it climbs, enclitic if it does not. Thus, the variable behaviour may not depend on the verbs forming a complex verb or not but on whether the higher or the lower verb is chosen when they do. The fact that clitic climbing results in proclisis, which is independently the most frequent position (in simple conjugated forms and in all the perfects) indicates that this approach may be on the right track. It may be that clitic climbing is becoming categorical following grammaticalization (as arguably ir a in Argentine Spanish, where this periphrasis does not compete with the morphological future). In any case, exploring the compatibility of analyses of clitic climbing with articulated analyses of proclisis/enclisis, or vice-versa, is no trivial task.

4 Clitic combinations In Spanish, two or three clitics can appear with the same host, forming ‘clitic clusters’. The position of clitic clusters with respect to the host is the same as in the case of a single clitic. There are, however, some phenomena particular to clusters which have been standardly analyzed as morphological. As we shall see, one of the underlying questions in this area is whether the clitics in a cluster are located in one position together and/or they form a single morphological unit.

4.1 Restrictions in feature combinations and ordering Not every combination of two clitics is acceptable. Clitic clusters are restricted on the basis of referential properties, person and case feature combinations and ordering within the sequence. Some clitic combinations, which would be fne in terms of their referential properties and their corresponding syntax, are nevertheless ungrammatical. This is the case of combinations of two identical clitics *te te, *se se, *le le (cf. En verano, uno seref baña con agua fría ~ *En verano seimp seref baña con agua fría ‘In the summer, one showers in cold water’; combination of ethical dative and indirect object le in Me le hablaron sólo en francés a mi hijo ~ *Le le hablaron sólo en francés a su hijo ‘They spoke only in French to my/his son’) as well as *le se, *la te, *me te, *lo me, *nosacc le, *meacc les. Some of these combinations are ungrammatical because clitics in clusters are ordered with respect to each other (cf. Me lo dijo ayer ~ *Lo me dijo ayer ‘She told it to me yesterday’). In sharp contrast with word order, and more similar to afxes, Spanish clitic pronouns obey a strict linear order when they form clusters. That ordering is the same whether they appear as proclitics or enclitics. Perlmutter (1971) argued that these restrictions cannot be accounted for on syntactic terms and that they can only be accounted for in terms of surface (that is, post-syntactic) flters on sequences. Specifcally, he proposed that clitics are restricted by having to each map to a slot on a template, in (7). (7) Perlmutter’s template for Spanish clusters se II I III The template expresses the fact that se must be the frst clitic in a sequence, followed by other clitics ordered on the basis of person. Mapping to the template thus obtains se me, nos las, te le, te nos, se te lo, se nos la and so on but rules out the reverse sequences, as well as those involving two identical clitics. Bonet (1991) also proposed a templatic approach but developed an articulated approach to clitics as bundles of morphosyntactic features hierarchically organized. The templatic approach has been criticized at the conceptual and empirical levels. The template in (7) states the ordering rules without providing an explanation. As such, one can 476

The status of clitics

wonder why (7) holds rather than the order “II III se I”, and a language can be imagined in which this order holds. Additionally, it is not clear why se is listed in the template as such rather than by a feature. Importantly, the template is also inadequate empirically, since it does not predict cases that are acceptable or not depending on features which are not contrastively expressed by the clitics. This is the case of the sequence me le, which is fne if it corresponds to refexive or dative me but ungrammatical in case of accusative me, as in *Me le entregaron a la policía, intended as ‘They handed me to the police’. This constraint regulating marked person features in relation with grammatical function and case, known as the Person Case Constraint (Bonet 1991; Camacho, this volume) is found in many languages among clitics and infectional morphemes. Ideally, clitic ordering should be derived from the same general principles underlying the Person Case Constraint or, at the very least, some principle that takes into account the feature composition of the cluster. Harris (1995) captures ordering facts of syntactically well-formed clitics through a principle that makes reference to the morphological ‘structural weight’ or number of contrasts a lexical item expresses, in (8): least contrastive clitics align to the left. (8) Harris’s (1995) ordering principle contrast: 0 < number se=se=se me=nos te=os

< number/gender/ case lo=los lo=la lo=le

The ordering principle in (8) must be supplemented with a stipulation that second person precedes frst. Although this seems conceptually undesirable, it is necessary that one of the Participant clitics be more specifed, as illustrated in the feature geometry in (3). There may actually not be any deeper explanation for the Spanish ordering 2 > 1, as evidenced by the fact that the reverse ordering 1 > 2 is cross-linguistically common, even in closely related languages, such as Italian. Heap (2005) argues that ordering is based on alignment constraints explicitly applying on hierarchical morphological structures. This way, ordering does not need to make reference to the existence of contrasting forms within a paradigm. Syntactic accounts of ordering also avoid this problem (Kayne 2010; Tortora 2014).

4.2 Repairs: Spurious se In Spanish, a sequence of two non-refexive third person clitics (dative le/s followed by accusative lo/a/s) cannot surface as such, and the dative le/s surfaces as se. (9) a. Le entregaron la bicicleta a Pablo. → *Le la entregaron. → Se la entregaron. him.DAT delivered.3PL the bicycle A Pablo ‘They handed Pablo the bicycle’, ‘They handed it to him’. Some descriptions present this as a phonological transformation to repair a near-identical sequence. There are problems with the phonological approach, however, and abundant evidence that this is a morphological phenomenon involving an operation on features, possibly involving a restriction on the number of contrastive features or feature combinations within a cluster. The appearance of le/s as se—another existing, underspecifed clitic—is one among various cases of morphological adjustments or repairs found in clitic clusters (but see Alcaraz 2018; Cabré and Fábregas 2020 for syntactic approaches). 477

María Cristina Cuervo

Spurious se raises many questions which require morphological attention. First of all, if a rule applies, it must be for a reason: what is wrong with the cluster le lo/a? We should also ask why it is le that changes (while lo/a stays the same), and why it surfaces as the clitic se, rather than any other clitic or special phonological form. Several proposals have addressed these questions. The consensus is that a morphological restriction on the combination of features triggers the impoverishment of le—the deletion of some of its features—which surfaces as the least specifed clitic or elsewhere form se (Bonet 1991; Harris 1995; Pescarini 2010; Cuervo 2013). Alternatively, le lo/a clusters could be problematic in that the clitics, both having the same structural weight, cannot be linearized with respect to each other. The widespread conclusion that Spurious se is linearized as genuine se is challenged in Cuervo 2013, where data from clusters of three clitics show that Spurious se is distinct from genuine se at some level that is relevant for linearization of clitics within the cluster. Alternatively, it may be that a cluster of dative-accusative clitics in double object constructions forms a morphological unit such that special restrictions apply and whose feature bundles are adjoined and linearized locally before they are linearized with respect to other clitics and the verb (see Alcaraz 2018; Ormazabal and Romero 2013 for syntactic approaches). This last perspective allows us to speculate that the problem with *le lo could be parallel to that with *meacc le: two marked or contrastive features in the same minimally local domain (casegender or person-case) are not allowed. The diference is that there is a morphological repair mechanism in the case of le lo (Spurious se), but no such mechanism exists for frst or second person clitics.

4.3 Alignment of number features Another phenomenon afecting the form of clitics within a cluster concerns displacement of number: the marking of plurality in a syntactically singular clitic (with a singular referent) in the context of a plural third person dative which surfaces as Spurious se. (10) a. Les contaron la historia a los chicos. → Se las contaron. A the kids them.DAT told.3PL the story ‘They told the story to the kids’. This phenomenon, common through Latin American varieties, suggests that a cluster consists of two bundles of features that are merged and then pronounced (linearized and spelled out) by morphemes already existing in the language. Number can be assigned as a property of the combined bundle if it is disassociated from the dative plural and then be spelled out and linearized as the regular plural sufx -s (Harris 1995; Camacho, this volume). Enclitics can also interact with verbal plural morphology. In several varieties, the plural morpheme -n in imperatives with an enclitic (siénte-n-se ‘sit down.3pl’) can appear either duplicated surrounding the enclitic or after it (siénte-n-se-n ~ siénte-se-n). This pattern is also found after enclitics in gerunds and infnitives (Mare 2018; Pato y Feliú Arquiola, this volume). Harris and Halle (2005) provide a formal analysis of the phenomena. These facts have been presented as evidence for the infectional nature of (en)clitics, and the tighter relation between the verb and enclitics in comparison to proclitics. Yet for others, these same data support a syntactic analysis in terms of clitic position in the clausal structure (Kayne 2010; Tortora 2014). The data discussed in this section (ordering, repairs and alignment) point to a strong sensitivity of clitic combinations to the presence and structure of features of the individual clitics. This type of sensitivity is usually found only between elements which are in the same (very) local 478

The status of clitics

domain. As such, it seems that clitics combine and form a particular morphological unit, which in turn adjoins to the verb. In exploring what kind of unit clitic clusters form, we can wonder whether the restrictions and adjustments observed in combination of clitics can be understood as the result of the same restrictions on the combinations of features within one individual clitic, such as expressing at most two marked features [such as the approach in (3)]. For instance, is it possible that the restriction on having a cluster which combines two third person clitics (two Other and Class/Feminine features) is the same type of restriction on an individual clitic combining a Participant feature with Class features (the restriction behind syncretisms of gender and case in Participant forms)? Does this restriction also underlie the variation in third person clitic systems, as presented in §5.1? At the same time, certain phenomena (variation in order and in stress in §5.2 and §5.3) suggest that the tightness of the unit of clitics with other clitics and with the verb varies according to whether they are proclitics or enclitics. Whether positioning with respect to the verb is ultimately determined by syntax or morphology, then, will impact the understanding of feature combinations as deriving from syntactic principles or morphological constraints.

5 Diatopic variation in clitics So far, an idealized view of the Spanish clitic forms and their associated features and distribution has been presented. There exists, however, a great deal of dialectal and regional variation in the clitic system. Some of the domains of variation and their implications for the morphological analysis of clitics are briefy discussed in the following.

5.1 Variation in feature composition The association of third person forms la, lo and le presented in Table 33.1 corresponds to the etymological system (in reference to the origin in accusative forms of the Latin demonstrative for la and lo, neuter for neuter lo, and in the dative for le). These forms are diferently associated in many Spanish varieties (particularly within Spain) in the “referential” system, with variants termed loísmo, leísmo and laísmo. These variants include cases in which le is used for animate masculine referents, regardless of case, or animate referents regardless of case and gender [two forms of leísmo, as in le invité ‘I invited him(/her)’]. Laísmo refers to the use of clitic la(s) when the referent is animate feminine (e.g. La di el libro ‘I gave her the book’). In some varieties, third person clitics encode a contrast in whether the referent corresponds to a count or mass noun. In this system, lo is the unmarked clitic used for mass nouns; distinctions of case or gender apply only for count nouns (animate referents are always count). See Fernández Ordóñez (1999) for an overview. What is crucial here is that whatever the contrasts expressed by the three forms are (gender, case, animacy, count), attested systems only simultaneously express two contrasts, and a third person clitic in each system can express only one marked feature (plus marked plural number). As argued by Heap (2002, 2005), in order to express the generalizations on “feature dependencies exhibited by clitic systems, we must abandon the view of morphological representation as unstructured matrices which freely combine binary features” (Heap 2002, 59). Instead, a feature geometry of morphological features [such as the one presented in (3)] can express both the restrictions in the number of marked features that any one form can encode and the attested variation in the interpretation of each form la, le, lo. In such an approach, variation depends either on the features that are specifed under a certain node (either dative or count; Heap 2002, 62) or on alternative hierarchical organization of features (e.g., Gender higher than Case 479

María Cristina Cuervo

in laísta dialects, Case higher than Gender in the etymological system). Additionally, consistent with the morphological analysis of -o as the default class marker, lo is the least marked clitic in each system. Given the range of systems and subsystems that exist across Spanish varieties, one should ask why and how such variety arises. Why is it that la can signal a female human referent (regardless of case) or accusative case (regardless of animacy)? How come lo corresponds to mass nouns in one variety, to individuated accusative inanimates in other and to any specifc accusative in yet another? The role of animacy as syntactically active in Spanish, as evidenced by the distribution of the diferential object marker a, and its varying efects on clitic doubling should not be neglected (see Zdrojewski and Sánchez 2014). One can wonder whether one system is derived from another or whether we should consider each system on its own, as one particular solution to solving the tension between having two contrasts deriving four values (case: accusative vs. dative; gender: feminine vs. masculine) but there being only three distinct forms to express them. In this view, the system of the third person clitics may be perpetually unstable. A question remains on whether the various morphological systems correlate with syntactic diferences on the related argument phrases. Some recent work has addressed this question for leísta dialects (Bleam 2000; Ormazabal and Romero 2007).

5.2 Variation in order Clitics in clusters appear in a fxed order such that sequences are organized according to some post-syntactic mechanism, such as a template or linearization principle placing less specifed clitics to the left of more contrastive forms (§4.1). Nonetheless, in some regional varieties, there is a small set of sequences that exhibit variable order. This is the case of se me ~ me se, and se te ~ te se, as illustrated in (11); data from Heap 2005. (11) a. El globo {se me ~ me se} escapó de la mano. 1SG REF.3 got.away from the hand the balloon REF.3 1SG ‘The balloon got away from my hand’. b. La he atado para que no {se te ~ te se} caiga. 2SG REF.3 fall.SBJV.3SG it.ACC have.1SG tied for that not REF.3 2SG ‘I tied it so that it wouldn’t go and fall’. As noted by Heap (2005), the non-standard variants me se and te se are possible in proclitic position but not in enclisis. Variation is also restricted to the singular frst and second person, with no attested variants *nos se or *os se. Additionally, this variation typically involves an inchoative se and a non-doubled ethical dative me or te; it never involves a dative-accusative cluster, that is, the cluster identifed as a minimally local domain, afected by certain morphological operations (Spurious se, number displacement). This highly restricted variation (particularly given the number restriction) cannot be easily accommodated by templates or syntactic approaches and calls for an articulated morphological account. An ordering principle based on an increasing level of complexity of clitics in terms of morphological feature structure [as in (3)] can account for this variation if in the relevant Spanish varieties, se is variably specifed as just CL, or an Other or Class node as well (Heap 2005).

480

The status of clitics

5.3 Variation in stress Lack of stress is typically presented as one of the defning properties of clitics. However, in some varieties of Spanish, clitics can receive stress (DEmelos ~ demeLOS ‘give them to me’) under certain conditions. Stress in enclitics has been attested in Argentine Spanish and to a lesser extent in Peninsular Spanish. Variation in stress of enclitics is not uncommon among Romance languages (Ordóñez and Repetti 2006). Stress can only apply to enclitics (not proclitics) and this only in case there is at least one unstressed syllable between the tonic syllable in the verb and the enclitic (Moyna 1999). In this context (which includes gerunds, some imperative forms and all verbal forms with two or more enclitics), Colantoni and Cuervo (2013) found, through their corpus study of Argentine Spanish, that enclitics receive primary stress in 71% of the cases and that stress is not associated with semantic or pragmatic distinctions. They argue that stress in enclitics may signal instead a morphosyntactic reanalysis of enclisis, that enclitics may be in the process of becoming verbal infectional afxes (which may carry stress in Spanish) in the absence of person subject agreement morphology. Klassen and Patience (2016) provide acoustic evidence that Argentine stressed enclitics indeed behave like stressed afxes. This hypothesis receives support from the phenomenon of plural displacement (§4.3) and is consistent with Nash and Rouveret’s (2002) analysis of enclisis as corresponding to direct adjunction to the infectional head, in contrast with a less local adjunction of proclitics. The orthographic convention of writing enclitics together with the verbal host but proclitics as a separate word appears to capture the intuition (analyzed syntactically in some proposals) that proclitics have a looser relationship with the verb as compared to enclitics. Data on clitic variation in order (me se ~ se me), stress (sientaTE ‘sit down’, peleandoSE ‘fghting’) and mesoclisis (de-me-n ‘give to me’, siénte-n-se-n ‘sit down’) all suggest that enclitics behave as afxes at least in some respects.

6 Conclusions Some clitic phenomena in Spanish call for detailed morphological accounts, suggesting that the behaviour of clitics is not fully determined in the syntax. Recent work, however, continues to argue for syntactic accounts based on articulated analyses of syntactic features and operations, leaving less and less work for morphology. What is clear is that wherever the division of labour is set between syntax and morphology, clitic accounts cannot be based on their form. Neither clitic combinations, linearization nor attested variation can be accounted for within a model of grammar in which the lexicon or morphology feeds the syntactic derivation with pre-packaged units with phonological content. The account of clitics thus seems to require a post-syntactic domain in which minimally some adjustments (adjunction, operations on features) and linearization apply to syntactic terminals before insertion of phonological matrices proceeds. This domain is a post-syntactic morphological component, as proposed by current theories such as Distributed Morphology and Nanosyntax (see Harley and Noyer 1999; Starke 2010 for brief introductions to the approaches, respectively; see Acedo-Matellán, this volume). Research in Spanish, as well as more broadly in Romance, shows that no aspect of clitics applies uniformly to the whole set of clitics or to both enclitics and proclitics, not even within one variety, and much is to be learned from considering Spanish facts in the rich cross-linguistic context of Romance. Clitics continue to provide interesting data and challenges to descriptive and theoretical studies alike.

481

María Cristina Cuervo

References Alcaraz, A. 2018. “The Spurious vs. Dative Problem.” Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 29, 5–20. Bleam, T. 2000. “Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling.” PhD diss., University of Delaware, Delaware. Bonet, E. 1991. “Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Cabré, T., and A. Fábregas. 2020. “Ways of Being a Dative across Romance Varieties.” In Dative Constructions in Romance and Beyond, edited by A. Pineda and J. Mateu, 395–411. Berlin: Language Science Press. Colantoni, L., and M. C. Cuervo. 2013. “Clíticos acentuados.” In Perspectivas teóricas y experimentales sobre el español de la Argentina, edited by L. Colantoni and C. Rodríguez Louro, 143–57. Madrid: Iberoamericana Vervuert. Cuervo, M. C. 2013. “Spanish Clitic Clusters.” Borealis—An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2 (2): 191–220. Cuervo, M. C. 2015. “Causation without a Cause.” Syntax 18 (4): 388–424. Cuervo, M. C. 2020. “Datives as Applicatives.” In Dative Constructions in Romance and Beyond, edited by A. Pineda and J. Mateu, 3–41. Berlin: Language Science Press. Davis, M. 1995. “Analyzing Syntactic Variation with Computer-Based Corpora: The Case of Modern Spanish Clitic Climbing.” Hispania 78 (2): 370–80. Fernández Ordóñez, I. 1999. “Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo.” In Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras. Vol. 1 of Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 1317–97. Madrid: Espasa. Fernández Soriano, O. 1999. “El pronombre personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres átonos y tónicos.” In Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras. Vol. 1 of Gramática descriptiva la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 1209–74. Madrid: Espasa. Harley, H., and R. Noyer. 1999. “Distributed Morphology.” Glot International 4: 3–9. Harris, J. 1991. “The Exponence of Gender in Spanish.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (1): 27–62. Harris, J. 1995. “The Morphology of Spanish Clitics.” In Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory, edited by H. Campos and P. Kempchinsky, 168–97. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Harris, J., and M. Halle. 2005. “Unexpected Plural Infections in Spanish: Reduplication and Metathesis.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (2): 195–222. Heap, D. 2002. “Morphological Complexity and Spanish Object Clitic Variation.” In Romance Phonology and Variation: Selected Papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Gainesville, Florida, February 2000, edited by C. R. Wiltshire and J. Camps, 55–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heap, D. 2005. “Constraining Optimality: Clitic Sequences and Feature Geometry.” In Perspectives on Clitic and Agreement Afx Combinations, edited by F. Ordóñez and L. Heggie, 81–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hof, M., and S. A. Schwenter. 2019. “Variable Constraints on Spanish Clitics: A Cross-Dialectal Overview.” In Handbook of Variationist Approaches to Spanish. Retrieved from Academia.edu. http://www. academia.edu/download/59294623/. Kayne, R. 2010. “Toward a Syntactic Reinterpretation of Harris and Halle (2005).” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2008: Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’. Groningen 2008, edited by R. BokBennema, B. Kampers-Manhe, and B. Hollebrandse, 145–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Klassen, G., and M. Patience. 2016. “Stressed Clitics in Argentine Spanish.” In Inquiries in Hispanic Linguistics. From Theory to Empirical Evidence, edited by A. Cuza, L. Czerwionka, and D. Olson, 149–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/ihll.12.09kla. Mare, M. 2018. “Una nueva mirada sobre la concordancia inesperada en español.” Revista de Filologia Española 98 (2): 397–422. Moyna, M. I. 1999. “Pronominal Clitic Stress in Río de la Plata Spanish: An Optimality Account.” The SECOL Review 23: 15–44.

482

The status of clitics

Nash, L., and A. Rouveret. 2002. “Cliticization as Unselective Attract.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 157–99. Ordóñez, F., and L. Repetti. 2006. “Stressed Clitics?” In New Perspectives on Romance linguistics. Volume II: Phonetics, edited by J-P. Montreuil, 167–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ormazabal, J., and J. Romero. 2007. “The Object Agreement Constraint.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 315–47. Ormazabal, J., and J. Romero 2013. “Object Clitics, Agreement and Dialectal Variation.” Probus 25: 301–44. Perlmutter, D. 1971. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Pescarini, D. 2010. “Elsewhere in Romance: Evidence from Clitic Clusters.” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 427–44. Starke, M. 2010. “Nanosyntax: A Short Primer to a New Approach to Language.” Nordlyd 36: 1–6. Tortora, C. 2014. “On the Relation between Functional Architecture and Patterns of Change in Romance Object Clitic Syntax.” In Variation within and across Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the 41st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ottawa, 5–7 May 2011, edited by M. Côté and É. Mathieu, 331–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zdrojewski, P., and L. Sánchez. 2014. “Variation in Accusative Clitic Doubling across Three Spanish Dialects.” Lingua 151 (B): 162–76.

483

34 Participles and gerunds Rafael Marín and Antonio FábregasParticiples and gerunds

(Participios y gerundios)

Rafael Marín and Antonio Fábregas

1 Introduction This chapter discusses the nature of participles and gerunds in Spanish. As they are considered hybrid categories with a cross-categorial nature, we will focus in particular on their category distribution: traditionally, participles are verbal forms that share properties with adjectives, while gerunds are verbal forms with adverbial properties. Both are ultimately used to express diferent grammatical aspects of the base verb; therefore, another issue discussed in this chapter is whether the traditional view that participles express (result) states and gerunds express imperfective ongoing activities is correct. Keywords: participles; gerunds; hybrid categories; grammatical category; aspect Este capítulo discute la naturaleza de los participios y los gerundios del español. Ya que se consideran categorías híbridas con propiedades de varias clases de palabras, nos concentraremos en particular en su distribución categorial: tradicionalmente, los participios son formas verbales que comparten propiedades con los adjetivos, mientras que los gerundios comparten propiedades con los adverbios. Ambas formas se emplean para expresar distintos valores aspectuales, por lo que el segundo tema que se discutirá aquí es si los participios expresan estados (resultantes) y los gerundios, procesos imperfectivos en desarrollo. Palabras clave: participios; gerundios; categorías híbridas; categoría gramatical; aspecto

2 Main facts: the participle as a grammatical category Infnitives, participles and gerunds are non-personal forms of the verb whose categorial status is unclear. For this reason, they have been considered hybrid categories, that is, categories that exhibit a behaviour that partially corresponds to two or more word classes. Infnitives (see Resnik, this volume) share properties with nouns, while participles share properties with adjectives and gerunds with adverbs. This chapter will focus in particular on the behaviour of participles, which is problematic in terms of its meaning and category defnition, and less on the properties of the gerund, which—while worthy of study—are relatively less complex. Let us start with participles.

484

Participles and gerunds

There is broad agreement (Di Tullio 2008; Rodríguez Ramalle 2008, 2016, and references therein), that the participle is, among so-called non-personal forms of the verb, the less verbal one, mainly because, unlike gerunds or infnitives, participles admit morphemes of gender and number, (1). Besides, participles reject clitics (*tengo leídolas ‘I have read-them’) and compound forms (*habido comido ‘had eaten’); this is not the case with gerunds and infnitives, which do accept clitics (Estoy leyéndolas ‘I am reading them’; Voy a leerlas ‘I am going to read them’) and compound forms (habiendo comido ‘having eaten’; haber comido ‘to have eaten’) (Di Tullio 2008; Rodríguez Ramalle 2008, 2016). Strictly speaking, however, not all types of participles—or not in all their embodiments— admit morphemes of gender and number. Thus, for example, participles in compound tenses (María ha hablado con tu hermana ‘María has talked to your sister’) are morphologically invariable. This invariable form is generally considered to belong to the verbal paradigm. According to Di Tullio (2008), the invariable participle has lost its autonomy with respect to haber ‘have’ by means of a grammaticalisation process, to the extent that the participle integrates the compound form as a discontinuous constituent. Additional evidence of this grammaticalisation process is that, unlike (verbal and adjectival) passives and other constructions that the participle can be part of, compound tenses are not afected by any constraint: they can be formed by any type of verb, and with any type of subject, whether they are arguments or expletives (Di Tullio 2008). On the other hand, there is another type of participle, which can agree in gender and number with a noun, as in the following examples (from Di Tullio 2008): (1) a. Los deseados galardones. ‘The desired awards’ b. Una familia fue desalojada. ‘A family was evicted’ According to Di Tullio (2008), participles can be characterised by three main features: [past], [passive], and [perfect], which are activated (or not) depending on diferent grammatical conditions, in particular, in combination with a particular auxiliary verb: haber ‘have’ for [past], ser ‘be’ for [passive], and estar ‘be’ for [perfect]. The [past] feature is mainly related to the internal temporality that most participles express in diferent compound tenses, such as the perfect (ha caído) or the conditional perfect (habría caído). The [passive] relates to voice, that is, with the way that verbal arguments are syntactically expressed. The [perfect] relates to aspect—more specifcally, to the expression of a resultant state, subsequent to the end provided by the verb. Participles of stative verbs, such as deber ‘owe’, only have the [past] feature, so they can only appear as part of compound tenses: (2) a. Pedro había debido mucho dinero. ‘Pedro had owed a lot of money’ b. *Mucho dinero ha sido debido (por Pedro). ‘A lot of money has been owed (by Pedro)’ c. *Mucho dinero está debido. ‘A lot of money is owed’ Participles of activity verbs, such as acariciar ‘caress’, do not have the [perfect] feature, so they are not compatible with estar:

485

Rafael Marín and Antonio Fábregas

(3) a. Pedro ha acariciado al perro. ‘Pedro has caressed the dog’ b. El perro ha sido acariciado (por Pedro). ‘The dog has been caressed (by Pedro)’ c. *El perro está acariciado. ‘The dog is caressed’ According to Di Tullio (2008), only participles of telic verbs, such as traducir ‘translate’, convey all three features, and this is why they can appear in compound tenses with haber, (4)a; in passive sentences with ser, (4)b; and in passive sentences with estar, (4)c. (4) a. Pedro ha traducido la novela. ‘Pedro has translated the novel’ b. La novela ha sido traducida (por Pedro). ‘The novel has been translated (by Pedro)’ c. La novela está traducida. ‘The novel is translated’ There are, however, certain participles of telic verbs, such as llenado or limpiado, that do not seem to have a resultative meaning, as shown by their incompatibility with estar: *La habitación está llenada/limpiada ‘The room is flled/cleaned’.

3 Participles and perfective adjectives Participles like llenado ‘flled’ or limpiado ‘cleaned’ appear to be in complementary distribution with morphologically related adjectives, such as lleno ‘full’or limpio ‘clean’, which do combine with estar: La habitación está llena/limpia ‘The room is full/clean’ (Bosque 1990; Marín 1997). In pairs like lleno-llenado, it appears that the participle has lost the [perfect] feature in favour of the corresponding perfective adjective. (5) a. La habitación ha sido limpiada/ *limpia. ‘The room has been cleaned/ clean b. La habitación está limpia /??limpiada. ‘The room is clean/ cleaned’ Perfective adjectives are of special interest because they clearly show that participles in estar passives, such as La puerta está cerrada ‘The door is closed’, are in fact ambiguous between a resultative reading (the door is in a state of having become closed) and a purely stative meaning (the door is in a state of being closed, and no previous event is presupposed). In fact, pairs like lleno-llenado are close to English pairs of the type open-opened. According to Embick (2004), (6)a has two possible interpretations: as an eventive passive (someone opened the door), or as a resultative (the door was in a state of having become open); while (6)b only has a (purely) stative meaning. (6) a. The door was opened. b. The door was open.

486

Participles and gerunds

According to Fábregas and Marín (2020), although certain roots must use a perfective adjective instead of a past participle with estar in the unmarked interpretation, (7), the participle is allowed under certain conditions, (8). (7) a. La habitación ya está limpia. the room already is clean ‘The room is already clean’ (8) a. #La habitación ya está limpiada. the room already is cleaned ‘(I report that) the room is cleaned after someone cleaned it’ b. Ya está limpiada la playa de En Bossa (Diario Vasco, 26.08.2007) already is cleaned the beach of En Bossa Fábregas and Marín (2020) point out that this phenomenon is clearer with other light verbs, such as dejar ‘leave’ or quedarse ‘remain’; with those verbs, the past participle is completely blocked, and the corresponding perfective adjective must be used in its place. (9)

a. Juan dejó la habitación limpia. Juan left the room clean ‘Juan performed an action that resulted in the room being clean’ b. *Juan dejó la habitación limpiada. Juan left the room cleaned Intended: ‘Juan performed an action that resulted in the room being cleaned’ (10) a. La habitación se quedó limpia. the room SE remained clean ‘The room got clean’ b. *La habitación se quedó limpiada. the room SE remained cleaned Perfective adjectives were frst defned as a class in Bosque (1990, 185), as denoting states reached by the entities they are predicated of. In other words, perfective adjectives have the state denotation that is typically associated with some uses of the participle (Juan se ha dormido ‘Juan has fallen asleep’), but lack the morphology of participles and cannot be used in contexts such as the perfect aspect of a verb (12). This defnition means adjectives such as those in (11) fall inside the class: (11) lleno ‘full’, vacío ‘empty’, limpio ‘clean’, sucio ‘dirty’, vivo ‘alive’, desnudo ‘naked’, descalzo ‘barefoot’, suelto ‘loose’, harto ‘fed-up’, despierto ‘awake’, borracho ‘drunk’, contento ‘satisfed’, oculto ‘hidden’, junto ‘assembled’, enfermo ‘sick’ Bosque emphasises that these adjectives can be related to irregular participles diachronically, but in modern Spanish, they cannot appear in combinations with the auxiliary haber ‘have’ in order to express perfect aspect. (12) *(Se) ha {lleno/ vacío/ despierto/ suelto/ contento. . .} SE has full/ empty/ awake/ loose/ satisfed

487

Rafael Marín and Antonio Fábregas

In any case, perfective adjectives are characterised by the following properties. First, they must always combine with the copula estar; they are not compatible with ser (cf. Fernández Leborans 1999; Arche 2006; Marín 2010; Fábregas 2012; Camacho 2012; Brucart 2012). (13) pro {está/*es} {desnudo/ vacío/ suelto/ contento/ borracho. . .}. pro beestar/*beser {naked/ empty/ loose/ satisfed/ drunk. . .} Perfective adjectives are also associated to closed-scale adjectives (Kennedy and McNally 2005), that is, absolute adjectives (Unger 1975) whose highest or lowest degree value is taken as the standard of comparison by default. (14) a. Juan está {completamente/ ligeramente} desnudo. Juan is completely/ slightly naked b. Juan está ligeramente sucio. Juan is slightly dirty Interestingly, perfective adjectives are morphologically related to verbs that satisfy two properties: frst, they must always have an internal argument (unaccusative and/or causative); second, the associated verbs are derived without the help of verbalisers such as ifc ‘ify’, iz ‘ise’, and so on. The verbs are formed from the roots by adding just a theme vowel (Oltra-Massuet 1999), only occasionally in a parasynthetic pattern (15)a (see Mateu, this volume). (15) a. suci-o dirty-Agr b. limpi-o clean-Agr c. desnud-o naked-Agr d. llen-o full-Agr e. ocult-o hidden-Agr

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

en-suci-a in-dirty-ThV limpi-a clean-ThV desnud-a naked-ThV llen-a fll-ThV ocult-a hidden-ThV

Additionally, perfective adjectives, (16)a, like participles, (16)b, can be predicates inside absolute participle constructions, taking a subject, and crucially without any overt aspectual marker (Hernanz 1991; Marín 1996). (16) a. Limpia su habitación, Luis procedió a limpiar la cocina. clean his room, Luis proceeded to clean the kitchen ‘Once his room was clean, Luis moved on to clean the kitchen’ b. Ordenada su habitación, Luis procedió a limpiar la cocina. Organised his room, Luis proceeded to clean the kitchen Regular adjectives cannot do this, unless there are overt aspectual markers that license the construction. (17) a. *Blanca la habitación, Luis procedió a pintar la cocina. white the room, Luis proceeded to paint the kitchen b.? {Una vez/ ya} blanca la habitación, Luis procedió a pintar la cocina. once/ already white the room, Luis proceeded to paint the kitchen 488

Participles and gerunds

Note that none of these properties is exclusive to perfective adjectives: what makes something a perfective adjective is the coincidence of all these properties.

4 Adjectival participles and adjectival passives Certain participles, depending on the grammatical contexts in which they appear, show clear adjectival properties. Since the seminal work of Wasow (1977), so-called adjectival participles (and adjectival passives) have been extensively studied, and a battery of diagnostics on ‘adjectivity’ for participles have been proposed (Wasow 1977; Levin and Rappaport 1986, among others). McIntyre (2013) summarises these tests for English as follows. Adjectival participles (i) can appear in prenominal position (the closed door), (ii) accept degree modifers (It is very overrated), (iii) accept negative prefx -un (unattended matters), (iv) can be taken by verbs that only take adjectives (It seemed damaged), and (v) can coordinate with adjectives (They are dressed and ready). These tests do not apply easily to Spanish (Bosque 2014), so the interest has been focused on estar + participle constructions, which are widely assumed to be adjectival passives.

4.1 Verbal vs. adjectival passives Adjectival passives difer from verbal passives in a number of properties; here we will concentrate on three of them: (i) the eventive-stative denotation, (ii) the referentiality of by-phrases, and (iii) degree modifcation. First, according to most authors (Gehrke and Marco 2015; Berro 2019, and references therein), verbal passives denote events, while adjectival passives denote states: (18)a describes the event that somebody (a caretaker) closed the door, while (18)b describes that the door is in the state of having become closed. (18) a. La puerta ha sido cerrada (por el bedel). ‘The door has been closed (by the caretaker)’ b. La puerta está cerrada. ‘The door is closed’ Second, when adjectival passives accept agent complements (which is not always the case as in *La puerta está cerrada por el bedel ‘The door is closed by the caretaker’), these by-phrases are not fully referential. Compare, in this regard, verbal passives and adjectival passives (examples taken from Gehrke and Marco 2015), respectively: (19) a. El cuadro fue pintado por un niño pelirrojo. ‘The picture was painted by a ginger child’ b. El cuadro fue pintado por este niño. ‘The picture was painted by this child’ (20) a. *El cuadro estaba pintado por un niño pelirrojo. ‘The picture was painted by a ginger child’ b. *El cuadro estaba pintado por este niño. ‘The picture was painted by this child’ 489

Rafael Marín and Antonio Fábregas

Thirdly, unlike verbal passives, adjectival passives allow degree modifcation: (21) *La ventana ha sido muy abierta. ‘The window has been very open’ (22) La ventana está muy abierta. ‘The window is very open’ Other properties illustrating the diference between adjectival and verbal passives can be found in Bruening (2014), García-Pardo (2017), Berro (2019), and references therein.

4.2 Adjectival passives with ser? In the preceding section, we have seen that verbal passives are supposed to be eventive, while adjectival passives are supposed to be stative (Berro 2019). As far as Spanish is concerned, it is also widely assumed that verbal/eventive passives are constructed with ser, while adjectival/stative passives are constructed with estar (Gehrke and Marco 2014, 2015). These two predictions seem to have broad coverage, though some constructions are exempt. This is the case with passives of subject-experiencer psychological verbs (hereafter SEPVs) of the kind shown in (23), which are constructed with ser despite their stative nature: (23) Pedro es odiado/temido. Pedro is hated/feared Recently, Marín (2020) has shown that SEPV passives are adjectival, so the generalisation that adjectival passives always take estar should be revised, given that certain adjectival passives take ser. There is a broad consensus in considering that participles of object-experiencer psychological verbs (OEPVs), such as aburrir ‘to bore’ or preocupar ‘to worry’, (24), are adjectival participles (Luján 1981; Gehrke and Marco 2015): (24) aburrido, agobiado, angustiado, apasionado, apenado, asombrado, asustado, confundido, disgustado, enfadado, excitado, fascinado, ilusionado, indignado, obsesionado, ofendido, ofuscado, perturbado, preocupado, sorprendido. bored, overwhelmed, anguished, passionate, saddened, amazed, afraid, confused, upset, angry, aroused, fascinated, excited, outraged, obsessed, ofended, obfuscated, disturbed, worried, surprised. On the contrary, SEPV participles, such as admirar ‘to admire’ or odiar ‘to hate’, (25), are mostly considered verbal participles (Gehrke and Marco 2015): (25) amado, admirado, adorado, anhelado, ansiado, apreciado, codiciado, deseado, despreciado, detestado, envidiado, estimado, odiado, querido, preferido, respetado, sentido, sufrido, temido, venerado. loved, admired, adored, yearned, long-desired, appreciated, coveted, desired, despised, detested, envied, valued, hated, loved, preferred, respected, sincere, sufered, feared, revered. However, as shown by Marín (2020), there are more than enough reasons to sustain that participles of SEPVs are as adjectival as participles of OEPVs. The frst reason, and probably the most important one, is that SEPV participles can pass tests regarding adjectival properties in equal measure to OEPV participles. 490

Participles and gerunds

First, we can observe that not only OEPV participles can precede the noun that they modify, but SEPV participles can, too: (26) a. sus angustiados/indignados padres. ‘their anguished/outraged parents’ b. nuestro respetado/temido colega. ‘our respected/feared colleague’ A second diagnostic that has an impact on the adjectival character of a linguistic object is the modifcation through adverbs of degree, for example, muy (very) or bastante (quite), which both OEPVs and SEPVs accept: (27) a. Sus padres están muy/bastante angustiados. ‘Their parents are very/quite anguished’ b. Nuestro colega es muy/bastante respetado. ‘Our colleague is very/quite respected’ It is worth pointing out that both types of participles also accept the superlative, (28), as well as other typical adjectival sufxes, such as the diminutive (angustiadito ‘a little anguished’ respetadito ‘a little respected’) (see Pastor, this volume and Kornfeld, this volume). (28) a. Sus padres están angustiadísimos/indignadísimos. ‘Their parents are very anguished/very outraged’ b. Nuestro colega es admiradísimo/respetadísimo. ‘Our colleague is very admired/very respected’ Another interesting test is provided by some verbs—such as parecer (to seem), sentirse (to feel)—that, like their equivalents in English, only take adjectives. Crucially, both OEPV and SEPV participles can be taken by these verbs: (29) a. Parece angustiado/indignado. ‘He seems anguished/outraged’ b. Parece querido/respetado. ‘He seems loved/respected’ Finally, observe that both types of participles can coordinate with adjectives, which is indicative evidence of their adjectival character. (30) a. Se siente angustiado y molesto. ‘He feels anguished and annoyed’ b. Se siente odiada e indigna. ‘She feels hated and unworthy’ It can therefore be concluded that SEPV participles, like OEPV ones, are adjectival. In this case, the generalisation that Spanish stative/adjectival passives always take estar is no longer tenable. According to Marín (2020), there are two types of adjectival passives in Spanish: (i) those that denote stage-level states, which are only constructed with estar, and (ii) those that denote individual-level states, which are only constructed with ser. 491

Rafael Marín and Antonio Fábregas

4.3 Resultative and non-resultative adjectival passives Until recently, it has been widely assumed that only participles of telic verbs are able to form estar adjectival passives, (32). Participles of atelic verbs, both states, (33), and processes, (34), are not. (31) a. El coche está abollado. ‘The car is dented’ b. La puerta está cerrada. ‘The door is closed’ (32) *Ese coche está preferido. ‘This car is preferred’ (33) *El perro está acariciado. ‘The dog is caressed’ In recent years, it has been shown that certain atelic verbs are also able to appear in estar adjectival passives. Among these verbs, we fnd at least three groups: (i) object-experiencer psychological verbs, (ii) extent verbs, and (iii) Davidsonian state verbs. Although the aspectual value of object-experiencer psych verbs (OEPV) is still a matter of debate, there are enough arguments to conclude at least that most Spanish OEPVs, such as preocupar(se), obsesionar(se), or enfadar(se), are not telic (Marín and McNally 2005, 2011). Thus, adjectival passives such as those in (35) are not resultative. (34) a. Pedro está preocupado (por el futuro). ‘Pedro is worried (about the future)’ b. El jefe está obsesionado (con la rentabilidad económica). ‘The boss is obsessed (with economic proftability)’ So-called extent verbs (Gawron 2005, 2009; Koontz-Garboden 2010), such as rodear or cubrir in (36), constitute another group of non-telic predicates that also appear in estar adjectival passives, (37): (35) a. Una valla de madera rodea la casa. ‘A wooden fence surrounds the house’ b. Un manto de nieve cubría la montaña. ‘A blanket of snow covered the mountain’ (36) a. La casa está rodeada por una valla de madera. ‘The house is surrounded by a wooden fence’ b. La montaña estaba cubierta por un manto de nieve. ‘The mountain was covered by a blanket of snow’ A third group of non-telic predicates being able to appear in estar adjectival passives are those of the type gobernar ‘rule’ or vigilar ‘guard’, which denote Davidsonian states according to Fábregas and Marín (2017): (37) a. España está gobernada por los nacionalistas. ‘Spain is ruled by the nationalists’ b. La fábrica está vigilada por profesionales. ‘The factory is guarded by professionals’ 492

Participles and gerunds

A very interesting point of most estar adjectival passives including participles of Davidsonian state verbs is that they have a progressive denotation: sentences in (37) are equivalent to those in (38): (38) a. España está siendo gobernada por los nacionalistas. ‘Spain is being ruled by the nationalists’ b. La fábrica está siendo vigilada por profesionales. ‘The factory is being guarded by professionals’ This is something really unexpected, since participles are supposed to convey a past and/or a perfect meaning, not a progressive one. In any case, from the previous discussion, we can draw the conclusion that estar adjectival passives are not always resultative, so the generalisation that only participles of telic verbs are allowed in these constructions should be revised. One interesting solution is, in line with Rapp (1996), to postulate that verbs allowed in adjectival passives should include a stative component, as is the case in the three groups of verbs analysed in this section: OEPVs (inchoative states), extent verbs (dynamic states), and gobernar verbs (Davidsonian states). On the other hand, participles of telic verbs are allowed in adjectival passives with estar because they denote resultant states.

4.4 Active participles When talking about participles, it is assumed by default that they convey a passive meaning, to the point that they are also called passive participles (Bosque 1999; Di Tullio 2008). However, not all participles express a passive meaning. This is, for instance, the case of viajada ‘travelled’ or comido ‘eaten’ in the following examples: (39) a. (Es) un niño bien comido. ‘(He is) a well-eaten child’ b. (Es) una persona muy viajada. ‘(She is) a well-travelled person’ The interpretation of (40)a is not, of course, that a child has been (well) eaten, but that a child (habitually) eats well. In the case of (40)b, the passive interpretation is not even feasible, given that viajar ‘travel’ is an unergative verb, and passives can only be built on verbs that have an internal argument. In short, participles such as those in (40) have an active interpretation, and this is why they are labelled active participles (Borgonovo 1999; Varela 2002; Di Tullio 2008; Felíu 2008; Armstrong 2017). Their main property is that they modify the external argument—not the internal one—of their verbal base. According to Crespí (in press), the same participle is ambiguous between the passive and the active reading in some cases. When, for example, leído ‘read’ in (41), is interpreted as being passive, we understand that there are a lot of people who read Jaume Cabré’s writing; in the active reading, we understand that Jaume Cabré has read a lot. (40) Jaume Cabré es un autor muy leído. [adapted from Crespí, in press] ‘Jaume Cabré is a widely read author’ 493

Rafael Marín and Antonio Fábregas

In any case, it is because active participles are oriented to the external argument of the source verb that they are only formed from unergative verbs (e.g. viajar ‘travel) and transitive verbs that can be used in an intransitive way (leer ‘read’). Nonetheless, the (strong) constraints governing the formation of Spanish active participles remain somewhat mysterious (Crespí, in press). We still don’t know, for instance, how to explain convincingly why we can say Es una mujer muy viajada ‘(She) is a well travelled woman’, but not *Es una mujer muy reída ‘(She) is a well laughed woman’. Armstrong (2017) distinguishes three types of active participles (APs) in Spanish: resultatives, (41); habitual perfectives, (42); and tend-to-properties, (43): (41) a. Estamos bien comidos. ‘(We are) well-eaten’ b. Juan está bebido. ‘Juan is drunk’ (42) a. La profesora es muy leída. ‘The teacher is well read’ b. El correspondiente es muy viajado. ‘The correspondent is well-travelled’ (43) a. Juana es confada. ‘Juan is naïve/innocent (overly trusting of others)’ b. Pedro es presumido. ‘Pedro is conceited’ c. El profesor es aburrido. ‘The teacher is boring’ Resultative APs, like canonical adjectival participles, denote resultant states from events described by the source verb. Thus, in (42)a, comido ‘eaten’ describes a state being the result of eating some amount of food, while the state described by bebido ‘drunk’ in (42)b is the result of drinking some amount of alcohol. Habitual perfective APs describe a property of the subject that has been attained from performing the same action many times. Thus, in (43)a, leída ‘read’ describes a property of the teacher that has been attained through reading many works, while viajada ‘travelled’ describes a property of the correspondent that has been attained through travelling to many places. Tend-to-properties APs describe properties of the subject that have been attained by having the tendency to do something habitually. Thus, in (44), the properties of the respective subjects have been attained through habitually trusting, boasting, or boring; these are simple properties that characterise their subjects because they tend to trust, boast, or bore.1 Armstrong (2017) argues that, in spite of some diferences between these three classes, the general properties of active participles motivate treating them as adjectival antipassives, given that they have an argument that corresponds to the external argument of a verbal source.

5 Gerunds In contrast to participles, which, as we have just seen, are difcult to classify aspectually, categorially, and even argumentally, the role of gerunds is more straightforward in Spanish grammar.

494

Participles and gerunds

Gerunds are always active in the sense that they keep the same argument as subject that the base verbal form defned as such: (44) Con Juan durmiendo, no podemos hacer la festa. ‘With Juan sleeping, we cannot have a party’

5.1 The grammatical category of gerunds In terms of their grammatical category, they have traditionally been described as having the distribution of an adverb. Current studies agree that this characterisation is too vague— adverbs are a heterogeneous category (Bosque 1990). More precisely, gerunds have the distribution of prepositional phrases—cf. Fábregas (2008), RAE and ASALE (2009: §27.2). This is refected in two main properties: gerunds do not appear in argument positions (Di Tullio 1998), unlike their English equivalents (with the exception of some American varieties (Sedano 2002). (45) *Escribiendo una tesis es complicado. Intended: ‘Writing a thesis is complicated’ Second, gerunds can be used to express locations, as in example (46a), which is ungrammatical in the English equivalent. The interpretation of (46a) is roughly ‘The pharmacy is in the location you reach after turning the corner’. This end-of-journey interpretation is similar to the one that prepositions expressing trajectories receive when they are introduce by stative locative verbs in English, such as (46b)—‘the pharmacy is in the location you reach after you cross the bridge’. (46) a. La farmacia está girando la esquina. ‘The pharmacy is located at the other side of the corner’ U(lit. ‘is turning the corner’) b. The pharmacy is across the bridge. This has led several authors to the conclusion that gerunds are internally infnitival forms introduced by a path preposition (47). Remember that gerunds come from the oblique forms of the infnitive in Latin (ars amandi, ‘art of loving’). (47) [PPpath [VP]] This prepositional nature explains why the gerund appears in Spanish in places where we expect prepositional modifers, such as verbal adjuncts (48). (48) Llegamos {saliendo el sol / al salir el sol / a la salida del sol} ‘We arrived {with the sun coming out / when the sun came out / at dawn}’ In the same way that PPs can be noun modifers, gerunds are also able to appear in an ‘adjectival’ position—which is typically condemned by normative grammars. (49) Un hombre huyendo de sus enemigos es peligroso. ‘A man feeing from his enemies is dangerous’

495

Rafael Marín and Antonio Fábregas

5.2 The grammatical aspect of gerunds In terms of their aspect, gerunds express imperfective aspect (García Fernández 2000): imperfective aspect focuses the internal phase of an eventuality, excluding its starting point or its termination. This characterisation seems essentially correct given several observations. To begin with, gerunds are the non-fnite forms used in continuative and progressive periphrases (50; García Fernández 2006). (50) Juan {está/sigue/continúa/lleva un tiempo/anda} estudiando. ‘Juan {is studying/continues studying/has been studying for some time}’ In subordinate non-fnite clauses, gerunds express eventualities that are ongoing while the main eventuality applies, while participles express eventualities that are already fnished, with the exceptions noted previously for atelic verbs. (51) a. Durmiendo el niño, salimos de casa. ‘We left the house while the child was sleeping’ b. Dormido el niño, salimos de casa. ‘We left the house once the child had fallen asleep’ A similar contrast between ongoing eventuality and resulting state is found with the verb estar. (52) a. Juan está escribiendo el libro. ‘Juan is writing the book’ b. El libro está escrito. ‘The book is written’ It is possible to relate this aspectual value with the hypothesis that gerunds are infnitives introduced with path prepositions. The internal phase of the event, excluding the initiation and the termination, that characterises imperfective aspect can be conceptualised as a trajectory which measures the internal progression of the action denoted (Ramchand 2008). The role of the path preposition with gerunds would be to choose the internal development of the eventuality—any internal point of the ongoing eventuality—so that the resulting form expresses imperfective aspect.

6 Conclusions This cursory overview of participles and gerunds has shown that the traditional classifcation of grammatical categories is insufcient to characterise all infectional or derived forms of verbs. With infnitives, participles and gerunds are hybrid categories whose behaviour shares properties of verbs with those of another grammatical category; sometimes, as in the case of participles, it is difcult to decide whether the form is closer to a verb or to a non-verbal category. In terms of aspect, participles are still puzzling, given the range of readings that they provide. Gerunds are relatively easier to categorise, but still we see that they have both ‘adverbial’ and ‘adjectival’ uses that can perhaps be explained with the hypothesis that they are prepositional forms. 496

Participles and gerunds

Note 1 Note that, according to Crespí (in press), resultative APs denote stage-level states, which explains that they combine with estar in copular sentences (41), while both habitual perfective and tend-to-properties, APs express individual-level properties, which explains that they combine with ser in copular sentences (42)–(43).

References Arche, M. J. 2006. Individuals in time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Armstrong, G. 2017. “Spanish participios activos are adjectival antipassives.” The Linguistic Review 34 (1): 1–37. Berro, A. 2019. “Non-Verbal Participles in Basque and Spanish.” In Basque and Romance. Aligning grammars, edited by A. Berro, B. Fernández, and J. Ortiz de Urbina, 82–138. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Borgonovo, C. 1999. “Participios activos.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica XLVII: 281–303. Bosque, I. 1990. “Sobre el aspecto de los adjetivos y participios.” In Tiempo y aspecto en español, edited by I. Bosque, 177–214. Madrid: Cátedra. Bosque, I. 1999. “El sintagma adjetival. Modifcadores y complementos del adjetivo.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 217–30. Madrid: Espasa. Bosque, I. 2014. “On Resultative Past Participles in Spanish.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 13: 41–77. Brucart, J. M. 2012. “Copular Alternations in Spanish and Catalan Attributive Sentences.” Linguística: Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto 7: 9–43. Bruening, B. 2014. “Word Formation Is Syntactic: Adjectival Passives in English.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 363–422. Camacho, J. 2012. “Ser and estar: The Individual/Stage-Level Distinction and Aspectual Predication.” In The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, edited by J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, and E. O’Rourke, 453–77. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Crespí, I. In press. “Sobre alguns participis actius amb verbs de moviment.” Llengua i Literatura. Di Tullio, Á. 1998. “Complementos no fexionados de verbos de percepción física en español.” Verba 25: 197–221. Di Tullio, Á. 2008. “Participios y adjetivos.” Verba 61: 99–125. Embick, D. 2004. “On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English.” Linguistic Inquiry 35: 355–92. Fábregas, A. 2008. “Categorías híbridas en morfología distribuida: el caso del gerundio.” In Categorización lingüística y límites intercategoriales. Anejo 61, Verba, edited by M. J. Rodríguez Espiñeira and J. Pena, 57–87. Santiago: Ediciones de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Fábregas, A. 2012. “A Guide to IL and SL in Spanish. Properties, Problems and a Proposal.” Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 1: 1–71. Fábregas, A., and R. Marín. 2017. “On Non-Dynamic Eventive Verbs in Spanish.” Linguistics 55 (3): 451–88. Fábregas, A., and R. Marín. 2020. “The Internal Structure of Perfective Adjectives: States and Blocking.” Studies of Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 13 (2): 331–60. Felíu Arquiola, E. 2008. “La codifcación de los participios activos.” In Categorización lingüística y límites intercategoriales. Anejo 61, Verba, edited by M. J. Rodríguez Espiñeira and J. Pena, 165–80. Santiago: Ediciones de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Fernández Leborans, M. J. 1999. “La predicación: Las oraciones copulativas.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 2357–60. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. García Fernández, L. 2000. La gramática de los complementos temporales. Madrid: Visor. García Fernández, L. (dir.). 2006. Diccionario de perífrasis verbales. Madrid: Gredos. García-Pardo, A. 2017. “Aspect and Argument Structure in Adjectival Passives.” Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 6 (1): 21–52. Gawron, J. M. 2005. “Generalized Paths.” In Semantics and Linguistic Theory 15: 76–94. Gawron, J. M. 2009. The Lexical Semantics of Extent Verbs. San Diego, CA: Ms. San Diego State University.

497

Rafael Marín and Antonio Fábregas

Gehrke, B., and C. Marco. 2014. “Diferent by-Phrases with Adjectival and Verbal Passives: Evidence from Spanish Corpus Data.” Lingua 149: 188–214. Gehrke, B., and C. Marco. 2015. “Las pasivas psicológicas.” In Los predicados psicológicos, edited by R. Marín, 117–57. Madrid: Visor. Hernanz, M. L. 1991. “Spanish Absolute Constructions and Aspect.” Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 75–128. Kennedy, C., and L. McNally. 2005. “Scale Structure, Degree Modifcation, and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates.” Language 81: 345–81. Koontz-Garboden, A. 2010. “The Lexical Semantics of Derived Statives.” Linguistics and Philosophy 33: 285–324. Levin, B., and M. Rappaport. 1986. “The Formation of Adjectival Passives.” Linguistic Inquiry 17: 623–61. Luján, M. 1981. “The Spanish Copulas as Aspectual Indicators.” Lingua 54: 165–210. Marín, R. 1996. “Aspectual Properties of Spanish Absolute Small Clauses.” Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 183–212. Marín, R. 1997. “Participios con aspecto de adjetivos: entre la diacronía y la morfología.” Moenia 3: 365–76. Marín, R. 2010. “Spanish Adjectives within Bounds.” In Adjectives: Formal Analysis in Syntax and Semantics, edited by P. Cabredo and O. Matushansky, 307–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Marín, R. 2020. “Las pasivas de los verbos psicológicos de experimentante sujeto.” RSEL 50 (2): 183–200. Marín, R., and L. McNally. 2005. “The Aktionsart of Spanish Refexive Psychological Verbs.” Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9: 212–25. Marín, R., and L. McNally. 2011. “Inchoativity, Change of State and Telicity.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29 (2): 467–502. McIntyre, A. 2013. “Adjectival Passives and Adjectival Participles in English.” In Non-canonical Passives, edited by A. Alexiadou and F. Schäfer, 21–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Oltra-Massuet, I. 1999. “On the Constituent Structure of Catalan Verbs.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 279–322. RAE and ASALE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rapp, I. 1996. “Zustand Passiv? Überlegungen zum sogenannten ‘Zustandspassiv’.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 15 (2): 231–65. Rodríguez Ramalle, T. M. 2008. Las formas no personales del verbo. Madrid: Arco Libros. Rodríguez Ramalle, T. M. 2016. “Gerundio y participio.” In Enciclopedia de Lingüística Hispánica, edited by J. Gutiérrez-Rexach, 640–51. London and New York: Routledge. Sedano, M. 2002. “¿Cambios en el tratamiento del gerundio?” Letras 62: 113–35. Unger, P. 1975. Ignorance: A Case for Skepticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Varela, S. 2002. “Active or Subjective Adjectival-Participles in Spanish.” In Structure, Meaning and Acquisition in Spanish: Papers from the 4th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, edited by J. K. Lee, K. L. Geeslin, and J. C. Clements, 304–16. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Wasow, T. 1977. “Transformations and the Lexicon.” In Formal Syntax, edited by P. Culicover, 327–60. New York: Academic Press.

498

35 Grammaticalization Carlota de Benito MorenoGrammaticalization

(Gramaticalización)

Carlota de Benito Moreno

1 Introduction A recurrent observation in works dealing with the evolution of Romance languages from Latin is that infection is richer in the latter than in the former, since many Latin infectional categories (case, the passive and middle voices, the comparative, etc.) were lost in the daughter languages, conveyed instead by periphrastic mechanisms. This typological change has often been described as an “analytical tendency” of the Romance languages, a somewhat teleological notion that seeks to capture the fact that much of the grammatical information conveyed in Latin by morphological methods is expressed outside word limits in Romance languages (Menéndez Pidal 1962; García-Hernández 1980). In more practical terms, this analytical turn means that a number of structures have been grammaticalized in the evolution from Latin to Romance to encode such meanings. The present chapter considers some of these processes, specifcally those that resulted in the creation of new morphological structures. In section 2, I explain the main concepts of grammaticalization theory through the synchronic comparison of two stages of a construction. In section 3, I discuss the diachronic development of three classical examples of grammaticalization in Spanish, namely future and conditional afxes, the adverbial marker -mente, and perfect tenses. Section 4 addresses some of the analytical and theoretical questions that grammaticalization processes raise in the synchronic analyses. A short conclusion is given in section 5. Key words: grammaticalization; future tense; conditional tense; perfect tenses; formation of adverbs Una observación recurrente en los trabajos que se ocupan de la evolución de las lenguas romances desde el latín se refere a que la morfología fexiva de esta lengua es más rica que las de aquellas, pues muchas de las categorías fexivas latinas (como el caso, las voces pasiva y media, el comparativo, etc.) se perdieron en las lenguas románicas, donde se expresan por medio de mecanismos perifrásticos. Este cambio tipológico se ha descrito frecuentemente como la tendencia analítica de las lenguas romances, una noción algo teleológica con la que se busca capturar el hecho de que mucha de la información gramatical que el latín expresaba con mecanismos morfológicos se expresa en las lenguas románicas fuera de los límites de la palabra (Menéndez Pidal 1962; García-Hernández 1980). En términos prácticos, este giro analítico implica que una serie de 499

Carlota de Benito Moreno

estructuras se han gramaticalizado en el paso del Latín a las lenguas romances para codifcar estos signifcados. Este capítulo está dedicado a algunos de esos procesos, específcamente a aquellos que resultaron en la creación de nuevas estructuras morfológicas. En el apartado 2 se explican los conceptos fundamentales de la teoría de la gramaticalización, a partir de la comparación sincrónica de dos estadios de una construcción. En el apartado 3 se discuten los desarrollos diacrónicos de tres ejemplos clásicos de gramaticalización en español: los afjos del futuro y el condicional, el marcador adverbial –mente y los tiempos compuestos. En el apartado 4 se consideran algunas de las cuestiones analíticas y teóricas que surgen en el análisis sincrónico de los procesos de gramaticalización. Se ofrece una breve conclusión en el apartado 5. Palabras clave: gramaticalización; tiempo futuro; tiempo condicional; tiempos compuestos; formación de adverbios

2 General questions about grammaticalization Grammaticalization is defned as “a process by which a lexical form or construction, in specifc pragmatic and morphosyntactic contexts, assumes a grammatical function or by which an already-grammatical form or construction, in specifc contexts, acquires an even more grammatical one” (Company 2012a, 675). This is a gradual process, which means that the grammaticalization of an item is a matter of degree, which can be measured through grammaticalization scales, that is, a “set of criteria which concern the autonomy of the language sign” (Lehmann 1985, 306). The last stage of a grammaticalization scale is the acquisition of afx-status. That is, grammaticalization not only creates grammar but might also create morphology. A classic example of such grammaticalization is the development of the Romance future and conditional tenses, which I  will use to illustrate the main concepts related to grammaticalization. Both Latin and Romance languages have an infectional future tense. However, these are not related. While Latin used the afxes -bo and -am (amabo, monebo, legam, audiam), the Romance forms (-ré in Spanish, Catalan, -rei in Portuguese, -rai in French, -ró in Italian, etc.) are the result of the grammaticalization of a modal periphrasis that combined the present tense of the verb habēre and an infnitive: cantare habeō ‘I have to sing’. The conditional afxes are the result of the same process, but with the imperfect forms of habēre: cantare habēbam ‘I had to sing’. Lehmann (1985, 2015) proposes three parameters to measure the grammaticalization of an item: its weight, its cohesion, and its variability, all of which apply to both the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic levels. In the remainder of this section, I will briefy discuss these parameters (mostly following Lehmann 2015). 1

500

Paradigmatic weight (integrity) refers to the degree to which the substance of the sign allows it to maintain its identity and distinctness. Grammaticalization is characterized by a gradual decrease of integrity, which must occur at the semantic level and might also be apparent at the phonological level. Desemanticization or bleaching implies the loss of semantic features. In the case of the Romance futures and conditionals, habēre lost a number of modal nuances (such as intention, predestination, and necessity, Company 1985/1986), retaining only its future meaning. Of course, habēre had already been desemanticized from its original meaning of possession to the modal auxiliary found in the Latin periphrasis. Phonological attrition is also evident in this case: the future and conditional afxes show all phonetically reduced forms of the paradigm of Latin habere and often phonetically reduced forms in comparison with the corresponding forms of the Romance verb:

Grammaticalization Table 35.1 Latin habēre, Spanish haber, and the Spanish future and conditional tenses habēre

habēre

imperfect

present

2

3

4

5

haber present

haber imperfect

Ending of the future

Ending of the conditional

1sg

habeō

habēbam

he

había

é

ía

2sg

habēs

habēbās

has

habías

ás

ías

3sg

habet

habēbat

ha

había

á

ía

1pl

habēmus

habēbāmus

hemos

habíamos

emos

íamos

2pl

habētis

habēbātis

habéis

habíais

éis

íais

3pl

habent

habēbant

han

habían

an

ían

Paradigmatic cohesion (also called paradigmaticity) refers to the creation and integration of units in paradigms. Paradigmaticity increases during the grammaticalization process. The integration of periphrastic forms in morphological paradigms—as in the case of the future and the conditional tenses in Romance—is a classic example of the process (Lehmann 1985). Another hint of its higher degree of paradigmaticity is its higher degree of regularity, as also shown in Table 35.1: while habéis is the only form in the present with a radical hab-, this is regularized in the future afx -éis. Paradigmatic variability refers to the possibility of choosing the sign among others (when the context is kept constant). A  decrease in paradigmatic variability is typical of grammaticalization processes and is called obligatorifcation. In Latin modal periphrasis, habēre alternated with other modal verbs such as posse and dēbēre. The resulting afxes have eliminated this possibility. Syntagmatic weight (structural scope) of a unit refers to the structural size of the construction in which such a unit appears, which is determined by the level of constituent structure. A decrease in structural scope correlates with an increase in grammaticalization. The comparison of Latin habēre and the Romance future and conditional afxes clearly shows a lower structural scope of the latter; while the former attaches to an infnitive to form a lexical periphrasis, the latter attach to verb stems (the lowest limit in the decrease of syntagmatic weight) and result in verb forms. Syntagmatic cohesion (bondedness) refers to the degree of attachment of a unit with another unit with which it establishes a syntagmatic relation. Bondedness increases as grammaticalization increases, which is again clear in our example. At the phonetic level, habēre was typically juxtaposed to the lexical infnitive of the modal periphrasis but admitted the interpolation of elements between the two. The future and conditional afxes, in contrast, are merged with the verb stem to create a single word (univerbation). One clear efect of this bondedness is the impossibility of having a pause between the verbs stem and the afx, which was possible in the Latin periphrasis (Company 1985/1986). In Spanish, this merge is also apparent from a number of formal changes that afected the verb stem: once both elements formed a single unit, the infnitive lost its stress and the thematic vowel became a pretonic vowel. These were rather weak vowels in Medieval Spanish (except in the case of /a/) and were often lost—this also happened in a number of future and conditional forms of the second and third conjugation (Company 1985/1986). While some of the most frequent of these reduced forms have been preserved in Modern Spanish (1a–b), it should be noted that they were more numerous in Medieval Spanish (1c)—many forms recovered the vowel, perhaps due to the analogical pressure of the forms that never lost the vowel. Since the loss of the pretonic vowel often resulted in consonant clusters that did not otherwise 501

Carlota de Benito Moreno

occur in the language, they often sufered metathesis or epenthesis (1b), which highlights the narrow bond between the two elements. (1) a. poder > podré, haber > habré, querer > querré, saber > sabré b. tener > terné, tendré, poner > porné, pondré, salir > saldré c. deber > debré > deberé, entender > entendré > entenderé, meter > metré > meteré

6

At the semantic level, the increase of bondedness is not so evident; the future and conditional afxes can only signify a concept in combination with another element (the verb stem), and the same can be said of habēre, which can only express its modal values in combination with an infnitive. The increase in syntagmatic cohesion had already occurred when the originally lexical verb habēre entered such periphrases and became an auxiliary verb. Syntagmatic variability refers largely to “freedom of movement” and the possibility of appearing in several positions within a construction. Grammaticalization correlates with a lower degree of syntagmatic variability. Our example again shows a clear contrast in this respect—while in Latin, the orders cantare habeō and habeō cantare are both possible, the position of the future and conditional afxes is fxed and must follow the verb stem (cantaré, but *écantar). As can be seen, grammaticalization can afect all linguistic levels. At the semantic level, grammaticalization is the product of the loss of features, implying that the new meaning is more abstract. Such semantic change goes together with a morphosyntactic change (Garachana 2015), most often a reanalysis, that is, a “change in the structure of an expression or class of expressions that does not involve any immediate or intrinsic modifcation of its surface manifestation” (Langacker 1977, 58). At the phonetic level, grammaticalization is often accompanied by the loss of phonetic material or features.

3 Empirical aspects 3.1 Future and conditional tenses Grammaticalization is a gradual process, and the replacement of the Latin future forms in -bo/ -am by the periphrasis infnitive + habēre is no exception, as we will now observe (see Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume, for future forms, and Sanromán, this volume, for the notion of periphrasis). The following description is based mostly on Company (1985/1986). On the one hand, the periphrasis spread gradually through the verbal paradigm. At frst, this periphrasis was especially frequent in the passive voice (that is, with passive infnitives: amari habeō). Later it spread to deponent and intransitive verbs (traduci habeō) and last to transitive active verbs (amare habeō). On the other hand, its syntagmatic distribution also expanded gradually, since at frst it was only documented in subordinated clauses and only later spread to main clauses. Semantically, the periphrasis did not compete with the future from the outset, since, as noted previously, it originally conveyed a number of modal meanings. From Cicero onwards, it tends to convey obligation, but by the end of the Roman Empire, its only meaning is to convey the future. During the High Middle Ages it gained frequency in comparison to the morphological -bo/-am future; late Latin documents, as well as the frst Romance documents, already show fused forms such as (2a). In Spanish, these examples show the phonetic reduction phenomena 502

Grammaticalization

mentioned previously from the frst documents; that is, the pretonic vowel is recovered in a number of verbs from the 14th century onwards. That is not to say, however, that the periphrastic use has disappeared—it survives, with the auxiliary coming before the infnitive and allowing several prepositions between the two elements (2b). Without a preposition, the periphrasis is found in Spanish until the 16th century (Girón Alconchel 2005). Moreover, in Spanish (as in other western Romance languages, like Provençal, Catalan, and Portuguese) another construction is found until the 16th century, in which one or more clitic object pronouns appear between the infnitive and the auxiliary (2c). Since this construction shows the same word order as the future forms, it has been called the analytical future. Traditionally, this construction has been explained as a consequence of the Tobler-Mussafa Law, which states that clitic pronouns cannot appear in the frst position of a sentence (Roberts 1992). Accordingly, examples like (2c) are instances of enclisis to the frst element of a verbal periphrasis. However, examples such as (2d) are also found in the oldest documents, challenging the notion of the segmentation of the verbal form into two elements. The theoretical issues raised by these data are discussed in the next section. (2) a. lat. daras (Chronicle of Fredegar, 613); fr. prendrai, dirai (Oaths of Strasbourg, 842) b. he cantar (Girón Alconchel 2005), han lidiar (Cid, 3523), he murir (Cavallero Zifar, 116/2); an a pechar (Cid, 3235), avemos de andar (Cid, 821) c. darvos he (Cid, 272), aver la yemos (Cid, 2663) d. Dexaréuos las posadas (Cid, 1310); Dirévos de los cavalleros que levaron el mensaje (Cid, 1453, 3309) [Company 1985/1986]

3.2 Perfect tenses The example of grammaticalization I will address here involves the creation of verbal periphrases that convey the anterior tenses (see Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume). The Latin resultative construction DIRECT OBJECT + PARTICIPLE + habēre ‘to have’ evolved into the verbal forms haber + PARTICIPLE (3). Such a change implies 1) a semantic bleaching of habēre, which shows no traces of its original meaning of possession, and the loss of all the associated syntactic restrictions (e.g. the resultative construction only admitted transitive verbs); 2) the generalization of the semantic metonymical change (result > event); and 3) a reanalysis of the main verb habēre as an auxiliary verb that encodes all the grammatical features (person, number, mode, tense, and aspect) and also a reanalysis of the participle as the lexical verb in the periphrasis. This reanalysis implies a clear reduction of the structural scope of the two elements involved, which were originally elements of a sentence-level construction and were then grammaticalized into elements of a periphrastic verb tense. (3) epistulam scriptam habeo > he escrito una carta (Company and Cuétara 2007) The situation of this construction in Medieval Spanish was very diferent from its current characteristics: 1) there was alternation between aver and ser as auxiliary verbs, although the latter was only used with unaccusative intransitives (4); 2) the participle might show person and number agreement with the direct object (5); 3) the two elements of the periphrasis showed no fxed position (6); and 4) other elements could appear between habēre and the participle (7) (Company and Cuétara 2007). 503

Carlota de Benito Moreno

(4) a. ya non podía resollar con la grand fuerça que avia puesto para la Pobreza querer derribar (Corbacho, 1432) b. encontráronse con los çiento e çinquaenta cavalleros de los del conde que eran ydos a correr la tierra del rey (Cavallero Zifar, 1310–1320) [Company and Cuétara 2007] (5) a. Elle caso mies fjas, ca non gelas di yo;/quando las han dexadas a grant desonor (Cid, ca. 1140) (Company and Cuétara 2007) b. Al rey Fáriz tres colpes le avié dado (Cid, ca. 1140) [Company and Cuétara 2007] (6) a. Diçen luego: los mures han comido el queso (Libro de buen amor, 1330–1343) b. Muncho comido avía de yervas muy esquivas (Libro de buen amor, 1330–1343) [Company and Cuétara 2007] (7) a. commo avian aquellos marineros fecho (Cavallero Zifar, 1310–1320) b. destas cosas tan feas e tan malas que aquel escudero avia fecho (Cavallero Zifar, 1310–1320) [Company and Cuétara 2007] The changes that afected these structures ft nicely within those typically found in grammaticalization processes (see Company and Cuétara 2007, whom I  follow in the following description). First, the generalization of haber as the only auxiliary shows the gradual semantic bleaching of its original meaning and the decrease of paradigmatic variability or obligatorifcation of the form. This change was completed in the 17th century, by which time auxiliary ser was only found in fossilized constructions. Second, the loss of agreement with the direct object indicates a loss of paradigmatic weight (Lehmann 2015) and can also be seen as a sign of the structural reanalysis—the lack of agreement points to a weaker relationship between the direct object and the participle. This change is basically completed in the 16th century. Third, the fxation of the AUXILIARY + PARTICIPLE word order shows a prototypical example of reduction in syntagmatic variability. Although this order was already the most frequent from the time of the frst Romance texts, it was not generalized until the 15th century. Fourth, the possibility of interpolating elements between the auxiliary and the participle has drastically reduced, although in formal written genres, it is still possible to interrupt the periphrasis with the grammatical subject in some contexts [but not with the monosyllabic forms of the auxiliary, for instance, RAE and ASALE 2009, 28.5d, see (8)]. Until the end of the 13th century, it was possible to interpolate any kind of element, whereas from then until the beginning of the 16th century, this possibility was far less frequent and was also limited to certain elements. This shows a gradual increase in syntagmatic cohesion or bondedness. (8) a. Lo que habría yo hecho si. . . b. Había yo pensado que. . . c. *He yo pensado que. . . Finally, the construction attained the highest level of paradigmaticity or paradigmatic cohesion when it also began to be used as the perfect auxiliary in the periphrastic passive construction, some sporadic examples of which are found as early as the end of the 13th century (9). 504

Grammaticalization

(9) e lo qual diz que les ha sydo guardado fasta aquí (Documentos lingüísticos de España, 1487, Company and Cuétara 2007)

3.3 Adverbs in -mente Another classic example of grammaticalization is illustrated by the modal adverbs formed through the combination of an adjectival base and the segment -mente (in section  4, I  will discuss the morphological status of this segment). Latin had a number of mechanisms to form modal adverbs, such as adding the sufxes -(i)ter, -ē, and -(t)im to adjectives or by a noun in the ablative case (Company 2014). In Modern Spanish, two unrelated mechanisms are found, namely the use of the unmarked adjective and the addition of the element -mente to an adjectival base (Hummel 2013). As we know, -mente derives from the ablative form of the Latin noun mens, mentis ‘mind’. The diachronic evolution of this construction has been described as a prototypical case of grammaticalization (Company 2014). Although rare, Latin nominal phrases with an adjective, and the ablative mente bearing an almost modal meaning can be found from the 1st century BC: (10) Olli sensit simulata mente locutam. . . ‘He realized that he spoke {with a pretending mind/lies}’ [Virgilio, Aeneis, I a. C., pErsEus, apud Company 2014, 480] According to Company (2014), whom I follow in most of the following description, such examples can be seen as the bridging contexts for the new structure, that is, contexts where the reanalysis is frst produced—the phrase fts the original use of the ablative case for conveying modal meanings, but the physical meaning of mente has become blurred. Moreover, mente is only modifed by an adjective (decrease of structural scope), in a fxed order (loss of syntagmatic variability). The whole construction already seems to function as an adverb in Peninsular Latin texts from the 9th century. According to Company (2014), it was completely adverbialized in the frst Romance texts. Again, this process was gradual. While at frst only attitudinal adverbials could be formed with this construction, due to the original semantics of the noun mens, mentis, this meaning weakened (semantic bleaching), and it can now appear with a variety of adjectives to convey instrumental, aspectual, focal, intensifying adverbs, and so on (Company 2014; Detges 2015). Changes at the phonetic level are not so apparent, and in fact there are no clear signs of attrition in the evolution of these adverbial constructions. However, it must be borne in mind that these are not a necessary part of the grammaticalization. Moreover, some phonetically related changes have indeed taken place. On the one hand, adverbs in -mente have substantially reduced their formal variation (morphological fxation), since in Medieval Spanish, they show variable diphthongization (-miente ~ -mente), variable apocope (-mient ~ -miente, -ment ~ -mente), and the variable presence of an /r/, the origin of which remains a matter of debate (-mientre ~ -miente). On the other hand, the adjective and the noun could appear as separate words in writing until the 18th century, which perhaps casts doubt on the completion of the univerbation process (Detges 2015). According to Company (2014), however, this might be a refection of the conservativeness of writing or a sign that the word was felt to be a morphological compound. Nevertheless, there are a further two reasons to doubt that these two elements show a high degree of bondedness. First, both elements keep their primary stress. Second, the element -mente can be omitted if coordinated with another adverb in -mente: 505

Carlota de Benito Moreno

(11) Él me miró tranquila y silenciosamente. From a structural perspective, the grammaticalization of these adverbs required multiple reanalyses that afected several linguistic levels (Company 2012b): 1) reanalyses implying a downward movement at the linguistic level: noun phrase > word, adjective > stem, noun > afx (?); 2) reanalyses implying a change in the morphological status of the elements involved: infected > invariable (cf. the feminine ending of the adjective and the ablative case of the noun); 3) reanalyses implying a change in the hierarchical relationships between the elements involved: endocentric construction > exocentric construction, head > dependent (mente), modifer > stem (the adjective); and 4) a categorial reanalysis: noun > adverb. These changes also show that a paradigmatization was produced, since the new construction has been integrated in the adverbial paradigm. Obligatorifcation has not been produced and will arguably never take place, since there is no reason for adverbs to become obligatory (Company 2014).

4 Analytical and theoretical questions In this section, I address some of the analytical and theoretical questions that these grammaticalization processes raise, specifcally those that have to do with the synchronic analyses of the diferent stages of grammaticalization, the causes behind all the changes that take place during a grammaticalization (section 4.1), and the efects of the source construction in the synchronic behaviour of a grammaticalized element (section 4.2).

4.1 Unfnished grammaticalization vs. independent phenomena—is grammaticalization an epiphenomenon? The diachronic evolution of the future, conditional, and perfect tenses seem to have been the product of several gradual processes with a common goal—to produce more grammatical and less autonomous signs. Because of this gradualness, intermediate structures (that is, not fully grammaticalized ones) are found during this diachronic evolution. For instance, as noted previously, the coexistence of examples such as (2b) and (2c) until the 16th century has traditionally been explained as a consequence of the rules that governed the distribution of clitics in Medieval Spanish. This implies a lower degree of grammaticalization of the future and conditional tenses in this period, since they allow for the interpolation of elements between the infnitive and the auxiliary. In such a view, the auxiliary did not become an afx in Spanish until the 16th or 17th centuries (Menéndez Pidal 1962, §132; Roberts 1992). However, a more recent proposal argues that analytical (2c) and synthetic futures and conditionals (2b) are not equivalent and do not belong to the same construction. Company (1985/1986) has noted that these two constructions show morphophonological, suprasegmental, and syntactic diferences, despite having the same origin and being semantically identical. On the one hand, analytical futures and conditionals are very restricted syntactically—they only appear in sentences with a topicalized constituent, only admit the anteposition of topicalized elements (otherwise they are found in the frst position), only admit interpolated object clitics, and most commonly appear in clauses with a more reduced number of elements (as compared with the synthetic futures and conditionals). On the other hand, they do not show the morphophonemic phenomena associated with bondedness that the synthetic forms show—they allow for pauses between the elements of the construction and the infnitive never sufers the loss of the thematic vowel. Interestingly, intermediate forms (without the clitic and the loss of the thematic vowel) such as *deciré, poderé are never found. 506

Grammaticalization

Moreover, the analytical forms coexist with synthetic forms with enclitic pronouns [as in (2d) previously]. In fact, frst position clitics are documented since the beginning of the 15th century, but analytical forms are found until the 16th century, casting doubt on the applicability of the Tobler-Mussafa Law to explain these constructions. Accordingly, Company (1985/1986) argues that the synthetic futures are already fully grammaticalized in the earliest Spanish texts, while the analytical forms are fxed constructions associated with topicalization contexts (where the synthetic forms might also appear). Other authors, such as Octavio de Toledo y Huerta (2015) and Batllori (2016), support this characterization of the two constructions not being equivalent and propose that they even difer in meaning—the analytical forms were associated with modal values, such as given ilocutive contents (instructions, orders), evidentiality, and quotative and epistemic values. Under this interpretation, the analytical forms constitute a diferent construction (one which sufered a secondary grammaticalization, Octavio de Toledo y Huerta 2015) and are not proof of a weak grammaticalization of the synthetic futures in Medieval Spanish. Similarly, the account of the evolution of the perfect tenses as a grammaticalization process presented previously has been partially challenged by Rodríguez Molina (2010), who has shown that most of the changes that have afected these forms have local causes independent of the grammaticalization of the construction. According to him, only the gradual semantic generalization of the construction haber + PARTICIPLE across contexts (which included admitting inanimate subjects, non-canonical objects, and state and modal verbs, extending to intransitive verbs and the passive voice and increasing its frequency and paradigmatic integration) is related to the reanalysis and grammaticalization of the construction. The remaining related phenomena, however, respond to diferent local causes. On the one hand, Rodríguez Molina (2010) shows that agreement with the direct object in Medieval Spanish was not a phenomenon of free variation dependent on the degree of grammaticalization of the perfect tenses. On the contrary, it was governed by a number of grammatical hierarchies that ft the behaviour of agreement cross-linguistically, related to the grammatical category of the object, its position, its grammatical person, and its defniteness. The causes of the loss of agreement are numerous but have to do with frequency of use, social norms (related with the importance of diferent diatopic varieties), and the infuence of related syntactic phenomena, such as changes in word order and transitivity phenomena like leísmo, diferential object marking, and alternation between accusative and dative marking, among others. On the other hand, both the interpolation of elements between the participle and habēre and the order participle + auxiliary simply respond to the Medieval Spanish word order, based to some extent on a V2 syntax. Accordingly, the loss of these two possibilities is not related to the degree of grammaticalization the perfect tenses but to the loss of such syntactic organization in Modern Spanish. That is, Rodríguez Molina (2010) also highlights the need for understanding the synchronic stages of a diachronic process in order to consider them part of a grammaticalization process. Once the synchronic system is considered, local causes that produced a given change might become apparent (as in the case of the perfect tenses). If we only observe historical developments from a diachronic perspective, we run the risk of ofering teleological explanations and hence believing that, since the perfect tenses were undergoing a grammaticalization process and the changes they underwent ft the grammaticalization model, these must have been a consequence of a process of grammaticalization. But grammaticalization has no such power, as we can see in neighbouring languages that show fully grammaticalized perfect tenses but preserve the double auxiliary (French, Italian, German), agreement with the direct object (French), and the possibility of interpolating elements between auxiliary and participle (German). 507

Carlota de Benito Moreno

4.2 Categorial uncertainty An important efect of grammaticalization is that grammaticalized constructions might preserve characteristics of the source construction. While such a situation poses no problem from a diachronic point of view, it might cause “categorial uncertainty” (Company 2012b). For instance, the structural analysis of the adverbs in -mente raises several theoretical questions that have to do with the morphological status of this element. Is it a stem in a compound, a derivational afx, or an infectional afx? Some of the arguments in favour of the compound analysis have already been mentioned previously: adverbs in -mente have two accents (12a), and they allow for the elision of the frst -mente in the coordination of two adverbs in -mente (12b). Moreover, -mente is added after morphemic elements such as the superlative (12c) (Detges 2015).1 (12) a. /per’fekta’mente/ b. Él me miró tranquila y silenciosamente. c. Te lo digo clarísimamente. Arguments in favour of the derivational analysis are the fact that -mente is a productive element (although see Company 2012c for some observations on the diferences between usage and lexical productivity of -mente), that it produces a change in the grammatical category of the stem (adjective > adverb), and that it lexically selects the adjective (13), this latter point illustrated by the fact that -mente does not easily combine with relational, colour, or form adjectives (see Company 2012c, 2014).2 (13) *inglesamente, *amarillamente, *cuadradamente Finally, Detges (2015) sees an implicit analysis of -mente as an infectional afx in the description of its diachronic evolution as a grammaticalization process, since that would imply that it has become a grammatical element. However, this is not necessarily so. Company (2014) has clearly argued that the formation of adverbs with the element -mente is the result of grammaticalization, but she does not propose that -mente is an infectional afx. This must entail that the (originally world-level) elements involved in the construction having been reanalysed as morphological elements is enough to consider it a case of grammaticalization. This in turn implies a heterodox view of the concept, since no lexical element became grammatical and no grammatical element became more grammatical; rather, two free lexical elements became two bound lexical elements. However, despite this disagreement with the classic defnition of grammaticalization, the diachronic development of adverbs in -mente shows all the processes associated with grammaticalization, except for phonological attrition, which is not considered a requirement for every grammaticalization. That is, the evolution of adverbs in -mente has important theoretical implications for the defnition of grammaticalization. Interestingly, the low degree of bondedness shown by the two elements is diachronically stable—no increase in bondedness is detected during the evolution of these constructions from the 13th century (Company 2014). If anything, the contrary could be argued, since the elision of the frst -mente in coordinated structures has become more frequent over the course of time, although this might only hold for written genres (Detges 2015; Company 2014). That is, this categorial uncertainty is not due to a transitory status of -mente in a gradual process of grammaticalization. Its mixed properties might require an equally heterodox analysis, and some authors have argued that it is a case of semisufx (with mixed properties falling between derivational and compositional elements) or a phrasal afx (see Company 2014 and references therein). 508

Grammaticalization

5 Conclusions In the evolution from Latin to Romance, only a few grammaticalization processes gave birth to new morphological units. (Note that the three constructions discussed in this chapter illustrate panromanic phenomena, with the exception of Romanian in the case of the futures and conditional and the adverbs in -mente). Even so, the detailed study of these phenomena raises interesting theoretical issues that can inform both grammaticalization and morphological theory. Although a detailed discussion of the topic is not possible here, the ongoing discussion regarding the grammatical status of the Spanish unstressed object pronouns must be mentioned (see also Cuervo, this volume, and Camacho, this volume). An increasing body of literature argues that these elements are grammaticalizing from clitics to object agreement afxes, especially on the basis of several variation phenomena that they are undergoing. However, the observations made in section 4.1 suggest that caution is advisable here. On the one hand, local causes can be found for most (if not all) of the phenomena discussed in the literature. On the other hand, the substandard phenomena adduced come from diferent diatopic varieties; that is, they are not consistent with the claim that they are all being caused by the same grammaticalization process. Deeper theoretical refection is needed to settle this question.

Notes 1 The feminine ending of the adjective should no longer be considered as such, since it does not mark gender and can be found in neological formations that require a linking vowel such as ipsofactamente (Detges 2015). 2 These combinatory restrictions do not apply in some textual genres, such as advertisements and poetry (Company 2012c).

References Batllori, M. 2016. “El valor modal de haber en los futuros y condicionales analíticos.” In En torno a “haber”. Construcciones, usos y variación desde el latín hasta la actualidad, edited by C. de Benito Moreno and Á. S. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta, 33–78. Berlin: Peter Lang. Company Company, C. 1985/1986. “Los futuros en el español medieval. Sus orígenes y su evolución.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 34: 48–107. Company Company, C. 2012a. “Historical Morphosyntax and Grammaticalization.” In The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, edited by J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, and E. O’Rourke, 673–92. Malden, Oxford and Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Company Company, C. 2012b. “Reanálisis múltiple, gramaticalización e incertidumbre categorial en la formación de los adverbios en -mente del español.” In Actas del VIII Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española, edited by E. Montero Cartelle and C. Manzano Rovira, tomo 1, 301–14. Meubook. Company Company, C. 2012c. “La ‘engañosa’ productividad de los adverbios en -mente de la lengua española.” In En pos de la palabra viva: Huellas de la oralidad en textos antiguos. Estudios en honor al profesor Rolf Eberenz, edited by V. Béguelin-Argimón, G. Cordone, and M. de la Torre, 119–36. Bern: Peter Lang. Company Company, C. 2014. “Adverbios en -mente.” In Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Tercera parte: adverbios, preposiciones y conjunciones. Relaciones interoracionales, 459–611. México, DF: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Fondo de cultura económica. Company Company, C., and J. Cuétara Priede. 2007. Manual de Gramática Histórica. México, DF: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Detges, U. 2015. “The Romance Adverbs in -mente: A  Case Study in Grammaticalization.” In WordFormation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, edited by P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, and F. Rainer, 1824–42. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. 509

Carlota de Benito Moreno

Garachana Camarero, M. 2015. “Teoría de la gramaticalización. Estado de la cuestión.” In Actas Del IX Congreso Internacional de Historia de La Lengua Española (Cádiz 2012), edited by J. M. García Martín, T. Bastardin Candón and M. Rivas Zancarrón, tomo 1, 331–59. Madrid and Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. García-Hernández, B. 1980. “El desarrollo de la expresión analítica en latín vulgar. Planteamiento general.” Revista Española de Lingüística 10 (2): 307–30. Girón Alconchel, J. L. 2005. “Gramaticalización y gramatización. Los futuros analíticos.” In Palabras, Norma, Discurso: En Memoria de Fernando Lázaro Carreter, edited by L. Santos Río, J. Borrego Nieto, J. F. García Santos, J. J. Gómez Asencio, and E. Prieto de los Mozos, 581–92. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Hummel, M. 2013. “Sincronía y diacronía de los llamados adjetivos adverbializados y de los adverbios en –mente.” Anuario de Letras 1 (2): 215–81. doi:10.1016/s0185-1373(13)70257-x. Langacker, R. W. 1977. “Syntactic Reanalysis.” In Mechanism of Syntactic Change, edited by C. N. Li, 57–139. Austin and London: University of Texas Press. Lehmann, C. 1985. “Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change.” Lingua e Stile 20: 303–18. Lehmann, C. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press. Menéndez Pidal, R. 1962. Manual de gramática histórica española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta, Á. S. 2015. “Futuros que se miran el ombligo: mesoclisis y anteposición de formas no personales en la historia del español.” In El orden de palabras en la historia del español y otras lenguas iberorromances, edited by M. Castillo Lluch and M. López Izquierdo, 141–233. Madrid: Visor Libros. Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. Roberts, I. 1992. “A Formal Account of Grammaticalisation in the History of Romance Futures.” Folia Linguistica Historica 13 (1–2): 219–58. doi:10.1515/fih.1992.13.1-2.219. Rodríguez Molina, J. 2010. “la gramaticalización de los tiempos compuestos en español antiguo: cinco cambios diacrónicos.” PhD diss., Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid.

510

Part IV

Beyond morphology

36 Morphology and L1 acquisition Adriana Soto-CorominasMorphology and L1 acquisition

(Morfología y adquisición de la L1)

Adriana Soto-Corominas

1 Introduction In the span of just a few years, children go from a stage in which their vocalizations are limited to cooing or babbling to being able to convey complex ideas in adult-appropriate ways. Much of this expression hinges on morphology. The acquisition of morphology entails the gradual development of the command of the infectional and derivational devices of Spanish in both production and comprehension. This chapter reviews the developmental patterns and trajectories of infectional and derivational morphology by typically developing Spanish monolingual children from a theory-neutral perspective, focusing on the frst three years of life. We draw from observational and experimental studies, both seminal and state-of-the-art, to describe the development of gender and number in the Determiner Phrase (DP); of fniteness, tense, aspect, agreement, and mood in the Verb Phrase (VP); and of derivational morphology. Keywords: L1 acquisition; typical development; DP infection; VP infection; derivation En pocos años, las vocalizaciones tempranas de los niños, compuestas inicialmente de balbuceos, dan paso a la expresión de ideas complejas de forma apropiada para un adulto. Una parte importante de esta expresión es la morfología. La adquisición de la morfología implica el desarrollo gradual del dominio de los morfemas fexivos y derivativos del español, tanto en producción como en comprensión. Este capítulo ofrece un resumen sobre los patrones y trayectorias en el desarrollo de la morfología fexiva y derivativa en niños monolingües de español con desarrollo típico, concentrándose en los primeros tres años de vida. Se recurre a estudios tanto observacionales como experimentales para describir el desarrollo del género y el número en el sintagma determinante (DP, por sus siglas en inglés), de la fnitud, el tiempo, el aspecto, la concordancia y el modo en el sintagma verbal (VP), y de la morfología derivativa. Palabras clave: Adquisición L1; desarrollo típico; fexión nominal; fexión verbal; derivación

2 From early vocalizations to sentences The acquisition of Spanish happens gradually and shows remarkably similar characteristics and timelines across children, albeit with some inter- and intra-individual variation. By 10–12 513

Adriana Soto-Corominas

months of age, children start uttering their frst words. These early productions are a small set of words, most often nouns, produced in isolation, hence the term that has been used to refer to this developmental stage: the one-word stage. At 18–20 months of age (i.e., 1;6–1;8), children start combining elements (i.e., morphemes) to produce short phrases. This stage is often referred to as the two-word stage. Shortly thereafter, around 25–36 months of age (i.e., 2;1–3), children start producing increasingly long utterances. With increases in phrasal length comes added complexity in the syntax and, crucially for this chapter, in the morphology. Note that in the following sections, age is used as a reference point to discuss the development of morphology. Age is not the sole factor in guiding such development and may not even be the most important one. However, most extant research uses ages rather than indexes of utterance length, though these may be more informative in describing morphological development.

3 Infectional morphology in the Determiner Phrase In order to produce adultlike infectional morphology within the DP, children must master gender assignment and agreement (see Camacho, this volume, and Pastor, this volume). In addition, they need the concept of number (singular vs. plural) in order to master number agreement. Both gender and number may be marked on determiners, nouns, adjectives, and pronouns.

3.1 Gender In her single-case study, Hernández Pina (1984) found that her subject, Rafael, started marking gender productively in animate nouns (e.g., niño-niña ‘boy-girl’) at age 1;9. However, gender agreement had not been absent before this age, since the child had already produced utterances such as (1). (1) e nene (adult: el nene) ‘the baby’ ta tata (adult: la puerta) ‘the door’

(Hernández Pina 1984, 232)

Pinpointing the emergence of gender agreement between determiners and nouns is difcult due to the existence of phonologically underspecifed fllers, as in (1); a syllable, often just a vowel, that may precede nouns even before the two-word stage. A lively debate has addressed the nature of these early fllers and, by extension, the grammatical status of children’s early productions: whether these fllers are an early form of determiner or whether they are introduced for phonological reasons (see Montrul 2004 for an in-depth discussion). Lleó (2001) showed that these early fllers made up of undiferentiated vowels gradually give rise to full vowels present in articles [e.g., [e] as in el, or [a], as in la, see (1)], which eventually converge with the full, adultlike forms of the articles. This sequence is not composed of discrete stages but rather indicates shifts in frequencies: children may omit determiners at a stage when they produce fllers and full determiners but, overall, a decrease of omissions and fllers is observed as determiners, mainly articles, become more frequent (Demuth et al. 2012; Mariscal 2009). When full vowels or articles are produced, gender assignment is not yet adultlike. Mismatches between articles and nouns occur where both the masculine (*un leche ‘a-masc milkfem’) and feminine (*una pez ‘a-fem fsh-masc’) may be overgeneralized. Extant studies have ofered widely diferent results in terms of the frequency of such mismatches (Socarrás 2011); some presenting them as anecdotal or almost non-existent and others as not infrequent, with

514

Morphology and L1 acquisition

many not providing any quantitative data. Despite these discrepancies, studies agree that gender mismatches account for a minority of DPs in children’s production and that by ages 2;6–3, children show adultlike gender assignment and gender agreement between determiner and animate/inanimate nouns, even non-transparent ones (i.e., masculine nouns not ending in -o and feminine ones not ending in -a). Adjectives, which are much less frequent than articles in children’s productions, start to be infected for gender by age 2. Hernández Pina (1984) found that the frst clear cases of gender infection in adjectives were with reference to animate nouns. She also found that by age 2;8, gender mismatches between nouns and adjectives (*máquina redondo ‘round-masc machinefem’) had been overcome (see Mariscal 2009; Snyder, Senghas, and Inman 2001 for similar timelines). By age 3, children acquiring Spanish have mastered gender agreement between adjectives and nouns within the DP. Hernández Pina (1984) documented the emergence of gender contrasts in pronouns in Rafael. By age 2;4, Rafael produced gender contrasts in demonstrative pronouns este/a ‘this-masc/fem’, ese/a/o ‘that-masc/fem/neut’, and aquel/la/lo ‘that-masc/fem/neut’ and in possessive pronouns (mío/a ‘mine-masc/fem’). Foreshadowing the following section, gender contrasts in plural pronouns were delayed—not because of difculties imposed by gender, which appears to be an unproblematic category, but because the development of plural number in pronouns is slower. Researchers have also investigated how children determine the gender of novel nouns. Three potential sources of information exist in the DP: the noun ending (transparent or not), articles and adjectives, and lexicosemantic properties (i.e., masculine/feminine attributes of the referent when animate). Experimental studies that have explored the efects of cue confict between these sources of information have shown that children ages 4–11 rely more on morphophonological cues (noun ending or gender in articles and adjectives) than on lexicosemantic properties in establishing the gender of novel nouns (Pérez-Pereira 1991; Pérez-Tattam et al. 2019). This ability to exploit the morphophonological information on articles and adjectives develops early on. Arias-Trejo and Alva (2013) showed that children as young as 2;6 were sensitive to the gender encoded in adjectives when faced with novel words. In their study, children completed a training phase where novel objects, one masculine and one feminine, were visually presented with an accompanying nounless auditory stimulus: they heard utterances such as mira es rojo ‘look, it’s red-masc’ when presented with the masculine novel object, or ay está rota ‘oh, it’s broken-fem’, when presented with the feminine. When faced with the two pictures of the novel objects in the testing phase, children looked more often at the target novel object when they heard the gender of the object in the article: mira, una betusa, ‘look, a-fem betusa’. Another study by Arias-Trejo, Falcón, and Alicia Alva-Canto (2013) found that 2-year-olds were able to use the morphophonological information in indefnite articles (un/una) to anticipate the following known noun in an intermodal preferential looking task. These studies demonstrate that children before the age of 3 not only show sensitivity to gender morphology in articles and adjectives but also that this capacity may allow them to create new noun-object associations and may make their speech processing more efcient. In summary, gender in nouns and pronouns and gender agreement between the noun and other elements in the DP emerges early on, as clear instances of gender marking on determiners (mainly articles) and adjectives are present well before age 2. Adultlike mastery of gender agreement occurs gradually in a short span of time, and children appear to master this property by age 3. When assigning gender to a novel noun, children are more sensitive to gender information encoded morphophonologically in articles, adjectives, and noun endings than to lexicosemantic properties of the noun.

515

Adriana Soto-Corominas

3.2 Number Plural number in the DP may be marked with two allomorphs: /-s/ and /-es/. Children start marking plural number overtly in the DP between ages 1;9 and 2, with varying degrees of consistency, in nouns, determiners (mostly articles), pronouns and adjectives. Many children produce some nouns marked for plural before this age, which some authors have argued are unanalyzed units where plural sufxes do not carry actual plural meaning (Hernández Pina 1984; Marrero and Aguirre 2003). When plural marking starts being productive, the singular number is often overgeneralized (i.e., used in non-singular contexts). In addition, at these early stages, number agreement is not always adultlike within the DP; plural number may be marked in the noun but absent in the determiner or vice versa, (2a–b). An attested form of plural used at these early years is the vowel /-e/ in contexts where the allomorph /-es/ is expected, (2b). (2) a. lo(s) nene (adult: los nenes) ‘the-pl kid-sing’ b. mira pece(s) ‘look, fsh-pl’ (Magín, age 1;9, adapted from Marrero and Aguirre 2003, 279) A possibility raised by examples such as (2) is that children have the notion of plurality but lack the phonological means to express it. Lleó (2006) investigated the relationship between coda production and overt plural marking in three children aged 1–3. She found that only the child who was able to produce a high percentage of codas, Miguel, was able to produce plural /-s/. Children whose development of codas was delayed were mostly restricted to expressing plurality using the form /-e(s)/. Therefore, despite early knowledge of the singular/plural contrast, the overt expression of plural may hinge on children’s phonological development. Indeed, Arias-Trejo et al. (2014) found that at age 2, children were able to understand the plural information encoded in novel nouns to direct their gaze in a preferential looking task. That is, despite being at a stage in development when plural marking is inconsistent in their productions, 2-year-old children appear to understand and access the information encoded by plural morphology in nouns. Some authors have noted an asymmetry between the two plural allomorphs, /-s/ and /-es/, whereby the latter appears to be more difcult to produce or shows more protracted development. For example, in her single-case study Hernández Pina (1984) found that after age 2;2, nouns requiring the /-s/ sufx were always pluralized in an adultlike way, whereas it took the child a few more months to reach the same level of accuracy with nouns requiring the /-es/ allomorph. Pérez-Pereira (1989), using a Berko-like task where children between the ages of 3 and 6 had to pluralize real and nonce nouns, found a clear asymmetry in the production of the two allomorphs in nonce nouns. While 3-year-olds infected nouns requiring an /-s/ sufx 92% of the time, their accuracy with /-es/ was 36%. Asymmetries were still apparent in the oldest age group: by age 6, children only used target /-es/ 55% of the time. The most common errors were adding an /-s/ to words requiring /-es/ or not adding a plural sufx. Other studies investigating the emergence and use of the two allomorphs have not found diferences between the two, other than the ones triggered by phonological constraints, as described previously (Lleó 2006; Marrero and Aguirre 2003). Phonological constraints on plural marking extend to determiners, as could be expected. Miguel, the only child in Lleó (2006) who showed early development of coda production, produced adultlike determiner-noun plural agreement the majority of the time between ages 1;10 and 3, as did the two Spanish-speaking children reported on in Snyder, Senghas, and Inman (2001). For children whose development of coda production was slower in Lleó (2006), plural 516

Morphology and L1 acquisition

marking on determiners was apparent in masculine defnite article los and indefnite unos, where the vowels difer from their singular counterparts el and un, (3). (3) a. [ɹɔ tε’ðɪːtɔ] (adult: los cerditos ‘the-pl pigs-pl’) (2;0) b. [ʊnɔ mo’tone] (adult: unos botones ‘some-pl buttons-pl’) (2;2) (Adapted from Lleó 2006, 210) Since plurals are overall less frequent than singulars (Marrero and Aguirre 2003) and adjectives are scarce in children’s early spontaneous productions, it is not surprising that data on number marking in adjectives is scant. Snyder, Senghas, and Inman (2001), analyzing the corpora from two children, noted that both mastered number as well as gender agreement in adjectives by age 2;6. Socarrás (2011) found that only one of the three children (ages 2;1–2;9) she studied produced a mismatch of number agreement in attributive adjectives in an elicited production task, and they were three errors (six if counting repetitions) in cases of noun ellipsis, (4). Note that the two older participants she reported on, ages 3;6 and 4;3, produced adultlike adjectives correctly infected for plural number in all cases. (4) Experimenter:

¿Ganaron los tristes? won-3pl the-pl sad-pl ‘Did the sad ones win?’ Child: No, (g)anaron feli[h]. (adult: no, ganaron los felices) neg. won-3pl happy-sg ‘No, the happy ones won’. (Adapted from Socarrás 2011, 127)

Plural pronouns appear later than singular pronouns in children’s productions. For example, Hernández Pina (1984) noted that Rafael produced plural demonstrative pronouns estos (thesemasc) and esos (those-masc) at age 2;8, while their singular counterparts had emerged one year earlier. Furthermore, this author noted that Rafael only produced plural personal pronouns nosotros/as (we-masc/fem) and vosotros/as (you (pl)-masc/fem) and possessive pronoun suyos/as (theirs-masc/fem) after the age of 3. To summarize this section so far, most Spanish-speaking children are able to mark nouns for plural in an adultlike manner by age 3. When determiners and adjectives are used in a DP with plural nouns, they also show number. This does not imply that children’s production of plural morphology is completely adultlike by this early age. Children may fail to pluralize some nouns in contexts they should be pluralized (Lleó 2006), and they may still produce some unexpected plurals in elicited tasks, especially when using nonce words (Arias-Trejo, Abreu-Mendoza, and Aguado-Servín 2014; Pérez-Pereira 1989). At issue in plural morphology is dialectal variation. The allomorph /-s/ or the fnal /s/ in the allomorph /-es/ undergoes lenition or is omitted in many varieties of Spanish, such as Chilean Spanish, where the plural of casas ‘houses’ can be produced as [‘kasas], [‘kasah], or [‘kasa]. Notably, the last form overlaps with the singular form casa ‘house’, thus leading to input where plural is variably marked on the noun. Miller and Schmitt (2010) asked whether variable input infuences the development of plural morphology in young children. Using an act-out task and a picture matching task, they investigated Chilean children, who receive highly variable input with regard to plural marking, and Mexican children, who receive input that is consistent in marking the plural. These authors found that Mexican children took signifcantly less time to show adultlike comprehension of plural marking, which they attained by age 4, than Chilean 517

Adriana Soto-Corominas

children, who did so at age 6. In production, these authors also found signifcant diferences in the two groups of children: Chilean children produced signifcantly less plural marking and more bare singular nouns than Mexican children, who showed ceiling performance by age 3. Therefore, children may show protracted development of plural number when acquiring varieties where plural morphology is produced variably.

4 Infectional morphology in the Verb Phrase In order to produce adultlike morphology in the VP, children must master the expression of fniteness, aspect, tense, agreement (person and number), and mood (see Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume, and Camus, this volume). Children cannot obtain a complete verbal paradigm from the input; they do not observe a given verb with all possible infections. For this reason, children must generalize patterns from attested forms. A crucial question in investigating the acquisition of VP morphology is when this generalization occurs. For example, if a child uses past tense with only one verb and person (e.g., acabó ‘fnished’), it could be argued that past tense is not yet generalized (or productive) but is instead used as an unanalyzed form. Various criteria have been employed for establishing when this generalization of morphology occurs: frst (non-repetitive) production, production of the required form in at least 90% of the contexts, frst case of a morpheme being used with two diferent roots, and/or the same root being produced with two diferent morphemes. Diferent authors have applied diferent criteria, which poses challenges for drawing comparisons across studies. In the following sections, timelines are provided which describe productive uses of verbal morphology, not just emergence.

4.1 Finiteness Certain verbs (5) or prepositions (6) require an infnitive verb. In adult Spanish, infnitives cannot be matrix verbs when they do not bear a modal interpretation (6 vs. 7). (5) a. Puedes/ Quieres saltar can-2sg want-2sg jump-inf ‘You can/you want to jump’. b. Vas a salir go-2sg to leave-inf ‘You are going to leave’. (6) ¡A dormir! to sleep-inf ‘Go to sleep!’ (lit. to sleep!) (7) *Este tapar this cover-inf Root infnitives (RIs), (7), are cases of non-adultlike matrix infnitives. Despite being relatively frequent in the development of non-null-subject languages, RIs are rare in the development of L1 Spanish, even before age 2. Bel (2001) analyzed the longitudinal data of three Spanish-speaking children, ages 1;7–3, and found that the vast majority of infnitives produced by these children corresponded to adultlike uses, such as (5–6) previously, as shown in Table 36.1. The child that produced the most non-adultlike RIs, María, did so for a period of only six months (ages 1;7–2;1).

518

Morphology and L1 acquisition Table 36.1 Number of clauses, adultlike infnitives, and RIs in Bel (2001) Clauses

Adultlike infnitives

*RIs

María

1,956

337

50

Emilio

1,588

126

2

Juan

345

17

7

Source: Adapted from Bel (2001, 111)

Bel (2001) showed that children use RIs to refer to the present and past tenses but also to encode a modal meaning; half of María’s RIs received a modal (imperative or desiderative) interpretation. While non-fnite forms are found to be overextended to fnite contexts, albeit infrequently, fnite forms are not overextended to non-fnite contexts. That is, cases of *voy a como instead of target voy a comer (‘I am going to eat’) are not documented.

4.2 Tense and aspect Between ages 1;6 and 2, children begin to use the present and past tense infections productively. Around age 2, productive use of the future tense begins. Analytical forms of future tense (va a terminar ‘will end’) are generally more frequent than synthetic forms (terminará ‘will end’). Even when children have productive knowledge of diferent tenses, present tense is used most frequently. Bel (2001), for example, found that only 12.7% of the tense-infected utterances produced by her three subjects between ages 1;10 and 2;8 had past tense, and only 5.7% had future, thus making the present tense the predominant one. Past tense in Spanish overtly marks (perfective vs. imperfective) grammatical aspect. Perfective aspect can be encoded synthetically with the preterite (comí ‘I ate’) or analytically with the auxiliary haber followed by a past participle (he comido ‘I have eaten’), the latter being much more widespread in Peninsular Spanish varieties than in Latin American ones. Perfective past forms emerge and become productive earlier than imperfective forms (Gathercole, Sebastián, and Soto 1999; Hernández Pina 1984). Children acquiring Peninsular Spanish often produce the analytic forms frst, unlike children acquiring Latin American varieties. Bel (2001) and Hernández Pina (1984), in describing the early stages of children acquiring Peninsular Spanish, noted cases of non-adultlike production of the analytic forms, where non-fnite main verbs appeared without their auxiliary, such as (8). Children were found to alternate between these non-adultlike sentences and sentences where the auxiliaries were used appropriately. The non-adultlike use of matrix non-fnite verbs was overcome shortly after, by age 2;6. (8) Roto caja. (adult: He roto la caja, ‘I have broken the box’) (Hernández Pina 1984, 245) Telicity and tense are interwoven in children’s early productions. Children often use perfective past tense with telic predicates, and atelic predicates are often used with present morphology and, later on, imperfective past morphology. Grinstead, Pratt, and McCurley (2009) asked if these telicity-tense associations would infuence the comprehension of tense in a picture-matching task by Mexican children aged 2;11–4;7. Children were given a verbal prompt, Enséñame “Yo mordí la manzana” ‘Show me “I bit the apple”’, and had to choose the picture that corresponded to the statement, whether it was the one prior to the action (future

519

Adriana Soto-Corominas

tense), the action being performed (present), or the action once fnished (past). Children were better at associating prototypical tense-telicity combinations (i.e., past sentences with telic predicates and present sentences with atelic predicates) than non-prototypical combinations. Therefore, despite productive use of tense, children may not yet be adultlike in their interpretations by age 4. In addition to diferences in comprehension, children’s early expression of tense is not always adultlike. The most widely discussed point of departure are agreement errors, which are discussed more in detail subsequently in “Agreement”. In addition, children sometimes overregularize afxes or stems instead of using the target irregular forms (*sabo instead of sé ‘I know’). The conjugations of frst-class (-ar) verbs, the most common class in Spanish, are overapplied to second- or third-class verbs (*abré instead of abrí ‘I opened’). These errors have been observed to follow a U-shaped curve: a period of correct production precedes a period of overregularization and overapplication errors, which decrease over time (Clahsen, Aveledo, and Roca 2002; Gathercole, Sebastián, and Soto 1999).

4.3 Person and number agreement When it comes to person and number agreement morphology on the verb, between the ages of 1;7 and 2;6 there is a gradual growth of the morphological repertoire employed by Spanishacquiring children. Third person singular is the most frequent form overall, but contrasts with diferent persons, especially with frst person singular, are attested around 1;9–2;2 (Bel 2001; Gathercole, Sebastián, and Soto 1999). Number contrasts generally emerge after person contrasts in the singular, around ages 1;9– 2;4, and plural forms remain largely infrequent within these ages (Aguado-Orea and Pine 2015; Gathercole, Sebastián, and Soto 1999; Marrero and Aguirre 2003). In dialects that use the second person plural vosotros, such as Peninsular Spanish, this form is mostly absent from children’s productions until age 3. Person contrasts may not develop simultaneously across all tenses. For example, Gathercole and colleagues (1999) showed that one of their two subjects at age 2;3 clearly marked person/ number contrasts in the present, but in most other tenses, she only produced third person singular (see also Marrero and Aguirre 2003). Agreement errors are overall scarce but highly skewed: they are mostly confned to the overextension of third person singular to other persons, especially third person plural [(9); AguadoOrea and Pine 2015; Bel and Rosado 2009]. The overuse of third person singular has led some authors to argue that these forms do not show agreement or tense and are instead analogous to the RIs observed in other languages (Pratt and Grinstead 2007). Other authors have proposed that these agreement errors mainly index pragmatic defcits with respect to deictic expressions (Bel and Rosado 2009). (9) No es tuyos [% los zapatitos] neg. is-3sg yours-pl [the little shoes] (Adapted from Bel and Rosado 2009, 209) A series of recent studies have noted an asymmetry in the production-comprehension of number agreement in Spanish, with comprehension lagging behind production and not yet being apparent in children younger than 4 (see Gonzalez-Gomez et al. 2017). However, Gonzalez-Gomez and colleagues argued that certain task-efects that previous studies had not considered could be obscuring their results. These authors ran the same experiment twice: children 520

Morphology and L1 acquisition

were presented with two videos of two boys. In one, only one boy performed an action, whereas in the other one, both did. In the frst experiment, the authors replicated previous experiments by asking children to identify which image showed agarra/agarran el miso ‘he catches/they catch the miso’, where the object (miso) was a nonce noun. Results showed that children performed at chance. In the second experiment, the nonce nouns were replaced by the noun objeto ‘object’. The results of this experiment showed that children were sensitive to number contrasts on the verb by ages 3;4–4;2. These results also prove that more research is needed into experimental methodologies designed for use with young children.

4.4 Mood Spanish distinguishes between indicative, imperative, and subjunctive mood morphologically. As the discussion in “Tense and aspect” focused on the indicative, we now turn our attention to the production of imperative and subjunctive. Children’s productive use of imperative morphology in order to express afrmative commands in the second person singular has been documented from early on in the two-word stage, around ages 1;6–1;8 (Gathercole, Sebastián, and Soto 1999; Hernández Pina 1984; López Ornat 1997). Imperatives forms are highly frequent in these early stages, making up for 29% of all verbs uttered by the three Spanish-speaking children ages 1;7–2;11 considered in Liceras, Bel, and Perales (2006). The (present) subjunctive morphology is productive around age 2 and is used most often to express negative commands (10) and indirect commands (11) (Hernández Pina 1984; López Ornat 1994). Later on, subjunctive morphology starts to be used in adverbial clauses (12) and with verbs that require subjunctive (13) (Montrul 2004). (10) No bebas. (produced by age 2) neg. drink-2sg-sbjv ‘Don’t drink’. (Hernández Pina 1984, 246) (11) Dile que venga. (2;2) tell-2sg-him that come-3sg-sbjv ‘Tell him to come’. (Hernández Pina 1984, 251) (12) Me lo voy a comer todo cuando me refexive it go-1sg to eat all when refexive ‘I’m going to eat it all when I get up’. (Adapted from Montrul 2004, 126) la gente (13) Voy a dejar a go-1sg to let to the people ‘I’m going to let people come in’. (Montrul 2004, 126)

levante. (2;5) get.up-1sg-sbjv

que entre. (2;11) that come.in-3sg-sbjv

While the morphology of the subjunctive is productive since age 2, pragmatically or semantically constrained uses of the subjunctive take several years to reach adultlike levels of production (Blake 1983; Dracos, Requena, and Miller 2019). The protracted development of the adultlike 521

Adriana Soto-Corominas

use of the subjunctive in these contexts indicates that it is not the subjunctive morphology per se that is problematic for Spanish-acquiring children but the combination of this mood with elements outside of morphology.

5 Derivational morphology Unlike infectional morphology, reviewed previously, children take several years to develop adultlike mastery of derivational morphology (see Mendívil, this volume). Few studies have addressed the early development of derivational morphology in Spanish-speaking children. In this limited body of research, there is evidence that children’s ability to use derivational sufxes productively begins early on. For example, between ages 2;6 and 2;11, Rafael used the superlative or absolutive marker -ísimo with three diferent adjectives, correctly infected for gender and number (Hernández Pina 1984, 240), (14). See Pastor (this volume) and Kornfeld (this volume) for the status of the superlative marker. (14) a. Yo tengo dos (ha)bitaciones grandísimas. (2;06) ‘I have two really big rooms’. b. Señor era malísimo. (2;06) ‘The gentleman was really bad’. c. Victor no es malo, es buenísimo. (2;11) ‘Victor isn’t bad, he’s really good’. Auza, Jackson-Maldonado, and Maldonado (1998) explored children’s ability to produce a word to denote diferent occupations when presented with the given occupations in a picture. Some target words were monomorphemic (policía ‘policeman’, doctor ‘doctor’) and some included a derivational sufx (-ero/a, -ista, -(ad)or(a)), which is a common pattern in Spanish (jardinero ‘gardener’, bombero ‘frefghter’). They tested children between ages 3 and 3;6. Of interest are the non-target responses: in creating novel nouns to denote an occupation, children used a verbal or nominal root together with an appropriate sufx in 100% of their non-target responses (e.g., arreglador ‘fxer’ instead of electricista ‘electrician’). In Pérez-Pereira’s (1989) study, children ages 3–6 were asked to derive nouns using diminutives and augmentatives with both real and nonce nouns (e.g., árbol-arbolito ‘tree-little tree’). Participants were more accurate with real than with nonce nouns. At age 6, for example, children only derived 52% of nonce nouns correctly, whereas they were able to derive real words around 90% of the time. The authors argued that the diversity of augmentative/diminutive suffxes in Spanish (e.g., -azo, -ón, -aco, -ín, -ito, -illo) that appear in quasi-free distribution would have made this task challenging. It is nevertheless possible that this methodology may have been especially difcult for young children to grasp. Though the research in the development of Spanish derivational morphology is limited, studies are consistent in showing that children make productive use of the derivational machinery from an early age in order to expand their vocabulary. It may nevertheless take several years for children to reach adultlike mastery of this property.

6 Discussion and conclusions Infectional and derivational morphology emerge early on in typically developing Spanish monolingual children. The frst three years of life see rapid development in children’s morphological abilities. By age 3, children have mastered the expression of gender and number within 522

Morphology and L1 acquisition

the DP, are able to express information using all tenses as well as expressing modality using the imperative and subjunctive moods, and can make use of derivational sufxes to expand the limits of their lexicon. Morphological development, though rapid, is a gradual process. Gender and number are not mastered as soon as the frst instances of these categories emerge: overgeneralization errors (e.g., masculine for feminine, singular for plural) occur. The gradualness is more apparent in the VP, where there is an increase not only in the amount but also in the precision of tense, person/ number agreement, and mood morphology, showing that the child does not master the whole verbal paradigm from the very beginning of production. Morphology may interact with other domains to create protracted acquisition trajectories for certain properties. For example, input variability with respect to the production of /-s/ delays the acquisition of plural morphology in children acquiring Chilean Spanish. Phonological factors may also explain why some children take longer to produce the plural in an adultlike manner. In addition, semantics and pragmatics may interact with morphology to delay the production of the subjunctive mood in certain contexts. These were not the only cases where we saw children not yet being adultlike by age 3. It was found that in experimental studies, both in comprehension and production, children may not perform at ceiling, even if their naturalistic productions appear to be essentially error free. Experimental studies are necessary to avoid the overestimation and/or underestimation of children’s abilities that may follow from basing conclusions entirely on naturalistic data. Naturalistic data indeed has limits, as it captures only what the child produces at a given time, and not what they can or cannot produce. Experimental research can efectively identify areas in comprehension and production where children appear to diverge from adults in order to expand our knowledge of the processes underlying language development. Nevertheless, critically evaluating research methods with children is essential, since certain task demands that do not pose a burden on adults (e.g., use of still pictures or nonce words) may afect children’s performance and mask results, as found by Gonzalez-Gomez and colleagues (2017). In order to ensure comprehensiveness, this chapter focused on the trajectories at the initial stages of development and only briefy introduced some of the theoretical debates surrounding the development of morphology. Language acquisition occupies a central role in all theories of language. For example, the generative and constructivist approaches (and the diferent models within) make diferent predictions regarding the nature of morphological knowledge and development at the outset of acquisition (fully productive vs. piecemeal), the architecture or processes underlying morphological production and comprehension (feature checking vs. morphological schemas), the role of frequency in the input, or the connection between morphology and vocabulary, among other points of contention. Scholars have found support for both theories in (often the same) Spanish data, showing that theoretical assumptions shape the interpretation of data. In this sense, studies that critically use data to test, and not just support, assumptions from diferent approaches have a lot to ofer in advancing the scientifc study of language development. In the meantime, readers will fnd diferent sides and perspectives of these debates in the references.

References Aguado-Orea, J., and J. M. Pine. 2015. “Comparing Diferent Models of the Development of Verb Infection in Early Child Spanish.” PLoS ONE 10 (3): e0119613, 1–21. Arias-Trejo, N., R. A. Abreu-Mendoza, and Ó. A. Aguado-Servín. 2014. “Spanish-speaking Children’s Production of Number Morphology.” First Language 34 (4): 372–84. 523

Adriana Soto-Corominas

Arias-Trejo, N., and E. Alicia Alva. 2013. “Early Spanish Grammatical Gender Bootstrapping: Learning Nouns through Adjectives.” Developmental Psychology 49 (7): 1308–14. Arias-Trejo, N., L. M. Cantrell, L. B. Smith, and A. Alva. 2014. “Early Comprehension of the Spanish Plural.” Journal of Child Language 41 (6): 1356–72. Arias-Trejo, N., A. Falcón, and E. Alicia Alva-Canto. 2013. “The Gender Puzzle: Toddlers’ Use of Articles to Access Noun Information.” Psicológica 34 (1): 1–23. Auza Benavides, A., D. Jackson-Maldonado, and R. Maldonado. 1998. “Estrategias de productividad morfológica en el niño de tres a tres años y medio: el caso de los nombres de ocupaciones.” Función 18: 35–53. Bel, A. 2001. Teoria lingüística i adquisició del llenguatge: anàlisi comparada dels trets morfològics en català i en castellà. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans. Bel, A., and E. Rosado. 2009. “Person and Number Asymmetries in Child Catalan and Spanish.” In Hispanic Child Languages: Typical and impaired development, edited by John Grinstead, 195–214. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. Blake, R. 1983. “Mood Selection among Spanish-Speaking Children, Ages 4 to 12.” Bilingual Review 10 (1): 21–32. Clahsen, H., F. Aveledo, and I. Roca. 2002. “The Development of Regular and Irregular Verb Infection in Spanish Child Language.” Journal of Child Language 29 (3): 591–622. Demuth, K., M. Patrolia, J. Y. Song, and M. Masapollo. 2012. “The Development of Articles in Children’s Early Spanish: Prosodic Interactions between Lexical and Grammatical Form.” First Language 32 (1–2): 17–37. Dracos, M., P. Requena, and K. Miller. 2019. “Acquisition of Mood Selection in Spanish-Speaking Children.” Language Acquisition 26 (1): 106–18. Gathercole, V. C. M., E. Sebastián, and P. Soto. 1999. “The Early Acquisition of Spanish Verbal Morphology: Across-the-Board or Piecemeal Knowledge?” International Journal of Bilingualism 3 (2–3): 133–82. Gonzalez-Gomez, N., L. Hsin, I. Barrière, T. Nazzi, and G. Legendre. 2017. “Agarra, agarran: Evidence of Early Comprehension of Subject–Verb Agreement in Spanish.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 160: 33–49. Grinstead, J., T. Pratt, and D. McCurley. 2009. “Comprehension of Prototypical Tense and Aspect Combinations in Child Spanish.” Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 2 (2): 435–50. Hernández Pina, F. 1984. Teorías psico-sociolingüísticas y su aplicación a la adquisición del español como lengua materna. Madrid: Siglo XXI. Liceras, J., A. Bel, and S. Perales. 2006. “Living with Optionality: Root Infnitives, Bare Forms and Infected Forms in Child Null Subject Languages.” In Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, edited by Nuria Sagarra and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio, 203–16. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Lleó, C. 2001. “Determining the Acquisition of Determiners.” In Features and Interfaces in Romance: Essays in Honor of Heles Contreras, edited by Julia Herschensohn, Enrique Mallén, and Karen Zagona, 189– 202. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. Lleó, C. 2006. “Early Acquisition of Nominal Plural in Spanish.”  Catalan Journal of Linguistics  5 (1): 191–219. López Ornat, S. 1994. La adquisición de la lengua española. Madrid: Siglo XXI. López Ornat, S. 1997. “What Lies in between a Pre-Grammatical and a Grammatical Representation: Evidence on Nominal and Verbal Form-Function Mappings in Spanish from 1;7 to 2;1.” Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish 1: 3–20. Mariscal, S. 2009. “Early Acquisition of Gender Agreement in the Spanish Noun Phrase: Starting Small.” Journal of Child Language 36 (1): 143–71. Marrero, V., and C. Aguirre. 2003. “Plural Acquisition and Development in Spanish.” In Linguistic Theory and Language Development in Hispanic Languages: Papers from the 5th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, edited by Silvina Montrul, and Francisco Ordóñez, 275–96. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Miller, K., and C. Schmitt. 2010. “Efects of Variable Input in the Acquisition of Plural in Two Dialects of Spanish.” Lingua 120 (5): 1178–93. 524

Morphology and L1 acquisition

Montrul, S. 2004. The Acquisition of Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pérez-Pereira, M. 1989. “The Acquisition of Morphemes: Some Evidence from Spanish.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18 (3): 289–312. Pérez-Pereira, M. 1991. “The Acquisition of Gender: What Spanish Children Tell Us.” Journal of Child Language 18 (3): 571–90. Pérez-Tattam, R., M. J. Ezeizabarrena, H. Stadthagen-González, and V. C. Mueller Gathercole. 2019. “Gender Assignment to Spanish Pseudowords by Monolingual and Basque-Spanish Bilingual Children.” Languages 4 (3): 58. Pratt, A., and J. Grinstead. 2007. “Optional Infnitives in Child Spanish.” In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), edited by Alyona Belikova, Luisa Meroni, and Mari Umeda, 351–62. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Snyder, W., A. Senghas, and K. Inman. 2001. “Agreement Morphology and the Acquisition of Noundrop in Spanish.” Language Acquisition 9 (2): 157–73. Socarrás, G. 2011. First Language Acquisition in Spanish: A Minimalist Approach to Nominal Agreement. London: Continuum.

525

37 Morphology and L2 acquisition Silvia PerpiñánMorphology and L2 acquisition

(Morfología y adquisición de la L2)

Silvia Perpiñán

1 Introduction The acquisition of morphology, and particularly of functional morphology, has been identifed as the most problematic grammatical domain for second language acquirers (cfr. ‘The Bottleneck Hypothesis’, Slabakova 2009). One of the alleged reasons for this difculty is the amount of crucial syntactic and semantic information that bound afxes convey. These afxes are attached to lexical roots and together create a form that needs to be mapped to its function. In this sense, morphology is the interface par excellence in the linguistic system. This formfunction mapping is not a trivial task for second language learners, since these mappings vary among languages and therefore require signifcant reconfguration from the native language (L1) into the second language (L2). This chapter reviews the acquisition of typically problematic morphemes in L2 Spanish in the noun phrase and the verb phrase and briefy summarizes the few studies on the acquisition of derivational morphology that exist. Keywords: L2 acquisition; gender; number; tense; aspect; mood; derivational morphology; Morphological Underspecifcation Hypothesis La adquisición de la morfología, y especialmente la morfología funcional, se ha identifcado como el componente de la gramática más problemático para los aprendices de segundas lenguas (cfr. ‘La hipótesis del cuello de botella’, Slabakova 2009). Una de las razones aducidas para explicar estas difcultades es la gran cantidad de información sintáctica y semántica que conllevan estos afjos ligados. Los afjos se unen a las raíces léxicas y juntos crean una forma que necesita ser mapeada a su función. En este sentido, la morfología es la interfaz por excelencia. Este mapeo de forma y función no es una tarea trivial para los hablantes de segunda lengua ya que estas relaciones varían entre las lenguas y por lo tanto requieren una reconfguración signifcativa de la lengua nativa (L1) a la lengua segunda (L2). El siguiente capítulo revisa la adquisición de morfemas típicamente problemáticos para el español L2, en el sintagma nominal y el sintagma verbal, y resume brevemente los pocos estudios existentes sobre la morfología derivativa. Palabras clave: adquisición de L2; género; número; tiempo; aspecto; modo; morfología derivativa; hipótesis de la infraespecifcación morfológica

526

Morphology and L2 acquisition

2 Theoretical issues Although this chapter aims to be theory neutral, it is important to present the main theoretical questions that have driven the recent research on L2 morphology. Most of the formal L2 studies on the acquisition of morphology question whether a particular morphological category is fully represented in the L2 interlanguage grammar or somehow impaired, given the frequent errors it might present. Whereas supplying the correct form is interpreted as evidence for the acquisition of that category, the omission or form mismatches are open to interpretation. One line of reasoning is to propose that errors or omissions are not a defnite sign of lack of knowledge, as there can be other grammatical pieces of information that point towards the acquisition of that functional category. For instance, evidence of verb movement has often been interpreted as the syntactic correlate of verbal infection (T and Agr). Thus, several authors have proposed that even though the interlanguage grammar still presents variation in the surface forms that signal tense or agreement, the mental representation of verbal infection is in place; otherwise, there would be problems of verb movement as well. That is, the source of the error is of mapping between the surface form (morphophonology) and the abstract features (Prévost and White 2000), the lexicon and syntax (Lardiere 1998a, 1998b) or a limitation of the L1 phonology (Goad and White 2019). Another approach is to explain the frequent errors as some sort of representational defcit in the L2 morphology, which can be permanent or not, depending on the type of feature (Hawkins and Franceschina 2004; Tsimpli and Mastropavlou 2007). For these authors, L2 learners (L2ers) are able to transfer morphosyntactic features from the L1 but might not be able to add new functional features into the interlanguage grammar, remaining permanently impaired or L1-like, with a representational defcit. Under this view, L2 grammars are fundamentally and qualitatively diferent from L1 grammars. In more psycholinguistic terms, one of the main questions that researchers investigating the representation and processing of morphology have posed is whether and how morphological structure infuences the recognition and production of morphologically complex words (see Oltra-Massuet and Stockall, this volume). In other words, whether complex words are accessed discretely and later combined (generative models) or whether complex words are listed as units which are accessed as a whole entity (connectionist models). The purpose of this chapter is not to provide evidence for or against any of these proposals; instead, it aims to depict the typical variability of L2 morphological systems and the challenges that L2 learners face when acquiring Spanish morphology and to describe the main developmental stages in L2 Spanish.

3 Infectional morphology in the Determiner Phrase 3.1 Gender Second language learners need to acquire two diferent components when mastering gender in L2 Spanish (see Camacho, this volume, for gender): on the one hand, they need to know the gender assigned to each noun, a task allegedly done thanks to the article, at least in the L1, which is mostly transparent (el/la). On the other hand, L2ers need to master the syntactic operation of agreement, which is mainly refected in the gender of the adjective. Gender agreement is also crucial in cases of nominal ellipsis, in which the noun is dropped and recovered through gender agreement on the determiner. With respect to whether L2ers are able to acquire the functional category of gender even if their native language does not instantiate it, many studies have shown that L2ers have persistent

527

Silvia Perpiñán

problems with gender marking and agreement even at advanced levels of profciency, particularly in oral and written production data (Alarcón 2009, 2011; Franceschina 2001, 2005; Grüter, Lew-Williams, and Fernald 2012; Hawkins and Franceschina 2004; Montrul, Foote, and Perpiñán 2008). The accuracy rates typically range between 75 and 90%, whereas errors are anecdotal in native speakers’ speech. And even though it is hypothesized that learners whose L1 does not instantiate gender, such as English, would have more difculties than learners whose L1 presents gender, such as French, some studies have found similar results for Francophone and Anglophone learners (Bruhn de Garavito and White 2002; White et al. 2004), downplaying the role of L1 and highlighting the progression as profciency increases. Thus, more profcient L2ers seem to be able to acquire gender and use it in a native-like manner. For instance, in a series of studies on the processing of gender, Sagarra and Herschensohn (2010, 2011, 2013) found that intermediate English-speaking learners of Spanish, but not beginner L2ers, showed native-like sensitivity to gender violations while processing. Similarly, Grüter, Lew-Williams, and Fernald (2012) also found that highly profcient English-speaking L2ers can use the gender of the determiner as a predictive cue to process the following noun but that this efect was not as strong or consistent as the one found in the native speakers’ results. These authors argued that the source of diferences between L2ers and native speakers reside in the strength of the association between frequently co-occurring elements such as determiners and nouns: whereas L1 learners treat the determiner-noun sequence as an unanalyzed chunk (Carroll 1989) and this helps children assign a gender, L2ers mostly rely on other types of information such as metalinguistic knowledge and written language. This, they argue, creates weaker associations between the gender node and the nouns. Still, these authors found that highly profcient L2ers performed at ceiling in ofine comprehension but that continued to commit errors in elicited production, mostly of lexical nature. In terms of the nature of errors, Franceschina (2001), in a case study of a near-native speaker of Spanish whose L1 is English, found that her informant was 100% correct on noun endings, but gender accuracy on demonstratives, pronouns, articles, and adjectives ranged from 85 to 92%, with not a large diference between errors with articles (9%) and errors with adjectives (8%), so we cannot infer a clear explanation of the errors (lexical assignment vs. syntactic agreement). Similarly, Montrul, Foote, and Perpiñán (2008), who investigated gender in L2ers and heritage speakers of Spanish, found that 48% of the errors of the two groups combined were assignment errors (with the article), whereas 52% of the errors were agreement errors (with the adjective). However, when errors were separated by gender, masculine nouns practically only presented agreement errors (81% of errors with masculine nouns for the L2 group), whereas 55% of the errors with feminine nouns were assignment errors. That is, many feminine nouns are incorrectly classifed as masculine nouns, particularly if they ended in the non-canonical -o ending. A related pattern emerged from Franceschina’s data, as masculine gender was overgeneralized on adjectives and articles of feminine nouns over 82% of the time, whereas feminine was used on adjectives and articles of masculine nouns around 17% of the time. The overextension of the masculine form in production as well as in comprehension will be documented in practically all studies on the acquisition of gender and also in code-switching studies. In this sense, L2 acquisition and bilingualism data corroborate morphological tenants about markedness in morphology (Harris 1991; McCarthy 2006a), which proposed that masculine is the unmarked, default gender for Spanish. With regard to the role of morphophonological cues to gender acquisition, Montrul, Foote, and Perpiñán (2008) included in their study canonical word endings (masc. -o, fem. -a); noncanonical ones in -e and consonant (puente, noche); and exceptions, such as masculine nouns in -a (planeta) and feminine nouns in -o (mano). Overall, accuracy was always higher with 528

Morphology and L2 acquisition

canonical-ending nouns than with non-canonical ones, and there was not a big diference in accuracy between masculine nouns ending in consonant or in -e, but agreement with feminine nouns ending in -e was particularly problematic. To summarize Montrul, Foote, and Perpiñán’s (2008) study: L2 learners were better at recognizing and interpreting gender in written form than in oral production, and accuracy on masculine gender was systematically higher than on feminine gender; accuracy on determiners was higher than on adjectives; and accuracy on canonical ending nouns was higher than on less canonical or exceptional ending nouns. Similar results were replicated in Montrul et al. (2013), Montrul et al. (2014), two studies that investigated production, comprehension, and processing of gender with diminutives. Even though diminutives regularize gender marking in nouns with non-canonical endings, advanced L2 learners had problems producing diminutives in non-canonical nouns and had problems with gender in non-canonical ending nouns; most of the errors were gender assignment errors, as in Grüter, Lew-Williams, and Fernald (2012) and Alarcón (2011). Thus, we can conclude that L2 learners are, on the one hand, able to acquire the syntactic operation of agreement and also to process it accordingly (Foote 2015), although the association between the noun and the determiner is weaker than that of native speakers’, creating difculties with a lexical etiology. On the other hand, these results indicate that L2 learners employ morphophonological cues in order to assign gender, that is, the transparency of the endings, whereas native speakers do not rely on noun endings for gender knowledge, indicating a qualitative diference in this respect (Foote 2015, see Montrul, this volume).

3.2 Number Behavioral studies that investigate number acquisition in the nominal domain in L2 Spanish are scarce. Franceschina (2001), in her case study of a near-native English L1 speaker, found that number agreement errors accounted for only 7% of the errors that she analyzed, compared to the remaining 93% of gender errors. Thus, number is a category that, even though it is not overtly expressed in article and adjective agreement in the English DP, does not seem to suppose a major difculty for English speakers acquiring Spanish, at least in production. Neurolinguistic studies have found similar results. For instance, Tokowicz and MacWhinney (2005) investigated with grammaticality judgments and event related potentials (ERP) the comprehension of number violations between the article and the noun (*El/Los niños están jugando). Accuracy with number violations was 70%, whereas gender violations were detected only 58% of the time (similar results were found in Sagarra and Herschensohn 2013). Yet the ERP measures (P600) showed that non-native speakers (English L1) were not sensitive to determiner number violations, but they were sensitive to determiner gender violations. The authors explained these results in terms of similarities between the L1 and the L2: L2 learners did not show sensitivity with number in the determiner because this is a property that difers between English and Spanish (both languages have number, but English does not overtly express it in the article), whereas they showed sensitivity to gender because this is a unique and hence salient property of Spanish. On the other hand, Gillon-Dowens et al. (2010), Gillon-Dowens et al. (2011) investigated gender and number in L1 English and in advanced L1 Chinese learners of Spanish and found a robust P600 efect, indicating sensitivity to both types of violations, even though English only lacks morphological gender, and Chinese lacks both gender and number agreement; still, these were processed similarly. Finally, Alemán-Bañón, Fiorentino, and Gabriele (2014) compared the processing of agreement in Spanish DPs with nouns and adjectives (no overt number in English) with that of demonstratives and nouns, in which English expresses number agreement (this house vs. these houses). They found that advanced non-native speakers showed a stronger 529

Silvia Perpiñán

sensitivity (P600) for number than for gender in noun-adjective agreement violations, while native speakers presented similar sensitivity for both types of violations. Furthermore, the L2 learners elicited a larger P600 in noun-adjective number violations than in demonstrative-noun number violations, indicating that L2ers are also able to show native-like sensitivity in novel features not present in the L1.

4 Infectional morphology in the Verb Phrase Spanish verbal infection is very rich in information and forms and hence typically challenging morphological component for L2 learners, particularly if their L1s have a poorer morphological verbal system. The study of Spanish verbal morphology in second langage acquisition has been very productive in the last 20 years, and, unfortunately, the length of a chapter like this one cannot do justice to the breadth and scope of these studies. In the next section, I will present the main theoretical topics related to Spanish verbal morphology and summarize some of the most relevant contributions.

4.1 Tense and Aspect In Spanish, aspectual morphology closely interacts with temporal morphology, since aspect is only overtly grammaticalized in the past, with two diferent past tenses, one for perfective aspect (pretérito perfecto simple or ‘preterite’) and one for imperfect aspect (pretérito imperfecto simple or ‘imperfect’) (see Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume). The vast majority of studies that investigate verbal morphology in L2 Spanish investigated the imperfect/preterite distinction. If we assume that all languages are able to semantically express the same aspectual distinctions, then the L2er’s task is to map the perfective and imperfective aspect onto the specifc morphological forms, which is not a trivial challenge. Following Comajoan (2013), I  will enumerate some of the most relevant generalizations on the acquisition of perfective and imperfective morphology in L2 Spanish. First, it has been observed that verbal morphology develops in a systematic fashion (Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Salaberry 2008), that forms are acquired before semantic entailments (Montrul and Slabakova 2002, 2003, but see Domínguez et al. 2013), and that past overt marking is guided by lexical semantics. Indeed, one of the most prominent hypotheses to explain the acquisition of aspect is the Lexical Aspect Hypothesis (LAH, Andersen 1986, 1991), which proposes that the emergence of tense and aspect morphology is directly related to the inherent lexical aspect of the predicates. The LAH predicts that perfective morphology will appear frst with telic eventualities (achievements and accomplishments), and imperfect morphology will appear frst with atelic eventualities (states and activities), following Vendler’s (1967) classifcation. This hypothesis somehow suggests that L2 morphology is defective, as it initially encodes only inherent lexical aspectual distinctions. Many studies have directly or indirectly tested this hypothesis, with mixed results (Cadierno 2000; Comajoan 2006; Domínguez et al. 2013; Domínguez, Arche, and Myles 2017; Montrul and Slabakova 2002, 2003; Salaberry 1999, 2000; among many others); it has been particularly difcult to fnd robust evidence for the eight developmental stages that Andersen (1986) proposed. For instance, in a series of studies, Montrul and Slabakova (2002, 2003) Slabakova and Montrul (2002, 2003) found that beginner, intermediate, and also advanced L2ers had problems not only with the preterite tense in stative verbs, as predicted by the LAH, but they also had difculties with the imperfect forms in stative verbs. Indeed, one of the recurrent fndings is that imperfect forms are acquired later and present persistent challenges even at advanced levels of profciency, given that it has more non-prototypical uses. For instance, Salaberry (2008) argued that English-speaking learners associate the past tense with 530

Morphology and L2 acquisition

the pretérito in Spanish because English past tense is perfective by default. Thus, L2ers spread the preterite tense from early on in all past contexts, perfective and imperfective, due to L1 transfer. On the contrary, Domínguez, Arche, and Myles (2017) found that although it is true that the use of imperfect forms improves as profciency increases, low-profciency L2ers already use the imperfect tense in L2 Spanish, so they know that there are two forms available in Spanish and do not necessarily transfer a default perfective past tense. Finally, even though the imperfect/ preterite distinction in L2 Spanish is difcult to master, in a study on ultimate attainment, Montrul and Slabakova (2003) found that L2ers with a very high level of profciency can acquire the semantic interpretations of the two past tenses in Spanish.

4.2 Mood Spanish expresses modality on verbal morphology, with three distinctive moods, indicative, subjunctive, and imperative. The previous section only dealt with indicative mood; this one will be focused on subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is syntactically conditioned, as it almost exclusively appears in embedded sentences, in nominal, adjectival, adverbial, and conditional sentences. This already hinders its acquisition, as beginner and intermediate L2ers might not master complex sentences and as a result use predominantly simple sentences, parataxis, and coordinated structures. It has been shown that instruction on complex syntax improves the production of subjunctive morphology (Collentine 1998, 2003, 2010). Furthermore, mood selection requires a large control of discourse-pragmatics, as subjunctive mood indicates lack of commitment with the truth-value of a statement (Palmer 1986). Thus, the use of subjunctive mood involves the mastering of the morphosyntax-discourse interface, and according to several proposals, this is the hardest interface to acquire, as it implies a higher level of language use (Sorace 2011). Indeed, one general fnding from the L1 and L2 research on mood selection is that it is a late-acquired grammatical structure (Blake 1983; Geeslin and Gudmestad 2008) and prone to attrition (Montrul and Perpiñán 2011; Quer 1998, 2002; Silva-Corvalán 1994). There are other external factors that contribute to this late acquisition: subjunctive use is variable even in native speakers (Silva-Corvalán 1994), so there is not always a univocal relationship between form and function; it has a low frequency compared to other paradigms and conjugations, as it constitutes only 7% of all verb forms in oral and written use (Collentine 2010); it has very low communicative value, which makes it little noticeable, and related to this fact, grammaticality is not always at stake, given that in many contexts, both moods are grammatical. Still, there are some studies that have shown that subjunctive is acquirable at higher levels of profciency (Borgonovo, Bruhn de Garavito, and Prévost 2015; Gudmestad 2012). Borgonovo and Prévost (2003), investigating L1 French learners of L2 Spanish, found that the most advanced learners behaved like native speakers, even in perception and communication embedded clauses in which French does not accept subjunctive but Spanish requires it. Borgonovo, Bruhn de Garavito, and Prévost (2015), on the other hand, found that advanced learners (English-speaking) obtained nativelike results in the use of subjunctive that is lexically selected (‘quiero que’ . . ., ‘le ordeno que’  . . .), but this was not exactly the case with relative clauses, in which L2ers had problems rejecting the indicative with nonspecifc antecedents. Interestingly, the type of errors had always the same trend: the indicative was substituted for the subjunctive but not in the opposite direction. The authors interpreted these results as the overapplication of the default indicative mood (Leonetti 1999; McCarthy 2008). In a study that compared L2ers and heritage speakers of Spanish, Montrul and Perpiñán (2011) investigated subjunctive use with a morphology recognition task targeting written form and a sentence conjunction judgment task targeting semantic implications and entailments. This 531

Silvia Perpiñán

study focused on subjunctive with relative clauses, temporal clauses with cuando, and consecutive clauses with de manera que. In both tasks, no diferences were found in the indicative mood across groups (L2 learners, heritage speakers, and native speakers), but signifcant diferences were found in the subjunctive mood. In both tasks, the morphology recognition task and the sentence conjunction task, all L2ers were more accurate than the profciency-matched heritage speakers, particularly at the advanced levels, and with mood selection in relative clauses, then with de manera que, and fnally with temporal expressions with cuando.

4.3 Person and number Verbal forms in Spanish agree in person (frst, second, third) and number (singular, plural) with the subject of the sentence. Leaving aside thematic vowel, person and number agreement are the least investigated features of verbal morphology, probably because they are assumed to be unproblematic, particularly if compared to tense-aspect-mood morphology. Still, variability in agreement expression is not only common at the beginning stages of acquisition but also systematic. Bruhn de Garavito (2003a, 2003b) examined Spanish verbal morphology in beginning Englishspeaking L2ers with a production and a recognition task in which the same verbs were used and contrasted frst, second, and third persons in the present. She found that the percentage of errors was quite low (between 5 and 10%) and that the production task produced twice as many errors as the recognition task, pointing towards a processing or performative problem. Furthermore, infnitive forms, even though provided in the tasks, were not used; instead, third person singular was used as an unmarked option, probably because in Spanish present tense, third person singular has Ø person marking. Regarding default forms, McCarthy (2006a, 2006b, 2012) proposed the Morphological Underspecifcation Hypothesis, which predicts that errors in L2 morphology are of underspecifcation nature and not of feature clash. Specifcally, L2ers are predicted to make errors by overproducing unmarked or default forms such as third for the person category, singular for number, and nonfnite forms for fniteness. Overall, results confrm her hypothesis, and McCarthy proposes that third person singular forms are not instances of underspecifcation for fniteness (not a root infnitive-like form) but just for person underspecifcation, as it does not occur in nonfnite positions. Finally, in a processing study of person and number agreement, VanPatten, Keating, and Leeser (2012), in a self-paced reading task, tested non-advanced L2ers with ungrammatical sentences with person and number agreement errors and adverb position. Unlike native speakers, English-speaking L2ers did not show sensitivity to any person mismatch or number violations, not following McCarthy’s Underspecifcation Hypothesis, but they detected problems with verb movement. These fndings made the authors conclude that at the initial stages of acquisition, non-advanced learners have underlying representation related to verb movement but do not have robust representations of morphological infections on verbs. To sum up, verbal morphology is a continuous challenge for non-native speakers, as it is usually a case of one form-to-many-meanings, with portmanteau morphemes that convey several semantic features, many times very subtle and difcult to grasp from the input, even for very advanced L2ers. Verbal morphology is the clear example that morphology is the formal linguistic expression that interfaces with all linguistic domains (syntax, phonology, pragmatics, discourse, semantics, lexicon, etc.) and, as such, difcult to master.

5 Derivational morphology Very few studies have investigated knowledge of L2 derivational morphology. Besides the pervasive question regarding the role of the L1 language in the acquisition of a second language, 532

Morphology and L2 acquisition

the issue here is whether L2ers are able to use derivational morphology in a productive way or whether this is part of vocabulary knowledge and word memorization. In a study that analyzed 600 lexicosemantic errors in 67 non-native advanced Spanish L2ers’ written compositions, Whitley (2004) identifed several types of errors; relevant for this section are those classifed as ‘zero derivation’ and as ‘word formation’. Within ‘zero derivation’, we can fnd errors with part-of-speech distinctions, such as relación fuerza ‘fuerte’, su desarrolla ‘desarrollo’, es benefcio ‘benefcioso’, sin feliz ‘felicidad’, es vale ‘válido’. This type of error accounted for 41% of the total number of lexicosemantic errors, and it was particularly acute in the case of deverbal and deadjectival nouns, and denominal adjectives. Whitley explained this error, which would also be an error in their L1, as a production strategy: learners resort to familiar forms when they encounter a lexical gap. The type of error termed ‘word formation’ includes new coinages such as sobrevivación ‘supervivencia’, utiloso ‘útil’, expresionar ‘expresar’, aumentación ‘aumento’, which accounted for 11% of the errors, and partial transfers such as seriosos ‘serios’, minoridades ‘minorías’, unfortunalmente ‘desafortunadamente’, which accounted for 15.3% of the errors. All in all, we can see that advanced English-speaking L2ers start using L2 derivational morphology to create words although still guided to a large extent by transfer from the L1. Zyzik and Azevedo (2009) expanded the research on the ‘zero derivation’ type error with a study on receptive knowledge of word class distinctions. First, they identifed the four most common errors with a production task: (i) a verb used as an adjective, (ii) a verb used a noun, (iii) a fnite verb used as an infnitive, and (iv) an adjective used as a noun. They used these types of errors for their receptive forced-choice task, in which 240 English-speaking L2ers needed to circle the correct form from two morphological related forms: mis padres no me permitieron comer con la boca (abra/abierta). This study found that L2 learners had more difculty distinguishing between adjectives and nouns, particularly if these were zero derived, such as corte/corto ‘curt/short’ but also fuerte/fuerza ‘strong/strength’, and also with verb and nouns that difer only in the fnal vowel: trabaja/trabajo ‘she works/job’. Zyzik and Azevedo argue that L2 learners have problems with these types of words because they are classroom instructed to pay attention to the ending -a as a feminine marker and -o as a masculine marker, instead of identifying them as proper word markers (Harris 1991). This allocation of attention to gender markers might be performed at the expense of identifying transparent morphological cues to nouns such as -ción or -dad. Nonetheless, the authors proposed that many of these errors do not have a morphological etiology but a syntactic one. To conclude, problems with word-class distinctions stem from the learners’ incomplete knowledge of L2 derivational sufxes and from distributional or syntactic considerations. Furthermore, these authors believe that word class distinctions are acquirable as profciency improves but that explicit instruction does not seem to play a role in its acquisition, as knowledge of word classes seems to develop incidentally (Morin 2006). In a more recent study that investigated the relationship between derivational knowledge and vocabulary size, Marcos Miguel (2018) found that derivational knowledge does not correlate with vocabulary size but with overall language profciency. In conclusion, derivational morphology is grammatical knowledge that develops together with syntactic knowledge and not with or like vocabulary acquisition. Many times we take for granted how L2ers categorize a newly learned word and which morphological cues they rely on for this categorization. This succinct review of literature highlights the need for further research in this domain.

References Alarcón, I. 2009. “The Processing of Gender Agreement in L1 and L2 Spanish: Evidence from Reaction Time Data.” Hispania 92 (4): 814–28. 533

Silvia Perpiñán

Alarcón, I. 2011. “Spanish Gender Agreement under Complete and Incomplete Acquisition: Early and Late Bilinguals’ Linguistic Behavior within the Noun Phrase.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14 (3): 332–50. Alemán Bañón, J., R. Fiorentino, and A. Gabriele. 2014. “Morphosyntactic Processing in Advanced Second Language (L2) Learners: An Event-Related Potential Investigation of the Efects of L1–L2 Similarity and Structural Distance.” Second Language Research 30 (3): 275–306. Andersen, R. W. 1986. “El Desarrollo de La Morfología Verbal En El Español Como Segundo Idioma.” In Adquisición de Lenguaje/Aquisição Da Linguagem, edited by Jurgen M Meisel, 115–38. Frankfurt: Vervuert. Andersen, R. W. 1991. “Developmental Sequences: The Emergence of Aspect Marking in Second Language Acquisition.” In Crosscurrents in SLA and Linguistic Theories, edited by T Huebner and C Ferguson, 305–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2000. Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition: Form, Meaning, and Use. Oxford: Blackwell. Blake, R. 1983. “Mood Selection among Spanish-Speaking Children, Ages 4 to 12.” The Bilingual Review/ La Revista Bilingiie 10: 21–32. Borgonovo, C., J. Bruhn de Garavito, and P. Prévost. 2015. “Mood Selection in Relative Clauses: Interfaces and Variability.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37 (1): 33–69. Borgonovo, C., and P. Prévost. 2003. “Knowledge of Polarity Subjunctive in L2 Spanish.” In BUCLD 27: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, edited by Barbara Breachly, Amanda Brown, and Frances Conlin. Cambridge University Press: Somerville, MA. Bruhn de Garavito, J. 2003a. “Learners’ Competence May Be More Accurate Than We Think: Spanish L2 and Agreement Morphology.” In Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002), edited by Juana Liceras, Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck, 17–23. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Bruhn de Garavito, J. 2003b. “The (Dis)Association between Morphology and Syntax: The Case of L2 Spanish.” In Linguistic Theory and Language Development in Hispanic Languages, edited by Silvina Montrul and Francisco Ordóñez, 398–417. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Bruhn de Garavito, J., and L. White. 2002. “The L2 Acquisition of Spanish DPs: The Status of Grammatical Features.” In The Acquisition of Spanish Morphosyntax : The L1/L2 Connection, edited by Ana T Pérez Leroux and Juana M Liceras, 153–78. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Cadierno, T. 2000. “The Acquisition of Spanish Grammatical Aspect by Danish Advanced Language Learners.” Spanish Applied Linguistics 4 (1): 1–53. Carroll, S. 1989. “Second-Language Acquisition and the Computational Paradigm.” Language Learning 39 (4): 535–94. Collentine, J. 1998. “Processing Instruction and the Subjunctive.” Hispania 81 (3): 576–87. Collentine, J. 2003. “The Development of Subjunctive and Complex-Syntactic Abilities among FL Spanish Learners.” In Spanish Second Language Acquisition: State of the Science, edited by Barbara A. Laford and Rafael Salaberry, Bilingual edition, 74–97. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Collentine, J. 2010. “The Acquisition and Teaching of the Spanish Subjunctive: An Update on Current Findings.” Hispania 93 (1): 39–51. Comajoan, Ll. 2006. “The Aspect Hypothesis: Development of Morphology and Appropriateness of Use.” Language Learning 56 (2): 201–68. Comajoan, Ll. 2013. “Tense and Aspect in Second Language Spanish.” In The Handbook of Spanish Second Language Acquisition, edited by Kimberly L. Geeslin, 235–52. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Domínguez, L., M. J. Arche, and F. Myles. 2017. “Spanish Imperfect Revisited: Exploring L1 Infuence in the Reassembly of Imperfective Features onto New L2 Forms.” Second Language Research 33 (4): 431–57. Domínguez, L., N. Tracy-Ventura, M. J. Arche, R. Mitchell, and F. Myles. 2013. “The Role of Dynamic Contrasts in the L2 Acquisition of Spanish Past Tense Morphology.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16 (3): 558–77.

534

Morphology and L2 acquisition

Foote, R. 2015. “The Production of Gender Agreement in Native and L2 Spanish: The Role of Morphophonological Form.” Second Language Research 31 (3): 343–73. Franceschina, F. 2001. “Morphological or Syntactic Defcits in Near-Native Speakers? An Assessment of Some Current Proposals.” Second Language Research 17 (3): 213–47. Franceschina, F. 2005. Fossilized Second Language Grammars: The Acquisition of Grammatical Gender, xxiv+288pp. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Geeslin, K., and A. Gudmestad. 2008. “Comparing Interview and Written Elicitation Task in Native and Non-Native Data: Do Speakers Do What We Think They Do?” In Selected Proceedings of the 2006 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, edited by Joyce Bruhn de Garavito and Elena Valenzuela, 64–77. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Gillon-Dowens, M., T. Guo, J. Guo, H. Barber, and M. Carreiras. 2011. “Gender and Number Processing in Chinese Learners of Spanish—Evidence from Event Related Potentials.” Neuropsychologia 49 (7): 1651–59. Gillon-Dowens, M., M. Vergara, H. A. Barber, and M. Carreiras. 2010. “Morphosyntactic Processing in Late Second-Language Learners.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22 (8): 1870–87. Goad, H., and L. White. 2019. “Prosodic Efects on L2 Grammars.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9 (6), 769–808. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.19043.goa. Grüter, T., C. Lew-Williams, and A. Fernald. 2012. “Grammatical Gender in L2: A Production or a RealTime Processing Problem?” Second Language Research 28 (2): 191–215. Gudmestad, A. 2012. “Acquiring a Variable Structure: An Interlanguage Analysis of Second Language Mood Use in Spanish.” Language Learning 62 (2): 373–402. Harris, J. W. 1991. “The Exponence of Gender in Spanish.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (1): 27–62. Hawkins, R., and F. Franceschina. 2004. “Explaining the Acquisition and Non-Acquisition of Determiner-Noun Gender Concord in French and Spanish.” In The Acquisition of French in Diferent Contexts, edited by Philippe Prevost and Johanne Paradis, 175–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Lardiere, D. 1998a. “Case and Tense in the ‘Fossilized’ Steady State.” Second Language Research 14 (1): 1–26. Lardiere, D. 1998b. “Dissociating Syntax from Morphology in a Divergent L2 End-State Grammar.” Second Language Research 14 (4): 359–75. Leonetti, M. 1999. “El artículo.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua espanola, edited by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, Pck edition, 787–891. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Marcos Miguel, N. 2018. “Analyzing the Relationship and Development of Profciency, Derivational Knowledge, and Vocabulary Size in Spanish L2 Learners.” Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada; Amsterdam 31 (1): 224–56. McCarthy, C. 2006a. “Default Morphology in Second Language Spanish: Missing Infection or Underspecifed Infection?” In New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Volume I: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Selected Papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium On Romance Languages (LSRL), Austin, Texas, February  2005, edited by Chiyo Nishida and Jean-Pierre Y. Montreuil, 201–11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McCarthy, C. 2006b. “What’s Missing from Missing Infection? Features in L2 Spanish.” McGill Working Papers in Linguistics/Cahiers Linguistiques de McGill 20 (2): 21–37. McCarthy, C. 2008. “Morphological Variability in the Comprehension of Agreement: An Argument for Representation over Computation.” Second Language Research; London 24 (4): 459–86. McCarthy, C. 2012. “Modeling Morphological Variation and Development.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2 (1), 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.1.02mcc. Montrul, S., J. Davidson, I. De La Fuente, and R. Foote. 2014. “Early Language Experience Facilitates the Processing of Gender Agreement in Spanish Heritage Speakers.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17 (1): 118–38. Montrul, S., I. de La Fuente, J. Davidson, and R. Foote. 2013. “The Role of Experience in the Acquisition and Production of Diminutives and Gender in Spanish: Evidence from L2 Learners and Heritage Speakers.” Second Language Research 29 (1): 87–118.

535

Silvia Perpiñán

Montrul, S., R. Foote, and S. Perpiñán. 2008. “Gender Agreement in Adult Second Language Learners and Spanish Heritage Speakers: The Efects of Age and Context of Acquisition.” Language Learning 58 (3): 503–53. Montrul, S., and S. Perpiñán. 2011. “Assessing Diferences and Similarities between Instructed Heritage Language Learners and L2 Learners in Their Knowledge of Spanish Tense-Aspect and Mood (TAM) Morphology.” Heritage Language Journal 8 (1): 90–133. Montrul, S., and R. Slabakova. 2002. “Acquiring Morphosyntax and Semantic Properties of Aspectual Tenses in L2 Spanish.” In The Acquisition of Spanish Morphosyntax : The L1/L2 Connection, edited by Ana T Pérez Leroux and Juana M Liceras, 113–49. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Montrul, S., and R. Slabakova. 2003. “Competence Similarities between Native and Near-Native Speakers: An Investigation of the Preterite-Imperfect Contrast in Spanish.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25 (3): 351–98. Morin, Regina. 2006. “Building Depth of Spanish L2 Vocabulary by Building and Using Word Families.” Hispania 89 (1): 170–82. Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prévost, P., and L. White. 2000. “Missing Surface Infection or Impairment in Second Language Acquisition? Evidence from Tense and Agreement.” Second Language Research 16 (2): 103–33. Quer, J. 1998. Mood at the Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Quer, J. 2002. “Spanish L2 Grammars of Mood: On Interfaces and Learnability.” In Proceedings of the GALA’2001 Conference on Language Acquisition | CLUL, edited by Joao Costa and Maria João Freitas, 189–95. Lisboa: Associaçao Portuguesa de Linguística. Sagarra, N., and J. Herschensohn. 2010. “The Role of Profciency and Working Memory in Gender and Number Agreement Processing in L1 and L2 Spanish.” Lingua 120 (8): 2022–39. Sagarra, N., and J. Herschensohn. 2011. “Profciency and Animacy Efects on L2 Gender Agreement Processes during Comprehension.” Language Learning 61 (1): 80–116. Sagarra, N., and J. Herschensohn. 2013. “Processing of Gender and Number Agreement in Late Spanish Bilinguals.” International Journal of Bilingualism 17 (5): 607–27. Salaberry, M. R. 1999. “The Development of Past Tense Verbal Morphology in Classroom L2 Spanish.” Applied Linguistics 20 (2): 151–78. Salaberry, M. R. 2000. The Development of Past Tense Morphology in L2 Spanish. Studies in Bilingualism, v. 22. Amsterdam: JBenjamins PubCo. Salaberry, M. R. 2008. Marking Past Tense in Second Language Acquisition: A  Theoretical Model. London: Continuum. Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994. “The Gradual Loss of Mood Distinctions in Los Angeles Spanish.” Language Variation and Change 6 (3): 255–72. Slabakova, R. 2009. “What Is Easy and What Is Hard to Acquire in a Second Language?” In Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2009), edited by Melissa Bowles, Tania Ionin, Silvina Montrul, and Annie Tremblay, 280–94. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Slabakova, R., and S. Montrul. 2002. “On Viewpoint Aspect Interpretation and Its L2 Acquisition: A UG Perspective.” In The L2 Acquisition of Tense-Aspect Morphology, edited by Rafael Salaberry and Yasuhiro Shirai, 363–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Slabakova, R., and S. Montrul. 2003. “Genericity and Aspect in L2 Acquisition.” Language Acquisition 11 (3): 165–96. Sorace, A. 2011. “Pinning Down the Concept of Interface in Bilingualism.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1 (1): 1–33. Tokowicz, N., and B. MacWhinney. 2005. “Implicit and Explicit Measures of Sensitivity to Violations in Second Language Grammar: An Event-Related Potential Investigation.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (2): 173–204.

536

Morphology and L2 acquisition

Tsimpli, I. M., and M. Mastropavlou. 2007. “Feature Interpretability in L2 Acquisition and SLI: Greek Clitics and Determiners.” In The Role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition, edited by Helmut Zobl, Juana M Liceras, and Helen Goodluck, 143–83. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. VanPatten, B., G. D. Keating, and M. J. Leeser. 2012. “Missing Verbal Infections as a Representational Problem.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2 (2): 109–40. Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. White, L., E. Valenzuela, M. Kozlowska-Macgregor, and Y.-K. Leung. 2004. “Gender and Number Agreement in Nonnative Spanish.” Applied Psycholinguistics 25 (1): 105–33. Whitley, S. 2004. “Lexical Errors and the Acquisition of Derivational Morphology in Spanish.” Hispania 87 (1): 163–72. Zyzik, E., and C. Azevedo. 2009. “Word Class Distinctions in Second Language Acquisition: An Experimental Study of L2 Spanish.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31 (1): 1–29.

537

38 Morphology in Spanish heritage language grammars Silvina MontrulMorphology in heritage language grammars

(La morfología en la gramática del español como lengua de herencia)

Silvina Montrul

1 Introduction Infectional morphology is an area of vulnerability in heritage language grammars not fully acquired in childhood. Child and young adult heritage speakers of Spanish tend to simplify morphological forms and overextend default infectional morphology to irregular forms. This chapter summarizes fndings from studies on the nominal and verbal morphological competence of heritage speakers of Spanish in the United States and Europe. Keywords: gender agreement; diferential object marking; agreement; tense; aspect; mood; clitics La morfología fexiva es un área vulnerable en hablantes de herencia que no se adquiere completamente en la niñez. En este capítulo se presentan resultados de estudios sobre la competencia morfológica en el ámbito nominal y verbal de los hablantes de español como lengua de herencia en los Estados Unidos y en Europa. Palabras clave: concordancia de género; marcado diferencial de objeto; concordancia verbal; tiempo; aspecto; modo; pronombres clíticos

2 The notion of heritage grammar Heritage speakers are child and adult early bilinguals whose home language (one of their native languages) is a minority language in the larger society. Some of them were born into bilingual homes and were exposed to the home language and the societal majority language since birth (simultaneous bilinguals), while others may have had a longer period of monolingualism in their home language with exposure to the majority language starting at school entrance (sequential bilinguals). Regardless of when exposure to the majority language started (at birth or later), heritage language profciency in young adult heritage speakers varies widely (Montrul 2016a; Polinsky 2018). Whereas age of onset of bilingualism and extensive exposure to the majority language are deterministic variables (Montrul 2008), overall profciency also depends on whether one or two parents are native speakers of the home language, the number of siblings 538

Morphology in heritage language grammars

and grandparents living with the family and their language practices at home, as well as the value and availability of the heritage language beyond the home. These environmental factors play a critical role in the degree of receptive and productive ability bilingual children eventually develop in their heritage language. Linguistic research on the grammatical abilities of heritage speakers has endeavored to describe and explain the type of grammatical knowledge heritage speakers acquire under conditions of reduced input and use of the heritage language in childhood, and the extent to which the knowledge developed follows principles of linguistic design (Benmamoun, Montrul, and Polinsky 2013; Polinsky 2018). In monolingual acquisition, diferent aspects of grammar have diferent developmental schedules within their own modules: for example, in phonology, some sounds are acquired earlier than others; in morphology, some morphemes are acquired well before others, and the same happens in syntax, semantics and interfaces. Developmental schedules arise from an interaction of the linguistic complexity of a given form, its perceptual salience and its frequency in the input under optimal exposure. Because heritage speakers develop their heritage language under conditions of reduced input, they may not develop aspects of language that are mastered later in childhood. Their special language learning situation provides a unique testing ground for isolating aspects of grammar that develop target-like and those that are more vulnerable to partial or incomplete acquisition and language loss (Montrul 2016b, 2018; SilvaCorvalán 2018; Rothman, Tsimpli, and Pascual y Cabo 2016). Unlike monolingual children, and similar to many second language (L2) learners who initiate acquisition of the L2 later, around or after puberty, heritage speakers do not fully acquire some specifc areas of grammar when they reach adulthood (see Perpiñán, this volume). Infectional morphology is an important stumbling block in heritage language acquisition even in languages that are morphologically simpler, like Chinese and Thai (Polinsky 2018), and Spanish is no exception. Infectional morphology carries grammatical information and is the locus of crosslinguistic variation driving syntactic diferences between languages (Baker 2008). Infectional morphology emerges early in acquisition, and although monolingual Spanish-speaking children make developmental errors, these errors eventually go away. By a certain age in childhood, depending on the developmental schedule of specifc morphology, children eventually comprehend and produce infectional morphology like adults. By contrast, infectional morphology is often partially acquired, without reaching full mastery, in young adult Spanish heritage speakers. This chapter presents some aspects of the nominal and verbal infectional morphology of Spanish that have been extensively studied in the last few years and which illustrate how they are afected when acquired in a bilingual environment under conditions of reduced input and use during later childhood and adolescence.

3 Nominal morphology Spanish nouns are lexically classifed into two major categories and marked by grammatical gender (masculine, feminine) and number (singular, plural) with afxal morphemes (word markers) (zapat-o-s, carter-a-s) (see Camacho, this volume). Determiners (el, un, este), subject pronouns (él, ella, nosotro/a/s), and object pronouns (lo, la, le, nos) (see Cuervo, this volume) are free morphemes and also carry gender and number information, as shown in (1) and (2). (1) Ellas buscaban unos zapatos cómodos. ¿Los encontraron? they.f.pl looked.for.3pl some.m.pl shoe.m.pl comfortable.m.pl them.m.pl found.3pl “They were looking for some comfortable shoes. Did they fnd them?” 539

Silvina Montrul

(2) Ellos trajeron estas carteras modernas. ¿Las ves? they.m.pl brought.3pl these.f.pl purse.f.pl fashionable.f.pl them.f.pl see.2sg “They brought these fashionable purses. Do you see them?” Although more than 95% of Spanish nouns have regular, transparent endings for gender, there are irregular nouns that do not end in the canonical masculine -o and canonical feminine -a ending (Teschner and Russell 1984). They end in non-transparent endings like -e or a consonant. There are also masculine nouns that end in -a (el problema “the problem”) and feminine nouns that end in -o (la mano “the hand”). Morphologically, masculine gender is considered the default in Spanish (Harris 1991). Gender is also marked on adjectives and determiners by agreement with the gender of the noun they relate to. Monolingual Spanish-speaking children master gender and number agreement in nouns early (Montrul 2004a). By age 3, children produce gender marking with almost 95–100% accuracy, with the exception of non-transparent, less frequent nouns (Mariscal 2009). Several studies on gender assignment and agreement have been conducted with Spanish heritage speakers in the United States, both with adults (Alarcón 2011; Montrul, Foote, and Perpiñán 2008; Montrul et al. 2013; Montrul et al. 2014) and with children (Anderson 1999; Cuza and Pérez Tattam 2016; Montrul and Potowski 2007; Mueller-Gathercole 2002). All these studies found that gender assignment is variable and inconsistent in heritage speakers of low to intermediate profciency in Spanish, as it is for L2 learners. When heritage speakers make gender errors, these are most frequent with feminine nouns with non-transparent endings (nube “cloud”, piel “skin”). Assuming that masculine is the default and feminine the marked form, heritage speakers show simplifcation of feminine forms through the overapplication of the masculine default. Higher-profciency heritage speakers can achieve native-like levels with gender assignment and agreement in production and processing (Alarcón 2011; Montrul et al. 2013). Montrul et al. (2013) also found that the vast majority of errors in oral production (more than 80%) were of lexical assignment rather than of syntactic agreement, especially with nontransparent feminine nouns. Under the assumption that prenominal determiners guide learners in assigning gender to newly learned nouns, an error like *el serpiente negro “the black snake” suggests that the heritage speaker assigned masculine gender in the mental lexicon to serpiente “snake” and correctly applied agreement. Instead, *la serpiente negro would be an agreement error because the determiner indicates that serpiente was correctly classifed as feminine but there is incorrect agreement with the adjective. However, in a study of comprehension of gender and number agreement violations, Scontras, Fuchs, and Polinsky (2018) found that unlike native speakers who detected violations of gender, number, and gender and number combined, Spanish heritage speakers were not sensitive to agreement errors in one feature only (gender or number) versus both features combined (gender + number). For Scontras et al., these response patterns indicate that heritage speakers have a merged syntactic projection for gender/number, unlike the native speakers who have separate projections for each feature. Case is also vulnerable to systematic simplifcation. Nominative case is unmarked. Dative case is present in clitic pronouns and marked with the preposition “a” on the nominal argument, as in (3) and (4). Some instances of “a”, however, are associated with accusative case on defnite, specifc animate direct objects, a phenomenon known as diferential object marking (DOM) as in (5). (3) Pablo le dio un abrazo a Roberto. Pablo him.dat gave a hug to Roberto “Pablo gave Roberto a hug.” 540

Morphology in heritage language grammars

(4) A Julieta le gusta hacer yoga. to Julieta her.dat like to do yoga “Julieta likes to practice yoga.” (5) Arantxa visitó a sus parientes. Arantxa visited dom her relatives “Arantxa visited her relatives.” Like gender agreement, erosion and simplifcation of case marking have been found in several heritage languages, including Spanish in the United States (Montrul 2004b; Montrul and Bowles 2009; Pascual y Cabo 2013), in Switzerland (Grosjean and Py 1991), and in the Netherlands (Irizarri van Suchtelen 2016). Accusative case marking with animate, specifc direct objects (DOM), as in (5), is omitted quite often by child and adult heritage speakers (Montrul and Sánchez-Walker 2013), although, like gender agreement, DOM is produced with high accuracy by 3-year-old monolingual Spanish-speaking children (Rodríguez-Mondoñedo 2008). Ticio (2015) found that by age 3;6, Spanish-English and Spanish-Catalan bilingual children were only 26% accurate producing DOM with animate, specifc direct objects. Montrul and SánchezWalker (2013) found that school-age bilingual children reached 60% accuracy and young adult heritage speakers about 80%. Regardless of profciency levels, young adult heritage speakers produced unmarked animate specifc direct objects in oral production (for example, *Sara vio ∅ la mujer. “Sara saw the woman.”) and judged them as acceptable in grammaticality judgment tasks (Montrul 2004b; Montrul and Bowles 2009; Montrul 2014; Montrul, Bhatt, and Girju 2015). Similarly, heritage speakers frequently omit the obligatory “a” marking of dative experiencer subjects with gustar-type verbs, as in (4), producing and accepting sentences like *Julieta le gusta hacer yoga (“Julieta likes to practice yoga.”). Pascual y Cabo (2013) and Montrul (2016b) showed that heritage speakers make fewer errors in using “a” when marking indirect objects than when marking dative experiencer subjects or animate, specifc direct objects (DOM). To summarize, nominal morphology in Spanish, such as gender agreement and case, is variable and unstable in heritage language grammars. Although child heritage speakers make signifcantly more errors than adult heritage speakers, adult heritage speakers do not close the gap when compared to either frst-generation immigrants or a group of age-matched native speakers in the homeland.

4 Verbal morphology The verbal domain also shows diferential levels of acquisition in heritage language speakers, although overall verbal morphology (subject-verb agreement, complex tenses, aspect, and mood) appears to be more stable than nominal morphology.

4.1 Regular and irregular forms Like in all languages, verbal morphology in Spanish has regular and irregular forms (e.g., comer “to eat” is a regular verb and maintains the same root in other forms as in como “I eat”, while hacer ‘make’ is an irregular verb, hago “I eat”) (see Camus, this volume). Heritage speakers, like child learners, tend to overgeneralize regular forms to irregular forms (Polinsky 2018), suggesting that they engage in morphological composition, just like fuent native speakers. Mason (2019) tested knowledge of regular and irregular morphology of Spanish verbs in three psycholinguistic experiments of real and nonce verbs and found that, like native speakers and diferent from L2 541

Silvina Montrul

learners, heritage speakers showed evidence of compositionality in production, grammaticality judgments, and lexical decision with priming tasks: they overregularized forms to stem-changing irregular verbs and were sensitive to semantic and formal priming.

4.2 Agreement Spanish marks person and number of the subject as agreement on the verb (e.g., Yo sé “I know”, tú sabes “you know”, él sabe “he knows”, ellas/ellos saben “they know”). When errors are made in production, there is overuse of the third person singular form, also considered a default. Fernández-Dobao and Herschensohn (2019) found that heritage language children (9–10 year olds) overgeneralized stem vowels in the present tense agreement forms. Montrul (2006) showed that intermediate and advanced profciency heritage speakers of Spanish in the United States were highly accurate on subject verb-agreement in an oral narrative task (above 96%). Foote (2011) also found very high accuracy on verbal agreement in heritage speakers and L2 learners with intermediate and advanced profciency.

4.3 Tense Tense locates the event in the time axis and signals the diference between present, past, and future. In general, there are few if any reports of errors with tense in heritage grammars. SilvaCorvalán (1994, 2014), who studied oral samples from frst-generation Mexican immigrants and second- and third-generation Spanish heritage speakers in the United States, did not record errors with tense and temporality. The heritage speakers interviewed orally used all the simple tense forms (present, preterit, imperfect, future) and distinguished between past, present, and future. However, with respect to the future, they used predominantly the periphrastic form (ir a + infnitive “go to”) instead of the simple synthetic form (ending in -r-, as in canta-r-é “I will sing”), a pattern also found in Latin American varieties. Unlike the frst-generation speakers who had productive use of simple and complex tenses, the heritage speakers did not evidence productive use of the complex compound tenses, such as the pluperfect indicative and subjunctive (había/hubiera visto “had seen”), future and conditional perfect (habrá/habría visto “will/ would have seen”), and synthetic future (llegaré “I will arrive”) (Silva-Corvalán 1994, p. 30). Silva-Corvalán’s (2014) longitudinal study of her grandchildren, Nico and Bren, from 1 to 6 years of age, found that the children used the simple tenses in the present and in the past. While by age 3;00, the children had full command and used all the English complex tenses, by age 5;11, they did not have productive knowledge of the complex tenses in Spanish, except for Nico, who used the present perfect. Bren also had signifcant difculty with the present subjunctive. Silva-Corvalán used the same methodology and data analyses techniques in her study of adult Mexican Americans (Silva Corvalán 1994) and her study of her Chilean heritage grandchildren (Silva-Corvalán 2014) and found the same patterns, leading her to conclude that the patterns observed in second-generation adult heritage speakers stem from delayed and possibly incomplete acquisition in childhood.

4.4 Aspect Lexical aspect denotes the internal temporal constituency of a situation (state or event), involving notions such as durativity, dynamicity, and telicity (whether the situation has an inherent endpoint or not). Some predicates are telic (with an inherent endpoint), such as achievements like llegar “arrive” and accomplishments like leer un libro “read a book”, while activities like correr 542

Morphology in heritage language grammars

“run” and states like ser “be” are atelic. Grammatical, or viewpoint, aspect refers to the way the situation is presented, as a whole (perfective), or in its development (imperfective). This distinction can be expressed grammatically through infectional morphology, as in the contrast in Spanish between the preterit and the imperfect past tenses: Ayer Juan leyó una revista “Yesterday Juan read a magazine” vs. A esta hora ayer Juan leía una revista “At this time yesterday Juan was reading a magazine.” In the sentence with the preterit, the event is conceived as fnished and bounded, whereas the sentence with the imperfect depicts the event in progress at the time and is unbounded. The imperfect is mastered later than the preterit in Spanish monolingual children. According to Hodgson (2005), this is because the imperfect has various meanings associated with one morphological form (e.g., ongoing action, habits, generics), compared to the preterit. Aspectual morphology is quite vulnerable in the Spanish spoken in the United States. Both Silva-Corvalán (1994, 2014) and Montrul (2002, 2009) found that young adult Spanish heritage speakers confuse aspectual distinctions between perfective and imperfective forms. They use preterit for imperfect forms and vice versa in oral production and have been shown to have difculties interpreting them in experimental tasks involving felicity judgments (Montrul 2002, 2009). Spanish heritage speakers’ knowledge of grammatical aspect appears more solid with prototypical grammatical aspect-predicate type combinations, such as achievements and accomplishments (the telic classes) in the preterit or states and activities (the atelic classes) in the imperfect. By contrast, those conditions in which the lexical aspect of the verb and the semantic features of the aspectual form clash, such as achievements in the imperfect and states in the preterit, proved more problematic for the low profciency speakers as well. Potowski (2007) found that heritage speakers in eighth grade attending a dual language school were slightly less accurate than native speakers in their distribution of preterit and imperfect morphology by aspectual category. Cuza et al.’s (2013) study of child and adult Spanish heritage speakers found that, compared to the monolingual groups, the child and adult heritage speakers had lower production of imperfect and overextension of preterit to imperfect contexts. Compared to the preterit, the imperfect is likely to be underdeveloped and incompletely acquired in Spanish heritage speakers.

4.5 Mood Mood is the category most afected in heritage Spanish. Spanish has a robust contrast between indicative and subjunctive mood. Monolingual Spanish-speaking children start using subjunctive forms with a restricted set of verbs that subcategorize for subjunctive and in negative command by age 3 (Gallo Valdivieso 1994). However, semantically and pragmatically conditioned uses of subjunctive and subjunctive in relative and in adverbial clauses are not mastered until about age 12 (Dracos, Requena, and Miller 2019). First-generation Spanish-speaking immigrants in the United States retain the subjunctive in all these contexts, but second- and third-generation heritage speakers tend to replace indicative for subjunctive in contexts where subjunctive is required or strongly preferred by monolinguals. They also misuse the subjunctive to signal diferent semantic and pragmatic meanings based on context (Martínez-Mira 2009; Mikulski 2010; van Ochs et  al. 2018). For example, Silva-Corvalán (1994) found that lowprofciency speakers did not produce subjunctive forms, using the indicative exclusively in both obligatory and in variable contexts, as in (6) and (7), respectively (Silva-Corvalán 1994, 42). (6) *I hope que no me toca[prs.ind] la misma problema. (Correct: toque[prs.sbjv]) “I hope I don’t run into the same problem.” 543

Silvina Montrul

(7) Quizás vengo[prs.ind] mañana (= venga[prs.sbjv]). “Maybe I come tomorrow.” In variable contexts, the use of indicative or subjunctive expresses a contrast in meaning. In a study with intermediate- and advanced-profciency Spanish heritage speakers, Montrul (2007) found high error rates with subjunctive in a written task of morphological recognition and little discrimination between the semantic implicatures of indicative and subjunctive morphology in variable contexts, such as with relative clauses (Busco a una profesora que enseña[ind]/ enseñe[subj] francés. “I am looking for a teacher who teaches/would teach French”). The indicative signals that the speaker has a particular teacher in mind, whereas the subjunctive implies that such teacher might not exist. The simplifcation of the subjunctive in adult heritage speakers appears to extend to written comprehension as well. In studies of Spanish heritage speakers in the Netherlands, van Ochs and Sleeman (2018) and van Ochs et al. (2018) found that heritage speakers exhibit more difculty when the subjunctive is related to syntax external interfaces (variable contexts) than when it is regulated by the syntax of the matrix clause (required context), a syntax internal interface phenomenon, supporting Sorace’s (2011) Interface Hypothesis. The subjunctive in conditional clauses (both simple and perfect Si tuviera/hubiera tenido tiempo terminaría/habría terminado de leer esto hoy) and the future to express probability (No encuentro mis llaves. ¿Dónde estarán? “I can’t fnd my keys. Where would they be?”) are also not mastered. The general tendency is to replace subjunctive and conditional forms with the indicative and the compound tenses with simple tenses (Silva-Corvalán 1994; Fairclough 2005). Pascual y Cabo and Vela (2017) document convergent simplifcation in the reduction of the possibilities associated with future tense morphology to make Spanish more similar to English. Comparing grammatical and morphological categories within the verbal domain, mood is signifcantly more afected than aspect. Montrul (2009) tested knowledge and use of tense/ aspect and mood in Spanish heritage speakers of low, intermediate, and advanced profciency. Montrul’s results refect the same trends reported by Silva-Corvalán (1994): many of the Spanish heritage speakers who exhibited unstable knowledge of mood displayed better command of grammatical aspect. Montrul’s fndings (2009) are consistent with the attrition efects observed with tense/aspect and with mood in childhood (Merino 1983; Silva-Corvalán 2014). To summarize the patterns of verbal morphology, the degree of erosion and simplifcation observed in diferent speakers seems to be related to the degree of profciency and the complexity of the verbal forms. In general, heritage speakers develop and retain solid knowledge of agreement and tense, but the categories that interface with semantics and pragmatics (aspect, mood) are more prone to simplifcation, more so if they require complex syntax, like subjunctive and conditional forms that occur in complex sentences.

5 Discussion The morphological knowledge of heritage speakers is one of the most-studied areas of their grammars, and this chapter has attempted to synthesize the vast bibliography on Spanish as a heritage language. It is clear that child and adult heritage speakers produce a great number of errors with nominal and verbal morphology, and many of these errors eventually fossilize; that is, they do not go away. This could be due to the fact that Spanish develops in situations of reduced input and language use. Interestingly, when we look at the linguistic patterns and types of errors, there are some general tendencies that suggest, as Benmamoun, Montrul, and Polinsky (2013) and Polinsky (2018) argued, that the errors refect general properties of linguistic design (see Perpiñán, this volume). 544

Morphology in heritage language grammars

Heritage speakers have smaller vocabularies in their heritage language than monolingual speakers. Infectional morphology is part of the functional lexicon, and there is evidence that heritage speakers know and apply generative rules. They also tend to overgeneralize default forms. For example, they overextend the use of masculine gender (the default in Spanish), and they overregularize irregular verbal forms. Unlike regular forms, irregular forms require access to idiosyncrasies associated to particular lexical items. According to Ullman (2001), heritage speakers have the rules, but they have difculty with irregular forms stored in declarative memory. Recent psycholinguistic studies show that heritage speakers engage in lexical decomposition, like native speakers, when processing morphology (Mason 2019). Therefore, many of the morphological errors in heritage speakers, especially those found in production, seem to emerge from slowed processing during lexical access and higher levels of activation needed to retrieve and compute irregular items stored in declarative memory. Errors with gender agreement with irregular feminine nouns also suggest that heritage speakers know the diference between default and marked forms and deploy implicit rules of morphology when vocabulary knowledge is weaker. Low perceptual salience is another property of morphemes that may account for why heritage speakers tend to omit obligatory morphology in required contexts and misunderstand them in comprehension. Polinsky (2018) has claimed that this property explains a lot about morphological errors. Montrul, Bhatt, and Girju (2015) compared knowledge of diferential object marking in Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian. Romanian and Hindi were chosen because their DOM markers, -pe (Romanian) and -ko (Hindi), being CV syllables, are more perceptually salient than the Spanish marker a. Montrul et al. found that DOM was omitted more in Spanish than in Romanian and Hindi, which is consistent with the hypothesis that phonological salience plays a role in degree of DOM erosion. However, the study also included other syntactic and semantic contexts where the preposition “a” is also used and is equally perceptible, such as with indirect objects and dative experiencer subjects (with gustar-type verbs). Montrul et al. found that a, -pe, and -ko were omitted more often when they marked animate, specifc direct objects (DOM) than when they marked indirect objects, suggesting that perceptual salience cannot be the only reason DOM morphology is omitted: the syntax, the semantics, and the polyfunctionality (one-to-one vs. one-to many-correspondences) of the morpheme are also relevant. Polinsky (2018) further argues that the difculty with the subjunctive in Spanish is also related to salience: the morphology of the subjunctive varies in one unstressed vowel in the verb ending compared to the indicative form: duerme-duerma, hago-haga, duermo-duerma, a contrast that may be difcult to perceive, especially if the majority language is English, where there is neutralization of unstressed vowels. If this were the case, we would also expect heritage speakers to confuse conjugation classes, since the within-class contrast duerme-duerma is the same as the contrast between conjugation theme vowels as in come-canta. I would argue, instead, that most of the problems with the subjunctive in Spanish have more to do with the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic complexity of the subjunctive than its morphological form. First, subjunctive is required in complex sentences, so learners need to have the syntax in place to support subjunctive morphology. Second, heritage speakers do not have difculty when main verbs syntactically subcategorize for subjunctive: rather, their problems tend to be with subjunctive use in variable contexts, and these vary according to semantic and pragmatic notions related to presuppositions, polarity negation, epistemic modality, and so on. The future of probability shares the same fate (Pascual y Cabo and Vela 2017). In this respect, it seems that linguistic complexity, as predicted by the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace 2011), is a better explanation for the patterns observed with the imperfect, the subjunctive, and the future of probability in Spanish. 545

Silvina Montrul

Another source of data that casts doubt on perceptual salience as one of the main causes for morphological errors is that clitic pronouns are quite resilient in heritage language grammars, compared to nominal and verbal morphology. By defnition, clitic pronouns are perceptually weak, unstressed pronouns that attach to a host. Clitics have also been analyzed as agreement markers, but they occupy or head their own functional projections in the syntax. Clitic omissions are rare in heritage language speakers (Silva-Corvalán 2018), much less than omission of diferential object marking. Heritage speakers seem to know the syntax of clitics and have native-like knowledge of their distributions and positions with respect to the fniteness of the verb (Montrul 2004b, 2010). The most common problems with clitic pronouns relate to gender and number agreement in discourse, when clitics refer back to already mentioned referents (Shin et al. 2019). Gender agreement with nouns is primarily a lexical problem (lexical assignment and retrieval), but gender agreement with clitics is a long-distance dependency and agreement relation problem. Relationships established via Agree are particularly vulnerable in heritage morphology (Benmamoun, Montrul, and Polinsky 2013). Finally, there is simplifcation of syntactic structure. Montrul and Bowles (2009) and Montrul, Bhatt, and Girju (2015) explained DOM erosion in heritage Spanish as a form of syntactic convergence with English. Spanish is assumed to have two diferent projections for objects: a lower projection within the vP for unmarked inanimate objects and a higher projection above vP for marked inanimate objects. English has a single projection in the lower vP for animate and inanimate objects. Although clitic projections are retained, long-distance agreement relations are afected. If gender and number are represented in diferent lexical projections, Scontras, Polinsky, and Fuchs (2018) show that heritage speakers whose majority language is English combine both projections into one, probably following the phrase structure of English. In the verbal domain, the projection for Tense is robust, whereas the projection for aspect is less so. The subjunctive mood depends on the features of the main verb. But since Mood is part of the left periphery and a semantics, discourse interface, it is more vulnerable to erosion than Tense. In short, morphological errors in Spanish arise as one of the consequences of reduced input conditions. These conditions afect vocabulary size, lexical assignment of nouns and verbs (including their formal interpretable and uninterpretable features), and lexical retrieval during production and comprehension. While heritage speakers can easily deploy morphological rules stored in procedural memory, they have difculty with declarative memory, where irregularities in the forms of nouns and verbs are stored. Although perceptual salience may be a factor that contributes to morphological errors, DOM, the imperfect indicative and subjunctive may be vulnerable because they are instances of one form with many meanings. Lower profciency in the language afects online computation during processing, which can explain non-local agreement errors with gender and number in Spanish and with referential clitics in discourse. Finally, structures at the syntax-discourse interface (DOM, subjunctive) are vulnerable in bilingualism in general and because they are later acquired structures in the typical monolingual development of Spanish. Since heritage speakers do not receive sufcient input beyond age 5 (after the onset of primary schooling), later acquired structures are rarely fully mastered.

References Alarcón, I. 2011. “Spanish Gender Agreement under Complete and Incomplete Acquisition: Early and Late Bilinguals’ Linguistic Behavior within the Noun Phrase.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14: 332–50.

546

Morphology in heritage language grammars

Anderson, R. 1999. “Loss of Gender Agreement in L1 Attrition: Preliminary Results.” Bilingual Research Journal 23 (4): 389–408. Baker, M. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Benmamoun, E., S. Montrul, and M. Polinsky. 2013. “Defning an ‘Ideal’ Heritage Speaker: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges.” Reply to peer commentaries. Theoretical Linguistics 39: 259–94. Cuza, A., and R. Pérez-Tattam. 2016. “Grammatical Gender Selection and Phrasal Word Order in Child Heritage Spanish: A Feature Re-Assembly Approach.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19: 50–68. Cuza, A., R. Pérez-Tattam, E. Barajas, L. Miller, and C. Sadowski. 2013. “The Development of Tense and Aspect Morphology in Child and Adult Heritage Spanish: Implications for Heritage Language Pedagogy.” In Innovative Research and Practices in Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism, edited by J. Schwieter, 193–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dracos, M., P. Requena, and K. Miller. 2019. “Acquisition of Mood Selection in Spanish-speaking Children.” Language Acquisition 26: 106–18. Fairclough, M. 2005. Spanish and Heritage Language Education in the United States. Struggling with Hypotheticals. Frankfurt: Verveurt Iberoamericana. Fernández-Dobao, A., and J. Herschensohn. 2019. “Present Tense Verb Morphology of Spanish HL and L2 Children in Dual Immersion.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism (published online June 3, 2019). Foote, R. 2011. “Integrated Knowledge of Agreement in Early and Late English-Spanish Bilinguals.” Applied Psycholinguistics 32: 187–220. Gallo Valdivieso, P. 1994. “Adquisiciones gramaticales en torno al imperativo: Lo que se aprende dando órdenes.” In La adquisición de la lengua española, edited by S. López Ornat, 47–58. Madrid: Siglo XXI. Grosjean, F., and B. Py. 1991. “La restructuration d’une première langue: L’intégration de variantes de contact dans la compétence de migrants bilingues.” La Linguistique 27: 35–60. Harris, J. 1991. “The Exponence of Gender in Spanish.” Linguistic Inquiry 22: 27–62. Hodgson, M. 2005. “Children’s Production and Comprehension of Grammatical Aspect.” In Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics, edited by R. Gess and E. Rubin, 125–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Irizarri van Suchtelen, P. 2016. “Spanish as a Heritage Language in the Netherlands: A Cognitive Linguistic Exploration.” PhD diss., LOT, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Mariscal, S. 2009. “Early Acquisition of Gender Agreement in the Spanish Noun Phrase: Starting Small.” Journal of Child Language 36: 143–71. Martínez-Mira, M. I. 2009. “Spanish Heritage Speakers in the Southwest: Factors Contributing to the Maintenance of the Subjunctive in Concessive Clauses.” Spanish in Context 6: 105–26. Mason, S. 2019. “The Infuence of Task Type and Speaker Background on Morphological Processing in Spanish.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL. Merino, B. 1983. “Language Loss in Bilingual Chicano Children.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 4: 277–94. Mikulski, A. M. 2010. “Receptive Volitional Subjunctive Abilities in Heritage and Traditional Foreign Language Learners of Spanish.” The Modern Language Journal 94: 217–33. Montrul, S. 2002. “Incomplete Acquisition and Attrition of Spanish Tense/Aspect Distinctions in Adult Bilinguals.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5: 39–68. Montrul, S. 2004a. The Acquisition of Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. 2004b. “Subject and Object Expression in Spanish Heritage Speakers: A Case of MorphoSyntactic Convergence.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 125–42. Montrul, S. 2006. “Bilingualism, Incomplete Acquisition and Language Change.” In L2 Acquisition and Creole Genesis. Montreal Dialogues, edited by C. Lefebvre, L. White, and C. Jourdens, 379–400. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. 2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism. Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. 2009. “Incomplete Acquisition of Tense-Aspect and Mood in Spanish Heritage Speakers.” The International Journal of Bilingualism 13: 239–69.

547

Silvina Montrul

Montrul, S. 2010. “How Similar are L2 Learners and Heritage Speakers? Spanish Clitics and Word Order.” Applied Psycholinguistics 31: 167–207. Montrul, S. 2014. “Searching for the Roots of Structural Changes in the Spanish of the United States.” Lingua 151: 177–96. Montrul, S. 2016a. The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Montrul, S. 2016b. “Losing Your Case? Dative Experiencers in Mexican Spanish and Heritage Speakers in the United States.” In Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language, edited by D. Pascual y Cabo, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. 2018. “Heritage Language Development. Connecting the Dots.” International Journal of Bilingualism 22: 530–46. Montrul, S., R. Bhatt, and R. Girju. 2015. “Diferential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as Heritage Languages.” Language 91 (3): 564–610. Montrul, S., and M. Bowles. 2009. “Back to Basics: Diferential Object Marking under Incomplete Acquisition in Spanish Heritage Speakers.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12: 363–83. Montrul, S., J. Davidson, I. de la Fuente, and R. Foote. 2014. “Early Language Experience Facilitates Gender Agreement Processing in Spanish Heritage Speakers.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17: 118–38. Montrul, S., I. de la Fuente, J. Davidson, and R. Foote. 2013. “The Role of Experience in the Acquisition and Production of Diminutives and Gender in Spanish: Evidence from L2 Learners and Heritage Speakers.” Second Language Research 29: 87–118. Montrul, S., R. Foote, and S. Perpiñán. 2008. “Gender Agreement in Adult Second Language Learners and Spanish Heritage Speakers: The Efects of Age and Context of Acquisition.” Language Learning 58: 3–53. Montrul, S., and K. Potowski. 2007. “Command of Gender Agreement in School-Age Spanish Bilingual Children.” International Journal of Bilingualism 11: 301–28. Montrul, S., and N. Sánchez-Walker. 2013. “Diferential Object Marking in Child and Adult Spanish Heritage Speakers.” Language Acquisition 20: 109–32. Mueller-Gathercole, V. 2002. “Grammatical Gender in Monolingual and Bilingual Acquisition. A Spanish Morphosyntactic Distinction.” In Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children, edited by D. K. Oller and R. Eilers, 207–19. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pascual y Cabo, D. 2013. “Knowledge of gustar-Like Verbs in Spanish Heritage Speakers.” In Proceedings of the 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA), edited by J. Cabrelli Amaro, T. Judy, and D. Pascual y Cabo, 162–69. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Pascual y Cabo, D., and G. Vela. 2017. “Futurity and Probability in Spanish as a Heritage Language.” In Hispanic Linguistics: Current Issues and New Directions, edited by A. Morales-Front, M. J. Ferreira, R. P. Leow, and C. Sanz, 286–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Polinsky, M. 2018. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Potowski, K. 2007. “Tense and Aspect in the Oral and Written Narratives of Two-way Immersion Students.” In Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages, edited by D. Eddington, 123–36. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. 2008. “The Acquisition of Diferential Object Marking in Spanish.” Probus 20: 111–45. Rothman, J., M. I. Tsimpli, and D. Pascual y Cabo. 2016. “Formal Linguistic Approaches to Heritage Language Acquisition: Bridges for Pedagogically Oriented Research.” In Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language, edited by D. Pascual y Cabo, 11–25. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Scontras, G., M. Polinsky, and Z. Fuchs. 2018. “In Support of Representational Economy: Agreement in Heritage Spanish.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3 (1): 1. doi:10.5334/gjgl.164. Shin, N., B. Rodríguez, A. Armijo, and M. Perar-Lunde. 2019. “Child Heritage Speakers’ Production and Comprehension of Direct Object Clitic Gender in Spanish.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9: 659–86. Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994. Language Contact and Change. Spanish in Los Angeles. New York: Oxford University Press. 548

Morphology in heritage language grammars

Silva-Corvalán, C. 2014. Bilingual First Language Acquisition: Spanish and English in the First Six Years. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Silva-Corvalán, C. 2018. “Simultaneous Bilingualism: Early Developments, Incomplete Later Outcomes?” International Journal of Bilingualism 22: 497–512. Sorace, A. 2011. “Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1: 1–33. Teschner, R., and W. Russell. 1984. “The Gender Patterns of Spanish Nouns: An Inverse Dictionarybased Analysis.” Hispanic Linguistics 1 (1): 115–32. Ticio, E. 2015. “Diferential Object Marking in Spanish-English Early Bilinguals.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5: 62–90. Ullman, M. T. 2001. “The Neural Basis of Lexicon and Grammar in First and Second Language: The Declarative/Procedural Model.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4: 105–22. van Ochs, B., A. Hulk, P. Sleeman, and S. Aalberse. 2018. “Knowledge of Mood in Internal and External Interface Contexts in Spanish Heritage Speakers in the Netherlands.” In Multidisciplinary Approaches to Bilingualism in the Hispanic and Lusophone-speaking World, edited by K. Bellamy, M. Child, P. González, A. Muntendam, and M. C. Parafta Couto, 67–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van Ochs, B., and P. Sleeman. 2018. “Spanish Heritage Speakers in the Netherlands: Linguistic Patterns in the Judgment and Production of Mood.” International Journal of Bilingualism 22: 513–29.

549

39 Words vs. rules del Carmen Horno-Chéliz and IgoaWords vs. rules

Issues of storage in Spanish (Palabras vs. reglas: cuestiones de almacenamiento en español)

María del Carmen Horno-Chéliz and José Manuel Igoa

1 Introduction This chapter addresses the representation and storage of morphological units of complex words in Spanish. We frst review the main theoretical approaches to this issue, drawing on a distinction between dual-mechanism and single-mechanism models. Next, we present a general overview of the main sources of empirical evidence from adult language processing, language acquisition, and language impairments, focusing on topics like the psychological reality of a distinct level of morphological representation, the distinction between infectional and derivational morphology, or the contrast between regular and irregular words and paradigms. The chapter ends with an assessment of models of morphological representation in light of the empirical evidence previously reported. Most evidence supports a proper level of morphological representation in the lexicon and validates the distinction between infectional and derivational morphology but provides mixed results concerning the representation of regular vs irregular morphology. Keywords: morphological representation; psycholinguistics; infections and derivations; regular and irregular morphology; empirical evidence Este capítulo trata sobre la representación y el almacenamiento de unidades morfológicas en palabras complejas en español. Comenzamos revisando los principales enfoques teóricos sobre esta cuestión, centrándonos en la distinción entre modelos de mecanismo dual y de mecanismo único. A continuación, presentamos una visión general de las principales fuentes de evidencia empírica procedentes del procesamiento del lenguaje en adultos, la adquisición del lenguaje y las alteraciones del lenguaje, examinando cuestiones como la realidad psicológica de las unidades morfológicas, la distinción entre morfología fexiva y derivativa, o el contraste entre palabras y paradigmas regulares e irregulares. Por último, evaluamos los modelos de representación morfológica a la luz de las pruebas empíricas expuestas previamente. La mayoría de ellas apoya un nivel propio de representación morfológica en el léxico y valida la distinción entre morfología fexiva y derivativa, pero no es concluyente en lo relativo a la representación de la morfología regular frente a la irregular. Palabras clave: representación morfológica; psicolingüística; fexión y derivación; morfología regular e irregular; evidencia empírica

550

Words vs. rules

2 General background According to the standard picture in psycholinguistic theorizing, the proper account of human linguistic performance involves the execution of real-time computations over representations or data structures that are permanently stored in memory. If we take this picture to heart, one of the main goals of psycholinguistic research should be to fnd out what these permanently stored representations look like and how they intervene in the online processing of linguistic information. Thus, a necessary step in psycholinguistic research ought to be to collect evidence about the nature of such representations and proofs of their very existence. The search for linguistic representations is also an important task in the explanation of language development and patterns of breakdown in language pathology. In the former case, we should make clear to what extent the units and entities postulated by linguistic theories are actually a part of the speaker/hearer’s knowledge of his/her language or only a shorthand description of the learner’s otherwise unknown capacities. In the latter case, the aim is to discover whether the source of the language impairment lies in (more or less permanently) damaged representations or in an impeded access to an otherwise intact database. This chapter is intended to ofer a general picture of the state of the art of the research on the storage and representation of morphological units of complex words in a fairly morphologically rich language like Spanish. These words have recognizable components insofar as they recur across diferent words. Are these morphological units independently stored in the lexicon (in the same way as whole words), or are they rather an epiphenomenon, a component that arises when speakers compare complete paradigms? The question is far from being solved today, and there are models that endorse each of these two positions (see Milin, Smolka, and Feldman 2018). The purpose of this chapter is to present the fundamentals of the various approaches to morphological structure and representation (section 3) and to examine relevant empirical data supporting them (section 4). The chapter closes with some general remarks and conclusions, including a few open questions that remain unresolved (section 5).

3 Theoretical approaches 3.1 Dual-Mechanism accounts Over and above their internal diferences (see Clahsen 2006), Dual-Mechanism models argue that the existence of two types of complex words (regular and irregular) results from two kinds of stored representations in the lexicon. Thus, the morphemes that constitute regular complex words are stored together with complete words (simple or complex irregular). In some sense, these models side with the classic (and general) proposal about information-processing systems which state that there are data directly recovered from a string of symbols and data built in real time through rules (Marr 1982). Hence the Dual-Mechanism label. From a linguistic point of view, these models blend two cognitive modules, a mental lexicon and a computational system (Ullman 2016), which correspond to two diferent kinds of memory. The mental lexicon is part of declarative memory where every arbitrary (non-predictable) linguistic element is stored. Its acquisition is conscious and fast, but its use is slow. On the other hand, the computational system applies a set of rules to lexical items and is linked to procedural memory. Its acquisition is unconscious and slow, but its use is fast. As for the relationship between both components, Ullman (2016) states that they are relatively independent, in at least two senses: on one hand, if one fails, the other can continue

551

María del Carmen Horno-Chéliz and José Manuel Igoa

to operate; on the other hand, what is learned in declarative memory can become a part of procedural memory with appropriate instruction. However, sometimes it seems that these two memories compete with each other, such that declarative can block procedural memory. Following Pinker and Ullman (2002), in complex word formation, the way in which these two complementary mechanisms are regulated is simple: if an irregular word exists in the speaker’s knowledge, the word formation rule is blocked; otherwise, the rule is used.1 This explains why, when a speaker does not know or remember the irregular form, s/he builds a new regular word through morphemes and the corresponding rules. Although much of the empirical research derived from this model comes from the study of past tense in English (Ullman 2001), the model can be extended to any kind of complex words like derivations (Clahsen, Sonnenstuhl, and Blevins 2003). However, the diference between derivation and infection is that only derived complex words are thought to be stored in the lexicon once they are formed.

3.2 Single-Mechanism models In opposition to Dual models are those that claim that there is a single mechanism that accounts for complex words, both regular and irregular: they either consider that a lexicon that stores elements is not necessary for morphemes, because it is sufcient with the systematic application of a powerful set of rules (Marantz 1997), or they relinquish rules and propose diferent solutions to account for the morphology of languages by postulating an enriched lexicon (e.g. Bybee 1999; Jackendof and Audring 2016). Associative models claim that all words are listed in the lexicon. It doesn’t matter if they are regular or irregular, since they assume there is a continuum of similarity with respect to a prototype, from complete similarity, as in regular forms, to absence of similarity, as in irregular forms (Bybee 1999). Speakers recover words and paradigms from the lexicon and, if they fnd frequent enough processes, they apply them to new words. This model advocates a single module for language processing, namely a highly redundant lexicon which is sensitive to linguistic experience. The same material can be subjected to diferent levels of generalization and schemas emerge at one or another level, according to the relative frequency of use. Every phenomenon that can be explained with rules can also be explained through an online process of generalization through paradigms (Daugherty and Seidenberg 1994). The Relational Morphology model (Jackendof and Audring 2016), in turn, argues that the rules are listed in the lexicon in the form of schemas. These schemas not only account for the creation of words but also for the relationships between lexical items that share morphological material and interpretation. This model is very similar to the Dual model but difers from it in several respects: (i) all the schemas are listed in the lexicon, so just one module is invoked for both regular and irregular morphology; (ii) the schemas serve to generalize and (sometimes) produce new forms. The problem of semi-irregular forms is solved in this way. This model is also similar to the Associative model, since both claim that there is just one module (the lexicon) and assume that the generalizations are expressed in schema mode (with degrees of application). However, the Relational Morphology model difers from it in the way schemas are applied. Thus, for Associative models, the interpretation of a new word is generated on the fy through an analogical process and a comparison of forms, whereas the Relational Morphology model asserts that new words are formed and understood using the schemas that are listed in the lexicon. Last, for Generative models, all words are formed by rules. It is assumed that word formation is based on a series of abstract morphemes that are linked to phonology at the end of the 552

Words vs. rules

derivation. These models are dubbed Rule-Based Single-Mechanism models (Clahsen 2006). One of its best-known proponents is Marantz (1997). For this author, there is only one generative component in the language that basically consists of a merger process (simple combinations of two elements), either by combining two lexical units to create a constituent or two morphemes to create a lexical unit. This single process handles syntactic and morphological computations alike. The same process applies to regular and irregular morphology. This model breaks down the linguistic sign and postpones the insertion of phonological material to a postsyntactic phase. Thus, as the diference between regular and irregular morphology relies on the phonological component, there is no need to postulate a dual mechanism. All complex words are formed through syntactic rules or principles, and it is in their fnal (phonological) phase when they can be diferentiated into regular and irregular words.

4 Empirical evidence In this section, we will review diferent kinds of empirical facts drawn from various avenues of research carried out in Spanish, with the aim of elucidating which of the competing models are better supported. The evidence reviewed in the following comes from studies of the online processing of morphological information in word and sentence processing, research on the acquisition of Spanish, and investigation of language impairments (i.e. aphasia). Most evidence reviewed deals with verb infections, comparing regular and irregular morphology (cf. Zacarías Ponce de León, this volume and Camus, this volume), and the representation and processing of gender and number morphology in noun phrases and sentences in Spanish (cf. Camacho, this volume).

4.1 Processing studies By processing studies, we understand all empirical research carried out with native Spanish adults. The primary goals of these studies are the search for evidence for a purely morphological level of representation in the lexicon, as distinct both from phonological/orthographic and semantic levels, and the exploration of possible diferences between regular and irregular morphology in lexical access and retrieval. Most studies on morphological processing in Spanish focus on verbal and nominal morphology. The former underscore the typical irregularities found in Spanish verbal morphology, involving changes in root vowels and in past tense and participle afxes, and the latter point towards the diference between gender and number marking in Spanish. The psychological reality of an independent level of morphological representation has some supporting evidence from studies of word recognition in Spanish. Domínguez, Cuetos, and Seguí (2000) tested the processing diferences between morphologically related words by gender infection (loc-o/a, ‘crazy’; cf. Camacho, this volume and Pastor, this volume) versus orthographically similar words (viz. stem homographs) that were morphologically and semantically unrelated but shared the orthographic description of their stem (foc-o/a, ‘spotlight/seal’). They used a lexical decision task within a priming paradigm,2 contrasting explicit priming, with visible primes, with masked priming, where the prime (with an exposure time of about 60 milliseconds) was not consciously perceived but exerted an infuence on response times. Results showed a signifcant facilitation of infected nouns in both priming conditions in the lexical decision task but a lower facilitatory efect for stem homographs with masked priming and a null or even inhibitory efect with visible priming. Similar results have been extended to derived words sharing the same stem (with pairs like ram-o/ram-a, ‘bunch/branch’) (Sánchez-Casas, 553

María del Carmen Horno-Chéliz and José Manuel Igoa

Igoa, and García-Albea 2003) and to prefxed (e.g. incapaz, ‘incapable’) and pseudoprefxed words (e.g. industria, ‘industry’) preceded by prefxed or pseudoprefxed primes (Domínguez et al. 2010) (cf. Gibert-Sotelo, this volume). In the latter case, recognition of prefxed targets was facilitated by prefxed primes and inhibited by pseudoprefxed ones with explicit priming, whereas both prefxed and pseudoprefxed primes facilitated the recognition with masked priming. Similar results, with more pronounced inhibitory efects, have been found when target words were primed with orthographically overlapping but morphologically unrelated stems (e.g. mor-ía, ‘died’, versus mor-os, ‘moors’) (Allen and Badecker 1999). Similar results to these have been found by contrasting morphologically related words with a transparent (e.g. arena-ARENAL, ‘sand/sandy area’) vs opaque semantic relationship (puñoPUÑAL, ‘fst/dagger’) and pure semantic and orthographic relatedness (Sánchez-Casas, Igoa, and García-Albea 2003). Both transparent and opaque derivational noun pairs produced similar and signifcant facilitation efects in these experiments, while the semantic relation alone only facilitated response times under explicit priming. This demonstrates that meaning similarity by itself cannot account for the morphological efects found and suggests that morphological structure is an independent level of representation in the lexicon. A question often raised in the literature on word recognition concerns the role of word frequency in response times. In the case of morphological representations, frequency may modulate or infuence response times at two diferent levels, either at the level of morphemes (roots vs afxes), that is, considering the cumulative frequency of the word stem when combined with diferent afxes, or at the level of whole words, that is, regarding the individual (superfcial) frequency of each morphologically complex item. This comparison has been made in Spanish with nominal gender and number afxes (see Domínguez, Cuetos, and Seguí 2000). For gender, superfcial frequency appears to be more infuential than cumulative frequency, suggesting that the two gender forms associated with the same stem are separately represented in the lexicon. As for number, recognition time for singulars is as much infuenced by superfcial and cumulative frequencies, whereas recognition time for plurals is only dependent on the cumulative frequency of the stem. Additional evidence comes from studies on sentence production. Igoa, García-Albea, and Sánchez-Casas (1999) analyzed the regularities of speech errors involving gender and number in a Spanish corpus (Del Viso, Igoa, and García-Albea 1987) and conducted an experiment on the production of word exchanges by instruction in complex NPs. The experiment was intended to induce stranding errors involving gender and/or number afxes, where they remain in place while word stems/roots get exchanged. This error pattern is taken as an indirect measure of the degree of dependency of nominal afxes on the word stem/root and hence of the lexical or phrasal specifcation of nominal afxes. The results showed that gender and number afxes behave in a diferent way in speech errors, both spontaneous and induced, as in the word exchange task: number afxes (features) are more easily exchanged and get more often stranded than gender afxes. These gender-number dissociations lend support to the claim that gender and number are represented in a diferent fashion, gender features being an integral part of the lexical entry, while number features are separately represented and retrieved in combinatorial processes of sentence planning. The representational status and the processing implications of regular and irregular morphology in verbs was initially triggered by the investigation of the acquisition and processing of the English past tense (Pinker and Ullman 2002) but was soon extended to other languages with more complex morphological paradigms of verbs. A  pioneer study on this topic in Spanish (Rodríguez-Fornells, Münte, and Clahsen 2001) was an event-related potentials (ERPs) study with a delayed visual priming technique carried out with regular verbs with non-alternating 554

Words vs. rules

stems (e.g. and-o/and-ar, I walk/to walk) and irregular verbs with alternating stems (e.g. duermo/dorm-ir, I  sleep/to sleep). Participants performed a lexical decision task on verb infnitives while ERPs were recorded. The results showed a priming efect, consisting of a reduced N400 component, following primed regular forms but no priming efect after irregular forms. The reduced N400, an ERP component commonly associated with semantic processing, is interpreted as a sign of processing facilitation, which is compatible with the view that regular forms are morphologically decomposed, thereby making the unmarked stem (e.g., and- in and-o) available for priming, unlike irregular (marked) stems. In addition, this priming efect did not show up with pseudoword control items mimicking the experimental items, which suggests that the priming efect was not due to the closer orthographic similarity between primes and targets in regular verbs. Another piece of evidence underscoring the diferences between regular and irregular morphology in Spanish verbs is a study using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to identify the brain regions involved in the representation and processing of each of these two kinds of verbs (De Diego et al. 2006). Participants had to covertly produce the present tense of verbs (and similarly constructed nonce verbs) given in the infnitive form. The results showed overlapping areas in the processing of both kinds of verbs (left opercular inferior frontal gyrus) but also specifc areas for each kind of verb: for irregular verbs, the inferior frontal area bilaterally and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, whereas for regular verbs, the anterior superior temporal gyrus/insular cortex and the left hippocampus. The areas associated with irregular verbs are usually involved in lexical retrieval, whereas the areas most activated with regular verbs are related to grammatical and phonological processing. Another study that is relevant to the regularity-irregularity issue in Spanish verbs is a nonce verb production study in which novel verbs were given in the infnitive form for participants to produce the imperfect form in a sentence completion task (Brovetto and Ullman 2005). Nonce verbs were manipulated in order to contrast two possible sources of variability in the conjugation of the regular imperfect in Spanish: the conjugation class, a grammatical feature, and the frequency of rhymes, a phonological feature. According to the latter, there were verbs whose rhyme was more frequently associated with a specifc conjugation class, which could match or mismatch the actual conjugation class of the verb. The results of this study showed that participants are not afected by the phonological features of the nonce verbs and consistently responded according to the conjugation class of the targets. Diferent fndings with the nonce verb production task are provided by a study with third conjugation class verbs (Bybee 1999), most of which have alternating stems in the present and past tenses. When native Spanish speakers were asked to produce the past tense of these nonce verbs, they only applied the alternation in verbs having an e in their stem (e.g., rentir-rintió) but not in verbs with o (sornir-sornió). This disparate behavior correlates with the frequency of use, since verbs of the third conjugation with e are frequent, as opposed to verbs with o. Another piece of evidence emphasizing the role of frequency in production is stress placement in pseudowords ending in -en (Aske 1990). In Spanish, these words are usually stressed on the last syllable (e.g. galán, belén, michelín, camión, atún). However, there is an exception to this rule, as words ending in -en are stressed on the penultimate syllable (e.g. imagen, orden, joven). In this study, subjects were asked to pronounce a series of pseudowords without a stress mark. If subjects had applied the general rule, they would have placed the stress on the last syllable. In contrast, they tended to place the stress on the penultimate syllable, thus showing a frequency bias in their responses. 555

María del Carmen Horno-Chéliz and José Manuel Igoa

4.2 Acquisition studies A fairly common fact in the acquisition of morphological knowledge across languages is that children undergo a stage in language development in which they tend to regularize irregular participles and other verbal forms (cf. Soto-Corominas, this volume). This usually occurs after a brief period in which children correctly use the irregular forms of a handful of high-frequency verbs. Errors of this kind decrease at later stages of development, thus showing the U-shaped developmental curve (see Montrul 2004, for Spanish data). Conversely, production of incorrect irregulars by adding an irregular sufx to a regular verb stem or using an irregular form by analogy is rarely observed. This has been taken as evidence that once children learn the regularities of verbal paradigms in their language, they generalize these regularities across the board (Marcus et al. 1992)—for example, the participle ending ‘-ido’ of the second and third conjugations, and non-alternating stems such as ‘salir’ (go out) are overextended to irregular verbs, producing forms such as ‘devolvido’ (returned) instead of the irregular ‘devuelto’ (Clahsen, Aveledo, and Roca 2002). However, this fnding is modulated by the type frequency of verbs, such that regularization errors are much more common in low-frequency irregular verbs than in highfrequency ones. This is usually interpreted as showing that high-frequency irregular verbs are more likely to be stored as full-form memory representations in the children’s lexicon, whereas low-frequency irregulars are mistakenly applied morphological rules, as Dual-Mechanism models assert (but see Plunkett and Marchman 1993, for a single-mechanism connectionist account of this pattern of acquisition). Moreover, children have been found to apply the rule of past tense formation (e.g. adding the -ó, and -é endings), while keeping the irregular stem of the past tense (vin-, pus-). In addition, there is a frequency efect in overregularization errors, with higher error rates for low-frequency verbs.3 The scant literature on morphological processing by adult learners of Spanish as a second language (L2; cf. Perpiñán, this volume) ofers some interesting results regarding morphological processes. In De Diego et al. 2005, ERPs were recorded from two groups of highly profcient Catalan-Spanish bilinguals, one Spanish-dominant and the other Catalan-dominant. Participants performed a double task in a repetition priming paradigm: pairs of written words in Spanish (as L1 or L2) were successively presented that could be morphologically related or semantically related, and participants performed a distractor letter-search task with the frst word in the pair and a lexical decision task with the second. Morphologically related pairs were either regular verb forms (e.g. gano-ganar, ‘I win’-‘to win’), semi-regular verb forms (e.g. cuento-contar, ‘I tell’‘to tell’) and idiosyncratic irregulars (e.g. vengo-venir, ‘I come’-‘to come’). Results showed an interesting contrast in ERP patterns between regular and irregular verbs when comparing the L1 and the L2 Spanish groups. Both groups showed the same priming efect in morphologically related pairs of regular verbs, namely an attenuation of the N400 component. In contrast, in L1 Spanish speakers, the N400 component was attenuated for semi-regular verbs only, while for L2 Spanish speakers, the attenuation of the N400 was found both in semi-regular and in idiosyncratic irregular verbs. These results provide additional evidence of the dissociation between regular and irregular infectional morphology. We will close this section with a study on morphological processing of regularly infected words (verbs and adjectives) in Spanish comparing native speakers and advanced and intermediate learners of Spanish with English as L1 (Foote 2017). This study employed a lexical decision task with a masked-priming procedure with words or pseudowords preceded by masked primes that were morphologically, orthographically, or semantically related to the targets. For instance, the target verb CANTA (‘s/he sings’) could be preceded by primes like cante (subjunctive of ‘sing’), cansa (orthographic prime ‘s/he tires’), baila (semantic prime ‘s/he dances’), or 556

Words vs. rules

an unrelated word. The results showed that morphological priming yielded signifcantly faster recognition times than any of the other priming conditions. More importantly, this efect was the same for all three groups of participants, thus showing that, at least from the intermediate level of profciency, L2 learners of Spanish are sensitive to the morphological structure of regularly infected words.

4.3 Language impairment studies Processing studies with aphasic patients are quite interesting in two senses: frst, they allow us to test if brain damage involves the kind of morphological dysfunctions that are expected according to current models; besides, beyond the cerebral identifcation of linguistic disorders, it is interesting to fnd out what happens with regular and irregular morphology in diferent kinds of aphasics (see also Torrens, this volume). In De Diego et  al. (2004), the performances of two aphasic patients in a morphological test are analyzed. Both had agrammatism, caused by injury in Broca’s area, so Ullman’s model anticipates that they should have more problems with regular morphology. However, the results showed that both patients present more difculties with irregular morphology. This difculty may be linked, according to the authors, to frequency (higher for regular forms). In any case, these results may be taken as evidence that the regular/irregular diference is not relevant to these aphasic impairments. Apparently contradictory are the results of the work by Cuetos et al. (2007). It analyzes the results of a task with regular and irregular verbs from ten aphasics, fve Broca and fve anomic. Unlike the previous work, this time, regular and irregular verbs were controlled for frequency. Statistical comparisons revealed a higher rate of errors in anomic patients when they performed tasks with irregular verbs. However, the contradiction of these results with those of De Diego et al.’s study is only apparent. The Broca patients in the latter study had a similar number of errors in regular and irregular morphology. If we bear in mind that there were no frequency efects in this study (since it was controlled), the results are comparable to those of De Diego et al. (2004).

5 Discussion and conclusions The purpose of this chapter was to address diferent proposals about how complex words are stored and processed in Spanish. In this fnal section, we will try to refect on the evidence reported in the previous section and its interpretation in light of the diferent theoretical models. The frst conclusion we want to highlight is that speakers of a language (whether native or L2) are sensitive to morphology. That is, they exhibit a diferent behavior when dealing with a recurrence of morphological units or with simple phonological combinations. This morphological competence can be interpreted as evidence for the existence of isolated morphological material in the lexicon (Dual model). Nevertheless, it can be also explained by the existence of schemas that apply to basic words (Relational model). Or it might even be evidence of material that is linked to word formation rules (Generative morphology). Conversely, it doesn’t seem as easy to explain this morphological competence from a purely Associative viewpoint. Second, the available evidence points to the fact that gender and number in nouns are processed in a diferent fashion. Nouns that are infected for number show a cumulative frequency efect of the morpheme (in addition to the frequency of the whole word), while nouns with gender variation do not. This evidence underscores the idea commonly underlined in theoretical linguistics that infectional morphology is syntactic in nature and seems to indicate that infected words are assembled online. Again, this is difcult to explain from a purely Associative 557

María del Carmen Horno-Chéliz and José Manuel Igoa

model—in which all words are listed, regardless of their morphological type—or a Generative model—where all morphology is formed by rules. This would be compatible with a variant form of a Dual Processing model, not distinguishing regular from irregular words but rather infected and uninfected words. Nevertheless, a Relational model might also account for these results if schemas were only applied to infection. Third, studies comparing regular and irregular morphology in Spanish provide inconclusive results. In support of the Dual Mechanism model, we fnd various kinds of evidence. For example, patients with anomic symptoms seem to have more problems with irregular forms, which suggests that only irregular forms are listed in the lexicon. In a similar vein, the fact that processing regular complex words takes more resources than irregular ones is compatible with the claim set forth by the Dual model that processing regular complex words involves grammar, while irregulars don’t. On the other hand, the few available studies of language breakdown in aphasia reveal similar difculties with regular and irregular morphology in Broca’s patients. This evidence argues in favor of a common processing mechanism, as Associative models claim. Other results we have reviewed are arguably compatible with both dual- and single-mechanism models. For instance, evidence from brain imaging studies shows that there are common areas for processing regular and irregular words, though also diferent areas for each morphological type; by the same token, the evidence that irregular lexical bases are retrieved directly from the lexicon, unlike regular words, is usually taken as evidence for the Dual model. However, the regular-irregular dissociation can also be accommodated by Associative and Relational models, insofar as speakers are able to retrieve patterns with varying degrees of similarity among their members. Similarly, errors made by learners can be interpreted as the result of a Dual Process (retrieval versus online assembly), but they may also be understood within the framework of Associative models, given the importance of frequency. Finally, Spanish speakers seem to use grammatical features (as opposed to plain frequency) when conjugating nonce verbs. Again, this result aligns with predictions from the Dual model as well as the Relational or Generative models, while it is difcult to accommodate by Associative models. Finally, both children and adults apply pseudo-regular patterns to diferent tasks, such as nonce verb infection for tense or stress assignment to pseudowords. These behaviors seem to support Associative claims against rule- or schema-based models, because pseudo-regularities can hardly be formalized by explicit rules, more so if we bear in mind that in adult performance, frequency seems to play a crucial role—that is, only the most frequent pseudo-regulatory schemas are involved. By way of conclusion, there seems to be enough evidence to the efect that Spanish speakers’ morphological competence and their diferential behavior with derivational and infectional morphology justify the claims of Dual (or Relational) models: infection is linked to the operation of combinatorial rules or principles, whereas regular derivational morphology may also follow rule-governed processes (with rules stored or not in the lexicon) or alternatively be handled by applying generalization and pattern-forming processes to paradigms (Associative Models). The issue is far from being solved.

Acknowledgements Preparation of this chapter was supported by Grants no. FF12017-82460-P, from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, awarded to the frst author, and no. PID2019-111198GB-I00, from the Spanish Ministry of Sience and Innovation, awarded to both authors. 558

Words vs. rules

Notes 1 This rule is applicable both to languages such as English, where irregular words are a minority class of words, and to languages such as German, where they are much more frequent (Pinker 1998, 238). 2 The lexical decision task consists of telling whether a string of letters constitutes a real word. In ‘priming paradigms’, target stimuli are preceded by other stimuli related in diferent ways. 3 However, a corpus study run with Spanish regular and irregular verbs, conducted to test the relationship between regularity and frequency, found no signifcant correlations between these two factors at all frequency levels, except for a small group of very high-frequency irregular verbs (Fratini, Acha, and Laka 2014). Thus, frequency per se cannot be assumed to be an infuential variable in overregularization errors in Spanish.

References Allen, M., and W. Badecker. 1999. “Stem Homograph Inhibition and Stem Allomorphy: Representing and Processing Infected Forms in a Multilevel Lexical System.” Journal of Memory and Language 41 (1): 105–23. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2639. Aske, J. 1990. “Disembodied Rules versus Patterns in the Lexicon: Testing the Psychological Reality of Spanish Stress Rules.” In Proceedings of the XVI Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, edited by D. J. Costa, 30–45. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. doi:10.3765/bls.v16i0.1685. Brovetto, C., and M. T. Ullman. 2005. “The Mental Representation and Processing of Spanish Verbal Morphology.” In Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, edited by D. Eddington, 98–105. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Bybee, J. 1999. “Usage-Based Phonology.” Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics 1: 211–42. Clahsen, H. 2006. “Dual-Mechanism Morphology.” Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 4: 1–5. Clahsen, H., F. Aveledo, and I. Roca. 2002. “The Development of Regular and Irregular Verb Infection in Spanish Child Language.” Journal of Child Language 29 (3): 591–622. doi:10.1017}S0305000902005172. Clahsen, H., I. Sonnenstuhl, and J. P. Blevins. 2003. “Derivational Morphology in the German Mental Lexicon: A Dual Mechanism Account.” In Morphological Structure in Language Processing, edited by H. Baayen and R. Schreuder, 125–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cuetos, F., A. Domínguez, S. Baauw, and M. L. Berthier. 2007. “Disociación entre pacientes agramáticos y anómicos en la producción de formas verbales.” Revista de Neurología 44 (4): 203–8. Daugherty, K. G., and M. S. Seidenberg. 1994. “Beyond Rules and Exceptions: A Connectionist Modeling Approach to Infectional Morphology.” In The Reality of Linguistic Rules, edited by S. D. Lima, R. L. Corrigan, and G. K. Iverson, 353–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. De Diego, R., A. Costa, N. Sebastián-Gallés, M. Juncadella, and A. Caramazza. 2004. “Regular and Irregular Morphology and its Relationship with Agrammatism: Evidence from Two Spanish/Catalan Bilinguals.” Brain and Language 91: 212–22. De Diego, R., A. Rodríguez-Fornells, M. Rotte, J. Bahlmann, H.-J. Heinze, and T. F. Münte. 2006. “Neural Circuits Subserving the Retrieval of Stems and Grammatical Features in Regular and Irregular Verbs.” Human Brain Mapping 27: 874–88. De Diego, R., N. Sebastián-Gallés, B. Díaz, and A. Rodríguez-Fornells. 2005. “Morphological Processing in Early Bilinguals: An ERP Study of Regular and Irregular Verb Processing.” Cognitive Brain Research 25: 312–27. Del Viso, S., J. M. Igoa, and J. E. García-Albea. 1987. “Corpus de errores espontáneos del español.” Unpublished manuscript. University of Oviedo, Oviedo. Domínguez, A., M. Alija, J. Rodríguez-Ferreiro, and F. Cuetos. 2010. “The Contribution of Prefxes to Morphological Processing of Spanish Words.” European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 22 (4): 569–95. Domínguez, A., F. Cuetos, and J. Seguí. 2000. “Morphological Processing in Word Recognition: A Review with Particular Reference to Spanish Data.” Psicológica 21: 375–401. Foote, R. 2017. “The Storage and Processing of Morphologically Complex Words in L2 Spanish.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39: 735–67. 559

María del Carmen Horno-Chéliz and José Manuel Igoa

Fratini, V., J. Acha, and I. Laka. 2014. “Frequency and Morphological Irregularity are Independent Variables. Evidence from a Corpus Study of Spanish Verbs.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 10 (2): 289–314. doi:10.1515/cllt-2013-0028. Igoa, J. M., J. E. García-Albea, and R. M. Sánchez-Casas. 1999. “Gender-Number Dissociations in Sentence Production in Spanish.” Rivista di Linguistica 11 (1): 163–96. Jackendof, R., and J. Audring. 2016. “Morphological Schemas.” The Mental Lexicon 11 (3): 467–93. Marantz, A. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2): 14. Marcus, G. F., S. Pinker, M. T. Ullman, M. Hollander, T. J. Rosen, and F. Xu. 1992. “Overregularization in Language Acquisition.” Monographs of the Society for Research on Child Development 57 (4): 1–182. Marr, D. 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company. Montrul, S. 2004. The Acquisition of Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Milin, P., E. Smolka, and L. B. Feldman. 2018. “Models of Lexical Access and Morphological Processing.” In The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, edited by E. M. Fernández and H. Smith Cairns, 240–68. New York: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118829516.ch11. Pinker, S. 1998. “Words and Rules.” Lingua 106: 219–42. Pinker, S., and M. T. Ullman. 2002. “The Past and Future of the Past Tense.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 (11): 456–63. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3. Plunkett, K., and V. Marchman. 1993. “From Rote Learning to System Building: Acquiring Verb Morphology in Children and Connectionist Net.” Cognition 48 (1): 21–69. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(93)90057-3. Rodríguez-Fornells, A., T. F. Münte, and H. Clahsen. 2001. “Morphological Priming in Spanish Verb Forms: An ERP Repetition Priming Study.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 14 (3): 443–54. Sánchez-Casas, R. M., J. M. Igoa, and J. E. García-Albea. 2003. “On the Representation of Infections and Derivations: Data from Spanish.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32 (6): 621–68. Ullman, M. T. 2001. “A Neurocognitive Perspective on Language: The Declarative/Procedural Model.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2 (10): 717–26. doi:10.1038/35094573. Ullman, M. T. 2016. “The Declarative/Procedural Model: A Neurobiological Model of Language Learning, Knowledge and Use.” In The Neurobiology of Language, edited by G. Hickok and S. A. Small, 953–68. New York: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/ B978-0-12-407794-2.00076-6.

560

40 Morphology and neurolinguistics of Spanish Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea StockallMorphology and neurolinguistics

(Morfología y neurolingüística del español)

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

1 Introduction In this chapter, we briefy introduce the basic tools and techniques employed in neurolinguistics in order to be able to tackle the key issues discussed in the event-related potential (ERP) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) literature on Spanish morphology. We further review its contributions to debates about the representation and processing of morphology and the neural correlates of morphological processing at the level of the word, the phrase and the sentence. We specifcally report and assess neurolinguistic research (i) addressing broad, crosslinguistic debates using Spanish data and (ii) exploiting specifc features of Spanish morphology and morphosyntax not attested in more commonly investigated languages, which thus centres Spanish as a key language for theory development. The latter exploits the rich nominal and verbal agreement systems of Spanish, with a particular focus on gender marking and gender agreement, the distinction between morphologically versus lexically encoded gender, and the processing of agreement dependencies. Keywords: Spanish; morphology; neurolinguistics; infection; agreement En este capítulo, presentamos brevemente las herramientas y técnicas básicas empleadas en neurolingüística que permiten abordar las cuestiones fundamentales que se han examinado en los estudios sobre morfología española con metodología ERP y fMRI. Repasamos sus contribuciones a los debates sobre la representación y procesamiento de la morfología, y los correlatos neuronales del procesamiento morfológico al nivel de la palabra, el sintagma y la oración. En concreto, exponemos y evaluamos la investigación neurolingüística que (i) trata debates interlingüísticos de gran calado, y (ii) explota rasgos específcos de la morfología y la morfosintaxis del español no atestiguados en lenguas más comúnmente estudiadas, y que, por tanto, sitúa la lengua española en una posición clave para el desarrollo teórico. En el segundo caso, se explotan los ricos sistemas de concordancia nominales y verbales del español, prestando especial atención al marcaje y concordancia de género, la distinción entre género léxico y género morfológico, y el procesamiento de dependencias de concordancia. Palabras clave: Español; morfología; neurolingüística; fexión; concordancia 561

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

2 Neuro-morphology We begin by clarifying what neurolinguistic data can and cannot (currently) do. In principle, neuroimaging data ought to ofer explanations for why the human linguistic system has the computational and representational properties it has by discovering how the brain implements those computations and representations (Marr 1982). But in practice, we lack the linking theories between implementation and computation/representation to realise that promise (see Embick and Poeppel 2015; Stockall and Gwilliams under review). Neurolinguistics research can only ofer correlational, not causal, data and is thus on a par with psycholinguistic, corpus, and analytic linguistic data, not privileged relative to them. Second, research on the neural bases of linguistic knowledge and behaviour can either seek to gain brain-oriented insights (using linguistically informed hypotheses to learn about the brain) or theory-oriented insights (refning and/or adjudicating between (psycho)linguistic theories using neural data). The focus in this chapter is frmly on the latter: our goal is to review the literature on Spanish and discuss its contributions to debates about the representation and processing of morphology. Two techniques dominate neurolinguistics research: functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and electroencephalography (EEG). fMRI detects changes in the ratio between oxygenated and deoxygenated haemoglobin, thus measuring neural activity as a function of oxygen use, with extremely high spatial resolution (2–5 mm2) but relatively poor temporal resolution (on the order of seconds). EEG, by contrast, measures changes in electrical potential via a grid of sensors on the scalp, which allows the tracking of neuronal activity millisecond by millisecond but has poor spatial resolution. These two techniques, then, ofer complementary sources of data. fMRI can tell us whether two linguistic processes engage the same or diferent regions in the brain, while EEG can tell us whether they proceed along the same or diferent timecourses. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) difers from other neuroimaging methods in that rather than recording evoked neural activity, it temporarily disrupts processing in particular areas through the use of an electromagnetic pulse in order to determine whether those locations play a critical role in a particular processing task. While the target for TMS can be extremely precise, the actual spatial resolution of the disruption is low (cm2). Magnetoencephalography (MEG) ofers a better combination of spatial and temporal resolution but has not yet been used to study Spanish morphology or morphosyntax and is thus not discussed further here, (but see Stockall and Gwilliams [under review]). fMRI research on morphological processing cross-linguistically consistently identifes several key areas in the left hemisphere as playing a role in morphological processing, as schematised in Figure 40.1. The right hemisphere analogues of these regions are also sometimes implicated, though usually to a lesser extent. Research using EEG to investigate linguistic processing typically uses the event-related potential (ERP) technique, in which recordings from many similar events (e.g. responses to seeing a feminine noun) are averaged together so that the activity evoked by the event-type can be distinguished from random brain activity (Luck 2014). The ERP technique has identifed a sequence of distinct responses reliably evoked by linguistic stimuli, as summarised in Table 40.1. See Royle and Steinhauer (to appear) for a comprehensive review of the ERP literature on morphological processing.

3 The key issues Spanish neurolinguistics research falls into two categories: (a) research addressing broad, crosslinguistic debates using Spanish data and (b) research that exploits specifc features of Spanish 562

Morphology and neurolinguistics

Figure 40.1 Left-hemisphere regions consistently associated with morphological processing in fMRI studies (see Leminen et al. 2019 for a comprehensive review). The left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) is the most commonly implicated region across a wide range of studies. The LIFG includes Broca’s area and is associated with a very broad range of linguistic and nonlinguistic processing. The fusiform gyrus (FG) includes the visual word form area (McCandliss, Cohen, and Dehaene 2003) and has been signifcantly implicated in morpho-orthographic processing in MEG studies (Gwilliams, Lewis, and Marantz 2016). The superior temporal gyrus (STG) includes primary auditory cortex and is associated with auditory and phonological analysis. The STG and the middle temporal gyrus (MTG) are both associated with lexical and conceptual semantic processing. The supramarginal gyrus (SMG) sits in a key position along the dorsal pathway connecting the temporal and frontal language processing areas (Poeppel et al. 2012), and is often co-activated with these areas. The cerebellum plays a critical role in sensory perception and motor learning and is co-activated with the LIFG and MTG during some morphological processing tasks Source: Author adaptation of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lobes_of_the_brain_NL.svg. Table 40.1 Language-related ERPs Cognitive process

ERP component

Morpho-orthographic processing

N250 (110–300 ms) strongest over midline and anterior left hemisphere electrodes

Morpho-syntactic processing

Left anterior negativity/LAN (300–450 ms) strongest over left frontal electrodes

Lexico-semantic processing

N400 (250–500 ms) strongest over centroparietal electrodes

Morpho-syntactic reanalysis/structuralcomplexity processing

P600 (500–900 ms) strongest over centroparietal and posterior electrodes

morphology and morphosyntax not attested in more commonly investigated languages and thus centres Spanish as a key language for theory development. The former variety of studies addresses two key debates that have motivated psycho- and neurolinguistic research since the 1980s: 563

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

1 2

Diferences in processing morphological versus phonological structure (Barber, Domínguez, and de Vega 2002; Domínguez, de Vega, and Barber 2004; Domínguez et al. 2006). Diferences in processing ‘regular’ vs. ‘irregular’ morphology (Rodríguez-Fornells, Münte, and Clahsen 2002; De Diego Balaguer et al. 2005; De Diego Balaguer et al. 2006; Linares, Rodríguez-Fornells, and Clahsen 2006).

The latter category of studies exploits the rich nominal and verbal agreement systems of Spanish, with a particular focus on gender marking and gender agreement, and can be subdivided into two areas of focus: 1

2

Morphologically versus lexically encoded gender at the word, phrase, and sentence level (Hernández et al. 2004; Cafarra, Janssen, and Barber 2014; Cafarra and Barber 2015; Caffarra et al. 2017; Quiñones et al. 2018). Agreement, both in the nominal (gender and number) environment within and across phrases (Barber and Carreiras 2003, 2005; Wicha, Moreno, and Kutas 2003; Wicha, Moreno, and Kutas 2004; Carreiras et  al. 2010; Carreiras et  al. 2012; Alemán Bañón, Fiorentino, and Gabriele 2012; Carreiras et  al. 2015; Alemán Bañón and Rothman 2016) and in the verbal domain at the sentence-level, including person-number agreement between subject and verb (Hinojosa et al. 2003; Silva-Pereyra and Carreiras 2007; Quiñones et al. 2014; Alemán-Bañón and Rothman 2019) and agreement between adverb and verb (De Vega, Urrutia, and Domínguez 2010).

In addition to these four major areas, neurolinguistic research on Spanish has also addressed the processing of productive vs. nonproductive derivational afxes (Havas, Rodríguez-Fornells, and Clahsen 2012) and the processing of compounds (Güemes, Gattei, and Wainselboim 2019).

4 The studies Almost all the research reported here combines the visual presentation of priming or violation paradigms, which mostly use target-words or word pairs, alone or in phrasal or sentential contexts, where participants perform a lexical decision task, an acceptability judgment, or some attention or memory task like comprehension questions after a number of trials or a recognition test at the end. Table 40.2 and Table 40.3 (in this chapter's Appendix) summarise the main details of the studies discussed in this section.

4.1 Is morphology ‘psychologically real’? One of the most long-standing debates in the neurolinguistics literature on morphological processing relates to the very existence of morphology and morphological representations, that is, whether the apparent morphological structure of words plays a role in processing, and if so, when. This has been approached by investigating how lexical access takes place in the processing of simple and complex words. Spanish is very well suited to implementing morphological priming designs that control for orthographic, syllabic, morphological, and semantic overlap in the processing of minimal pairs. Barber, Domínguez, and de Vega (2002) make use of basic formal gender marking to distinguish between paradigms of morphologically—and semantically—related pairs of words, loc-o ‘madman’ ~ loc-a ‘madwoman’ and morphologically unrelated stem homographs, rat-o ‘moment’ ~ rat-a ‘rat’, where all pairs share all letters but the last one. This design is replicated in Domínguez, de Vega, and Barber (2004), which adds a second 564

Morphology and neurolinguistics

experiment to rule out an efect of orthographic priming rather than morphological processing, with pairs such as ras-a ‘fat’ ~ ran-a ‘frog’, where all pairs share all letters except a non-fnal one, and a third experiment to ensure that the results cannot be reduced to a semantic priming efect, with synonymous pairs such as cirio ~ vela ‘candle masculine/candle feminine’. In these experiments, both stem homographs and morphological prime-target pairs evoke a similar early N400 wave attenuation up to 350 ms, which persists in the morphological condition until 450 ms, while the stem homograph condition shows a retarded N400 peak from 500 to 600 ms. This has been interpreted as the impossibility of meaning integration in stem homographs. Domínguez et al. (2006) distinguish morphological structure processing efects from simple syllabic efects in an ERP priming experiment contrasting prefxed priming (re-acción ‘reaction’ ~ RE-FORMA ‘reform’) and syllabic priming (regalo ‘gift’ ~ RE-FORMA ‘reform’). Prefxed primed words, but not syllabic prime-target pairs, produced an early positivity (150–250 ms) that they associate with facilitation due to semantic priming, showing that prefxes are detected very early in their processing. The syllabic prime-target pairs elicited an increased frontal N400, due to the target (e.g. reforma) being inhibited during recognition of the prime (e.g. regalo), whereas the prefxed condition showed an attenuated N400, consistent with the morphological priming efect seen previously. Where syllables activate competing representations of orthographically related words at the lexical level, which are then inhibited to allow lexical selection, morphemes activate meaning common to all lexical entries sharing the morpheme and thus facilitate the immediate processing of morphologically related forms.

4.2 Dual vs. single route processing Many of the previous experiments have also been framed within the still ongoing theoretical debate on single versus dual route models of morphological processing (Horno-Chéliz and Igoa, this volume). In the nominal domain, Álvarez et  al. (2011) explore the processing of prime-target pairs related via infection like niñ-o ‘boy’ ~ niñ-a ‘girl’ or derivation, for example, barc-o ‘ship’ ~ barc-a ‘small boat’, which are compared to the processing of unrelated control pairs to argue for morphological decomposition. They found the same attenuation of the N400 for both conditions as compared to unrelated prime-target baselines. Though source modelling of the ERPs reveals a posterior cluster for the infection condition, and an anterior source for the derivation condition, concerns about the materials suggest caution in interpreting this spatial diference. Specifcally, a problem with these data is that their derived words contain a mixture of stem homographs, for example, grad-o ‘degree’ ~ grad-a ‘stair, grandstand’, and semantically related pairs, for example, músic-o ‘musician’ ~ músic-a ‘music’, including a set of regularly derived pairs, for example, masculine for the name of the tree and feminine for the name of the fruit, as in cerez-o ‘cherry tree’ ~ cerez-a ‘cherry’.1 The morphology of the Spanish verb has also been used to contribute to the storage versus full decomposition debate, specifcally cases of irregularity and stem allomorphy. RodríguezFornells, Münte, and Clahsen (2002) study the processing diferences between regular and irregular verbs and the priming relations between diferent kinds of stem. They employ a primetarget paradigm with regular, ando ~ andar ‘I walk ~ to walk’, and alternating stem verbs, that mix diphthongising stems, duermo ~ dormir ‘I sleep ~ to sleep’, raising stems, elegir ~ elijo ‘I choose ~ to choose’, and other irregularly alternating stems, traer ~ traigo ‘I bring ~ to bring’, in order to determine whether stem alternations are lexically determined or derived from general phonological rules, and how stem changes afect morphological processing independently of the form of the infectional ending. They found that only regular forms had a facilitatory priming efect (attenuated N400), which they claim is because prime-target stems in the regular condition 565

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

access the same lexical entry, whereas stems in the alternating condition constitute separate lexical entries. Linares, Rodríguez-Fornells, and Clahsen (2006) take a subset of irregularities, raising stems, and use EEG to explore them in sentential context, in a paradigm involving stem violations, that is, incorrect regularised elegir ~ elejo ‘to choose ~ I choose’, both in isolation and jointly with infectional sufx violations. Interestingly, they reported a fronto-central, rather than centro-parietal, reduced negativity in the stem violation condition, identifed as a LAN, interpreted as ease of lexical access, since the stem violation condition corresponds to a regularised stem. More specifcally, they claim that marked stem allomorphs of the type being evaluated are lexically represented as subnodes of structured lexical entries, rather than being derived by (some morphologically conditioned) rule. Also investigating (ir)regularity, De Diego Balaguer et al.’s (2006) fMRI study seeks to identify the brain areas involved in the covert production of frst person singular verbal forms. They compared irregular and regular verbs and detected increased activity for irregular forms in the LIFG and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, whereas regular forms evoked a cluster of activation in the left hippocampus and in the insular cortex adjacent to anterior STG. Their results do not fully support either the single or the dual route but rather a mixed approach (cf. Friederici et al. 2003; Stockall and Marantz 2006) whereby processing involves the retrieval of grammatical information in all verbs, which corresponds to the infectional sufx, plus the lexical retrieval of the correct stem allomorph in irregular verbs. A potential problem with these studies refers to the notion of irregularity employed in the context of Spanish, which does not correspond to Pinker’s (1997), where irregularity is tied to roots in English, and regularity is linked to afxation. In Spanish, except for a few cases not considered in these studies, for example, poner~puse ‘to put ~ I putpst’, all forms are infected with the same regular sufxes, independently of stem allomorphy. De Diego Balaguer et al.’s (2005) ERP study of the processing of regular and irregular verbs in the context of language acquisition in bilinguals distinguishes two diferent subtypes of irregulars, semi-regulars and idiosyncratic verbs. Among the former, they include diphthongised stems; within the latter, velarised stems like caer~caigo ‘to fall ~ I fall’. However, they also include raising stems as idiosyncratic forms, even though they are as semi-predictable as semi-regular diphthongised stems; that is, not all items undergo the rule. So, they include pairs such as medir~mido ‘to measure ~ I  measure’, subject to the optional raising rule (cf. non-raising agredir~agredo ‘to attack ~ I attack’), which parallel those pairs subject to the optional diphthongising rule, for example, pensar~pienso ‘to think ~ I think’ (cf. tensar~tenso ‘to tighten ~ I tighten’).2

4.3 Morphologically versus lexically encoded gender The Spanish gender system has also led to important research on the distinction between morphologically versus lexically encoded gender. On the one hand, gender seems to be a lexical feature that is represented in the abstract mental lexicon and thus requires lexical access; for words like pastelm ‘cake’ or mielf ‘honey’, nominal gender cannot be derived from any formal contextual feature. On the other hand, words like mesaf ‘table’ or besom ‘kiss’ do present a formal cue, a canonical gender-related marking, -a or -o, that is typically associated with a particular gender (despite a few exceptions). Hernández et al.’s (2004) fMRI study reveals the neural correlates associated with the processing of transparent versus opaque gender-marked nouns. Opaque items showed increased activation of the LIFG, a region associated with processing of grammatical category, suggesting that the diferences in gender marking must trigger diferences in retrieving grammatical information during processing. Further work by Cafarra, Janssen, and Barber (2014; Cafarra et al. 2017); Cafarra and Barber (2015); and Quiñones et al. (2018) 566

Morphology and neurolinguistics

tests whether the availability of formal cues has an efect on gender processing and agreement dependencies in determiner-noun pairs. Cafarra, Janssen, and Barber (2014) test whether the availability of formal cues has an efect on the processing of gender using the visual-half feld method (VHF) to compare transparent agreement el queso ~ *la queso ‘them cheese ~ thef cheese ‘and opaque el reloj ~ *la reloj ‘them watch ~ thef watch’. They sought to study the contribution of each hemisphere, as it had been observed that the left hemisphere is more sensitive to morphological information (Koenig, Wetzel, and Caramazza 1992). In the VHF design, whereas the article was always centrally presented, the noun was presented either in the left visual feld (LVF) or in the right visual feld (RVF). Participants judged whether article and noun agreed. Results showed a signifcant main efect of agreement (an increased N400 in the disagreement conditions) that interacted with the VHF factor in the LH in the two time windows analyzed, 350–500 and 500–750 ms, whereas the RH showed a main efect of agreement in the frst time window that continued to be signifcant only for transparent nouns in the 500–700 ms time window. These results suggest that nouns are processed diferently depending on the availability of reliable cues to retrieve gender information to compute agreement dependencies.3 Cafarra and Barber (2015) embed a similar design in sentences, showing that gender cues are also detected during sentence comprehension. They detect a greater central LAN for transparent nouns than for opaque nouns between 200–500 ms, with a very early onset for the transparency efect, and a LAN-P600 pattern in gender disagreement conditions not modulated by transparent vs. opaque cues. Quiñones et al. (2018) further investigate the neural correlates of the processing of gender agreement dependencies in an fMRI study with a similar 2 × 2 factorial design crossing gender marking (transparent vs. opaque) and gender congruency (agreement vs. disagreement). They found signifcant interactions in left-lateralised clusters that included the supramarginal (SMG) and angular gyri, the LIFG, and the hippocampus. They show that neural correlates of gender agreement dependencies could be constrained by available cues, either form-based or lexico-semantic. Gender cues were also explored in Wicha, Moreno, and Kutas’s (2003, 2004) EEG studies in relation to semantic processing, as well as in relation to the expectations they may generate for upcoming words in sentential contexts. They fnd an interaction between gender agreement and semantic congruity that infuences the semantic integration of the noun into the sentence in the form of a modulated and diferently distributed N400, which overlaps with an early posterior P600 in cases with a double mismatch of gender and semantic congruence. Their data further show that gender in articles and nouns is used in real-time sentence comprehension, whether explicitly visible, in their 2004 experiment, or not, as in their 2003 study, where nouns are depicted as line drawings. However, most of these studies have signifcant problems in the selection of stimuli. In particular, the list of ‘opaque’ items includes nouns whose gender is predictable from their morphological form despite not selecting a canonical class marker. Cafarra and colleagues’ ‘opaque’ conditions include feminine nouns regularly derived in -(c)ión, for example, unión ‘union’, rebelión ‘rebellion’ (NGRALE §5.1, §5.2) or in -itud, for example, gratitud ‘gratitude’, amplitud ‘spaciousness’ (NGRALE §6.1) or words ending in unstressed -us or -is, which can predictably be assigned gender, feminine for -is for example, bilis ‘bile’, dermis, and masculine for -us, for example, virus, cactus. Quiñones et al. (2018) also include morphologically complex items whose gender is predictable from the derivative sufx, for example, vejez ‘old age’ (NGRALE §6.2). In addition, in most of these cases, simple and complex words are mixed in the same conditions. Finally, the item reloj ‘watch’ is the typical example cited of an opaque noun, even though reloj and boj ‘boxwood’ are the only Spanish nouns ending in -j in common use, and are both masculine, making -j a reliable cue to gender. Thus the diferences in processing profle between the items 567

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

classifed as ‘transparent’ and ‘opaque’ in these studies might better be described as a diference between ‘nouns ending in -o/-a’ and ‘other nouns’.

4.4 Processing of agreement dependencies The previously reported studies on gender marking at least partially build on previous work on gender and number agreement dependencies in determiner-noun or adjective-noun pairs, where only transparent gender marked nouns had been considered. Whereas number is a morphological marking for a conceptual feature that signals quantity, gender is a feature associated with the stem that must be stored, so that comparing their processing may throw light on how featural information is retrieved in relation to the computation of agreement dependencies. These features are found across categories and enter into syntactic relations of agreement within the phrase and the sentence, so that in Spanish, a variety of agreement cues must align to facilitate the computation of syntactic and semantic relations. Barber and Carreiras (2003) investigate noun-adjective pairs where gender and number are manipulated to create four disagreement conditions. Grammatical disagreement produced a signifcant N400, without any detectable diference in amplitude, latency, or brain distribution between gender and number. A late positivity following the N400 exhibited a longer latency in the case of gender disagreement, which the authors interpret as reanalysis or rechecking after morphological integration failure that happens only with gender agreement, which requires both lexical access to check the gender feature and syntactic (re)integration. In order to further study such diferences in integration efects, Barber and Carreiras (2005) compare (i) the efect of agreement in article-noun pairs and in noun-adjective pairs and (ii) the same words in sentential contexts, either in sentence initial position or in the middle. Experiment (i) replicated the results in their previous work. Experiment (ii) showed a clear LAN-P600 pattern in agreement violations during sentence reading; while the LAN and the frst phase of the P600 showed no diferences, the second phase of the P600 did show greater amplitudes for violations in the middle of the sentence located in the posterior areas, on the right side. The authors interpreted such late efects as reanalysis, similar to the positivity found in word pairs, although these efects could also be related to a syntactic category efect (nouns in initial position versus adjectives in middle position). Carreiras et al. (2010) employed Barber and Carreiras (2005)’s stimuli in their conditions (i)–(iii) in an fMRI study to identify the neural correlates of agreement processing in comprehension. Results were consistent with ERP fndings, showing an increased activation in left premotor cortex and LIFG in number and gender violation conditions relative to agreement pairs, areas that have been shown to be engaged during syntactic processing. In addition, article-noun pairs produced increased right-lateralised activation at the intraparietal sulcus and the superior parietal gyrus, although the fact that this was negligible in noun-adjective pairs strongly suggests that it might be triggered by a diference in expectations. Carreiras et al. (2012) further confrm the involvement of Broca’s area in the morphosyntactic processing of article-noun pairs using TMS to temporarily disrupt processing in this region. Alemán Bañón, Fiorentino, and Gabriele (2012) analyzed the efects of linear and structural distance relations between the agreeing elements, both within and across phrases in sentential context, where linear distance (number of intervening words) was kept constant. The ERP results show that gender and number features are processed similarly but are not conclusive about how linear and structural distance modulate agreement resolution. However, their results motivated Alemán Bañón and Rothman’s (2016) experiment on how markedness afects the processing of number and gender in noun-adjective pairs, where agreement is manipulated across an embedded clause, between the head noun and an adjective appearing in a relative 568

Morphology and neurolinguistics

clause, thus taking distance into account. Specifcally, structurally non-local agreement relations and non-adjacent words are hypothesised to modulate markedness efects. They fnd that gender and number markedness modulate agreement. All violations elicited the LAN/P600 pattern, where the P600, associated with syntactic repair, started earlier for marked mismatching features, that is, feminine and plural, and number features yielded a larger P600, arguably due to the specifc nature of gender and number features. Whereas both masculine and feminine gender are morphologically marked, only plural number is marked in Spanish. Markedness efects for plural adjectives might be due to the verbal predicate immediately preceding adjectives, which infects for number but not for gender, acting as a cue for number. The processing of agreement dependencies has also been analyzed in the context of subjectverb agreement, taking into account the specifc properties of Spanish verbs. Carreiras et al. (2015) investigate the computation of number agreement in both nominal and verbal domains in an fMRI experiment. Their goal is to elucidate whether these two types of dependencies interact with syntactic domain and their diferent syntactico-interpretive properties, that is, person and number agreement in subject-verb dependencies at sentence level vs. gender and number concord within the same noun phrase (NP) and whether they pivot around the same neural mechanisms for the processing of number in strictly local confgurations of matching and mismatching word pairs. They fnd greater activation for agreement vs. disagreement in the right and left insula, LIFG, left precentral cortex, supplementary motor area, and inferior parietal cortex and the opposite pattern in the angular gyrus, anterior cingulate cortex, precuneus, MTG, and orbitofrontal cortex, all bilaterally, and the left occipital cortex and SFG. The authors acknowledge that these diferences are quantitative, and it is unclear whether they indeed show a contrast between agreement and concord or rather reveal structural diferences (within phrase vs. across phrases). This work builds on Barber and Carreiras (2005)’s ERP agreement studies on the processing of determiner-noun pairs, discussed previously, as well as Silva-Pereyra and Carreiras (2007), who reported a similar pattern of LAN/P600 in subjectverb contexts (but also diferences in the processing of determiner-noun in word pairs versus in sentential contexts). It is important to note that these studies showed a similar lack of diferences in the processing of person and number, despite key diferences in crucial dimensions, including diferent methodologies, ERP vs. fMRI. Thus, whereas Carreiras et  al. (2015) strictly controlled for gender efects in nominal pairs (using only inanimate nouns, with morphologically marked canonical gender) and person efects in subject-verb pairs (using only third person) to observe number processing, Silva-Pereyra and Carreiras (2007) manipulated both person (frst and second) and number (singular and plural) in sentential context but did not observe any differences between their processing. Hinojosa et al. (2003) examine verb infection violations of the type in *La prueba ocultada por el fscal aparecí ‘The proof hidden by the public prosecutor appeared1sg’ as a testing ground to contrast their processing to the processes involved in phrase structure building on the basis of well-known word category violations (Friederici, Hahne, and Mecklinger 1996 and related work) of the type in *La prueba ocultada por el aparecí ‘The proof hidden by the appeared1sg’. Both structures elicited a similar early anterior negativity (ELAN) starting at similar latencies, as also reported for English or German, which co-occurred with N400 efects, and a widely distributed P600, which was very similar in the 500–600 ms time window, but difered in the 600–700 ms time interval. Verb infection violations generated a robust P600 efect, which was much smaller in the word category violation, arguably due to additional costs of repairing and reprocessing in morphosyntactic violations, although the authors also discuss explanations in terms of working memory processing or diferences in linguistic context between the embedded clause in the word category violation and the main clause in the verbal agreement violation. 569

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

Quiñones et al. (2014) used a specifc feature of Spanish morphology, namely grammatical cases of agreement mismatch, for example, Los pintores trajimos. . . ‘The painters3pl brought1pl . . .’, which involves a semantic shift such that a third person plural subject is reinterpreted as an inclusive frst plural subject, meaning ‘we painters’. Their fMRI design explores the neural correlates of agreement processing, focusing on the evaluation of morpho-syntactic feature agreement and the complexity of semantic integration in a three-condition paradigm of subject-verb agreement that includes the grammatical unagreement condition, the default 3pl agreement, and a person violation condition. Their study allows a fner-grained neural mapping, where morpho-syntactic processing of subject-verb agreement correlates with activity in the posterior left middle frontal gyrus, whereas the left fronto-temporal area registers syntactic-semantic integration, and further semantic processing involved in reinterpretation produces an increase of activity in the left angular gyrus. Alemán-Bañón and Rothman (2019) explore how person markedness (marked frst person vs. unmarked third person) afects person agreement resolution at the verb in singular subjectverb contexts. They build four conditions that combine grammatical subject~verb agreement conditions for marked 1sg subject and unmarked 3sg subject and agreement violations with the two diferent subjects. Their ERP study elicited a robust P600 component in both types of violations, consistent with the literature on agreement violations, which was larger for marked subject violations (1sg subject~3sg verb) between 700–900 ms. This latter efect may be due to a variety of issues, such as the diference between frst person pronouns and DP subjects in diferent conditions. They did not fnd an N400 efect, although they reported a LAN in the same P600 time window, but with reverse scalp distribution. They conclude that subject-verb agreement resolution is afected by the markedness of the subject. Finally, De Vega, Urrutia, and Domínguez (2010) difers from the previous agreement studies in that it analyzes the time course of agreement between a temporal adverb in sentence initial position and the verb, that is, a relation that involves a lexical and a morpho-syntactic computation, thus reporting experimental data on the interaction between morphology, syntax, and semantics, by manipulating agreement and lexical conjugation. They reported an increased P200 component for disagreement conditions, left-lateralised for verbs and bilateral in nonce verbs, which they interpret as occurring before lexical access is complete, as it was found in both verbs and non-verbs. The latency and polarity of this efect recalls morphological segmentation patterns described in priming studies (Barber, Domínguez, and de Vega 2002; Domínguez, de Vega, and Barber 2004). Agreement processing extends to a robust late negativity at 375–490 ms, with a predominantly anterior distribution, which is neither a clear LAN, nor a typical N400. This component is modulated by lexicality, in that it shows opposite efects in verbs and nonce verbs: the disagreement condition is more negative in verbs, whereas the agreement condition is more negative in nonce verbs. They did not fnd the typical P600, which they related to the special nature of this type of temporal agreement, which involves semantic and morphological information. In addition to these four main topics, which have been investigated in multiple studies in Spanish, two further topics have received more minimal investigation. Havas, RodríguezFornells, and Clahsen (2012)’s experiment compares -ez(a) and -ura, which difer in productivity and semantic coverage. They embed these nominals and novel counterparts that afx the wrong nominaliser to the same adjective stem in sentential contexts and ask whether their ERPs display patterns of lexical-semantic violations (N400-like responses) and/or patterns of combinatorial/grammatical violations (LAN-P600) to the novel words. Results show that novel items like *gigantura, but not *blanqueza, elicited an increased N400 followed by a P600 in both cases. Thus, attaching the less productive -ura to the wrong stem triggers efects 570

Morphology and neurolinguistics

of both word-level lexical-semantic violation processing and syntactic violation processing, while attaching the productive -ez(a) to the ‘wrong’ stem triggers no such costs. These results are further support for models in which derived words must be represented and processed as lexical items with internal morphological structure, and in addition make the case that the productivity of an afx afects online determination of whole word wellformedness. However, the stimuli employed in this experiment are problematic. The sufxes -ez and -eza are two diferent sufxes in contemporary Spanish, difering in productivity (NGRALE §6.2a–n) but are combined in this study. The list of items selected for -ura also subsumes two diferent suffxes, -dura (NGRALE §5.5h-ñ), and -ura (NGRALE §6.2ñ-t), which show diferent degrees of productivity in diferent varieties. Güemes, Gattei, and Wainselboim (2019) report experimental research on the morphology and semantics of exocentric VN compounds, classifed as Agentives (AG), Locatives (LOC), and Metaphorical or Opaque (MET). In their experiment, they found a signifcantly larger P600 component after MET compounds and no LAN, a pattern that suggests MET compounds lack a process of early morphosyntactic integration. AG and LOC compounds elicited a signifcantly larger left frontal negativity with a peak at 400 ms, more pronounced in AG, which is compatible with a LAN topography and latency. On the basis of the literature on compound processing in other languages, they take these results as evidence for morphosyntactic integration and compound decomposition in more transparent structures.

5 Conclusions In this chapter, we have reviewed the EEG and fMRI literature which has taken advantage of Spanish’s rich morphology to investigate the neural correlates of morphological processing at the level of the word, the phrase, and the sentence. The focus has mostly been on the processing of infectional gender and number and the syntactic dependencies it establishes with a variety of elements within and across phrases in the nominal domain, as well as on morphosyntactic aspects of verbal infection and subject-verb agreement. The results of these studies have either contributed new data to long-standing debates (e.g., on the existence of morphological structure or the storage versus full decomposition approach to morphological processing), or they have contributed new data to the neurolinguistics literature that may help us understand basic properties of language processing (e.g., the computation of agreement dependencies in grammatical unagreement subject-verb relations). As we have highlighted throughout, in many cases, there is scope for a more linguistically sophisticated approach to selecting materials and framing questions. For example, research comparing -o/-a gender marked nouns and other nouns oversimplifes the Spanish gender marking system, and raises, rather than answers, the question of how potential cues to gender are actually interpreted. Other opportunities for research could come from the investigation of the processing of complex morphology combining derivational and (categorially ambiguous) infectional endings at a complex level, such as des-en-raiz-a-d-o-s ‘unrootedmpl’, which contains parasynthesis, or contr(o)-vert-i-d-a-ment-e ‘controversially’, a complex adverbialised adjectival participle.

Notes 1 It is unclear whether these are cases of derivation, as the alleged derivationally related pairs are cases of the same root with a diferent gender marking and thus may all better be classed as infection (NGRALE 2009 §2.3g–h; Camacho, this volume). 571

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

2 Other minor problems have already been pointed out, for example, Eddington (2009) for Rodríguez Fornells et al., related to the nonce words in the experiment, which either violate Spanish orthography, for example, ezistir, or Spanish phonotactics, for example, cosrer. 3 See also Cafarra et al. (2017), an ERP study on L2 processing (Basque-Spanish bilinguals) of morphologically versus lexically encoded grammatical gender violations when embedded in sentential contexts.

References Alemán Bañón, J., R. Fiorentino, and A. Gabriele. 2012. “The Processing of Number and Gender Agreement in Spanish: An Event-Related Potential Investigation of the Efects of Structural Distance.” Brain Research 1456: 49‒63. Alemán Bañón, J., and J. Rothman. 2016. “The Role of Morphological Markedness in the Processing of Number and Gender Agreement in Spanish: An Event Related Potential Investigation.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31 (10): 1273‒98. Alemán Bañón, J., and J. Rothman. 2019. “Being a Participant Matters: ERPs Show That Markedness Modulates Person Agreement in Spanish.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 746. doi:10.3389/fpsyg. 2019.00746. Álvarez, C. J., M. Urrutia, A. Domínguez, and R. Sánchez-Casas. 2011. “Processing Infectional and Derivational Morphology: Electrophysiological Evidence from Spanish.” Neuroscience Letters 490: 6‒10. Barber, H., and M. Carreiras. 2003. “Integrating Gender and Number Information in Spanish Word Pairs: An ERP Study.” Cortex 39: 465‒82. Barber, H., and M. Carreiras. 2005. “Grammatical Gender and Number Agreement in Spanish: An ERP Comparison.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17 (1): 137‒53. Barber, H., A. Domínguez, and M. de Vega. 2002. “Human Brain Potentials Indicate Morphological Decomposition in Visual Word Recognition.” Neuroscience Letters 318: 149‒52. Cafarra, S., and H. A. Barber. 2015. “Does the Ending Matter? The Role of Gender-to-Ending Consistency in Sentence Reading.” Brain Research 1605: 83‒92. Cafarra, S., H. A. Barber, N. Molinaro, and M. Carreiras. 2017. “When the End Matters: Infuence of Gender Cues during Agreement Computation in Bilinguals.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 32 (9): 1069‒85. Cafarra, S., N. Janssen, and H. Barber. 2014. “Two Sides of Gender: ERP Evidence for the Presence of Two Routes During Gender Agreement Processing.” Neuropsychologia 63: 124‒34. Carreiras, M., L. Carr, H. A. Barber, and A. Hernández. 2010. “Where Syntax Meets Math: Right Intraparietal Sulcus Activation in Response to Grammatical Number Agreement Violations.” NeuroImage 49: 1741‒49. Carreiras, M., C. Pattamadilok, E. Meseguer, H. Barber, and J. T. Devlin. 2012. “Broca’s Area Plays a Causal Role in Morphosyntactic Processing.” Neuropsychologia 50: 816‒20. Carreiras, M., I. Quiñones, S. Mancini, J. A. Hernández-Cabrera, and H. Barber. 2015. “Verbal and Nominal Agreement: An fMRI Study.” NeuroImage 120: 88‒103. de Diego Balaguer, R., A. Rodríguez-Fornells, M. Rotte, J. Bahlmann, H.-J. Heinze, and T. F. Münte. 2006. “Neural Circuits Subserving the Retrieval of Stems and Grammatical Features in Regular and Irregular Verbs.” Human Brain Mapping 27: 874‒88. de Diego Balaguer, R., N. Sebastián-Gallés, B. Díaz, and A. Rodríguez-Fornells. 2005. “Morphological Processing in Early Bilinguals: An ERP Study of Regular and Irregular Verb Processing.” Cognitive Brain Research 25: 312‒37. de Vega, M., M. Urrutia, and A. Domínguez. 2010. “Tracking Lexical and Syntactic Processes of Verb Morphology with ERP.” Journal of Neurolinguistics 23: 400‒15. Dominguez, A., M. Alija, F. Cuetos, and M. de Vega. 2006. “Event-Related Brain Potentials Reveal Differences between Morphological (prefxes) and Phonological (syllables) Processing of Words.” Neuroscience Letters 408: 10‒15.

572

Morphology and neurolinguistics

Dominguez, A., M. de Vega, and H. Barber. 2004. “Event-Related Brain Potentials Elicited by Morphological, Homographic, Orthographic, and Semantic Priming.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16 (4): 598‒608. Eddington, D. 2009. “Spanish Verbal Infection: A  Single- or Dual-Route System?” Linguistics 47 (1): 173‒99. Embick, D., and D. Poeppel. 2015. “Towards a Computational(ist) Neurobiology of Language: Correlational, Integrated and Explanatory Neurolinguistics.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30 (4): 357‒66. Friederici, A. D., A. Hahne, and A. Mecklinger. 1996. “The Temporal Structure of Syntactic Parsing: Early and Late ERP Efects Elicited by Syntactic Anomalies”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 5: 1219–48. Friederici, A. D., S. A. Ruschemeyer, A. Hahne, and C. J. Fiebach. 2003. “The Role of Left Inferior Frontal and Superior Temporal Cortex in Sentence Comprehension: Localizing Syntactic and Semantic Processes.” Cerebral Cortex 13 (2): 170‒77. Güemes, M., C. Gattei, and A. Wainselboim. 2019. “Processing Verb-Noun Compound Words in Spanish: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials.” Cognitive Neuropsychology 36 (5–6): 265‒81. Gwilliams, L., G. A. Lewis, and A. Marantz. 2016. “Functional Characterisation of Letter-Specifc Responses in Time, Space and Current Polarity Using Magneto-Encephalography.” Neuroimage 132: 320‒33. Havas, V., A. Rodríguez-Fornells, and H. Clahsen. 2012. “Brain Potentials for Derivational Morphology: An ERP Study of Deadjectival Nominalizations in Spanish.” Brain & Language 120: 332‒44. Hernández, A. E., S. A. Kotz, J. Hofmann, V. V. Valentin, M. Dapretto, and S. Y. Bookheimer. 2004. “The Neural Correlates of Grammatical Gender Decisions in Spanish.” NeuroReport 15 (5): 863‒66. Hinojosa, J. A., M. Martín-Loeches, P. Casado, F. Muñoz, and F. J. Rubia. 2003. “Similarities and Differences between Phrase Structure and Morphosyntactic Violations in Spanish: An Event-Related Potentials Study.” Language and Cognitive Processes 18 (2): 113‒42. Koenig, O., C. Wetzel, and A. Caramazza. 1992. “Evidence for Diferent Types of Lexical Representations in the Cerebral Hemispheres.” Cognitive Neuropsychology 9: 33‒45. Leminen, A., E. Smolka, J. A. Duñabeitia, and C. Pliatsikas. 2019. “Morphological Processing in the Brain: The Good (infection), the Bad (derivation) and the Ugly (compounding).” Cortex 116: 4‒44. Linares, R. E., A. Rodríguez-Fornells, and H. Clahsen. 2006. “Stem Allomorphy in the Spanish Mental Lexicon: Evidence from Behavioral and ERP Experiments.” Brain and Language 97: 110‒20. Luck, S. J. 2014. An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marr, D. 1982. Vision. A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company. McCandliss, B. D., L. Cohen, and S. Dehaene. 2003. “The Visual Word Form Area: Expertise for Reading in the Fusiform Gyrus.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (7): 293‒99. NGRALE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. Pinker, S. 1997. “Words and Rules in the Human Brain.” Nature 387: 547‒48. Poeppel, D., K. Emmorey, G. Hickok, and L. Pylkkänen. 2012. “Towards a New Neurobiology of Language.” Journal of Neuroscience 32 (41): 14125‒131. Quiñones, I., N. Molinaro, S. Mancini, J. A. Hernández-Cabrera, H. Barber, and M. Carreiras. 2018. “Tracing the Interplay between Syntactic and Lexical Features: fMRI Evidence from Agreement Comprehension.” NeuroImage 175: 259‒71. Quiñones, I., N. Molinaro, S. Mancini, J. A. Hernández-Cabrera, and M. Carreiras. 2014. “Where Agreement Merges with Disagreement: fMRI Evidence of Subject-Verb Integration.” NeuroImage 88: 188‒201. Rodriguez-Fornells, A., T. F. Münte, and H. Clahsen. 2002. “Morphological Priming in Spanish Verb Forms: An ERP Repetition Priming Study.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 14 (3): 443‒54. Royle, P., and K. Steinhauer. (to appear). “Neural Correlates of Morphology Computation and Representation.” In Language Electrifed: Techniques, Methods, Applications, and Future Perspectives in the

573

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

Neurophysiological Investigation of Language, edited by M. Grimaldi, Y. Shtyrov, and E. Brattico. London, Berlin: Springer. Silva-Pereyra, J. F., and M. Carreiras. 2007. “An ERP Study of Agreement Features in Spanish.” Brain Research 1185: 201‒11. Stockall, L., and L. Gwilliams. under review. “Distributed Morphology and Neurolinguistics.” In Handbook of Distributed Morphology, edited by A. Alexiadou, R. Kramer, A. Marantz, and I. Oltra-Massuet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stockall, L., and A. Marantz. 2006. “A Single Route, Full Decomposition Model of Morphological Complexity: MEG Evidence.” The Mental Lexicon 1 (1): 85‒123. Wicha, N. Y. Y., E. M. Moreno, and M. Kutas. 2003. “Expecting Gender: An Event-Related Brain Potential Study on the Role of Grammatical Gender in Comprehending a Line Drawing within a Written Sentence in Spanish.” Cortex 16 (7): 1272‒88. Wicha, N. Y. Y., E. M. Moreno, and M. Kutas. 2004. “Anticipating Words and Their Gender: An EventRelated Brain Potential Study of Semantic Integration, Gender Expectancy, and Gender Agreement in Spanish Sentence Reading.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 39: 483‒508.

Appendix (begins on next page)

574

18–38/ M=25.7

18–38/M=27

Alemán Bañón, 25 Fiorentino, and Gabriele 2012 / violation

Alemán Bañón and Rothman 2016 / violation

27

AGE range or mean

N

Study, paradigm

Table 40.2 Summary of ERP studies

ACC

Task (ACCeptability judgement, Lexical Decision) Efects

P600 (400–900 ms): all disagreement  El banco es un DP[edifcio muy seguro] y el conditions. No LAN. No interaction juzgado también. with structural distance ‘The bank is a DP[buildingMSG very safeMSG] and the courthouse too’.  . . . DP[edifcioMSG muy *segurosMPL] . . . DP[edifcioMSG muy *seguraFSG]   El cuento VP[es anónimo] y el manuscrito también. ‘The storyMSG VP[is anonymousMSG] and the manuscript too’. El cuentoMSG VP[es *anónimosMPL] . . . El cuentoMSG VP[es *anónimaFSG] . . .

Examples

(Continued)

P600 (500–1000 ms): all disagreement (Gender agreement Carlos fotografó una catedral que parecía conditions, earlier for marked gender vs. Disagreement) inmensa para una revista. (F adjectives), and marked number × (Number ‘Carlos photographed a cathedralFSG that looked (PL adjectives); P600 amplitude agreement vs. hugeFSG for a magazine’. modulated by markedness in number Disagreement) catedralFSG . . . *inmensasFPL disagreement only catedralFSG . . . *inmensoMSG LAN (500–1000 ms): all disagreement catedralesFPL . . . *inmensasFPL conditions, in left-mid areas catedralesFPL . . . *inmensaFSG Early AN (250–450 ms): in marked catedralesFPL . . . *inmensosMPL disagreement conditions Antonio hizo un pastel que parecía asqueroso para el desayuno. ‘Antonio made a cakeMSG that looked disgustingMSG for breakfast’. pastel. . . *asquerosos. . . pastel. . . *asquerosa. . . pasteles . . . asquerosos. . . pasteles. . . *asqueroso. . . pasteles. . . *asquerosas. . .

(Within vs. Across phrase agreement) × (Gender agreement vs. Disagreement) × (Number agreement vs. Disagreement)

Comparisons

Morphology and neurolinguistics

575

576

19–21

18–30

Barber, 10 Domínguez, and de Vega 2002 / priming

Barber and 24 Carreiras 2003 / violation

18–38/M=27

18–28

28

Alemán Bañón and Rothman 2019 / violation

AGE range or mean

Álvarez et al. 2011 20 / priming

N

Study, paradigm

Table 40.2 Continued

ACC

LD

Task (ACCeptability judgement, Lexical Decision)

(Gender agreement vs. Disagreement) × (Number Agreement vs. Disagreement)

Infection: Unrelated vs. Related SHG: Unrelated vs. Related

Infected: Related vs. Unrelated Derived: Related vs. Unrelated

(3sg/unmarked vs. 1sg marked subject) × (Agreement vs. Disagreement)

Comparisons

faro-alto ‘lighthousem highm’ *farom-altaf *faromsg-altosmpl *faromsg-altasfpl

cera-LOCO vs. loca-LOCO ‘waxf-madm vs. madf-madm’ pera-RATO vs. rata-RATO ‘pearfwhilem vs. ratf-whilem’

niño-niña, niño-mate ‘childm-childf vs. childm-matem’ barco-barca, líder-barca ‘shipm-shipf vs. leaderm-shipf’

El cazador a menudo acampa en la montaña. the hunter3sg often camp3sg in the mountain El cazador3sg . . . *acampo1sg Yo a menudo canto en la ducha. I often sing1sg in the shower Yo1SG . . . *canta3SG

Examples

N400 (300–500 ms): Disagreement > Agreement; P3 in all conditions, earlier for Agreement and double violation; Same N400 for gender and number

N400 (350–500 ms): Infection = SHG; (500–600 ms): SHG > Infection

Activated regions: Infected at R cuneus and lingual gyrus and occipital cuneus. Derivation at LMFG and RAC. Unrelated conditions: Infected at LCG and LMFG; Derivation at RCG, parietal precuneus

P: Related > Unrelated conditions; Infected in 300–500 ms; Derivation in 300–450 ms; No efects nor interactions in 500–600 ms

LAN (500–1000 ms): 1sg marked subject disagreement > 3sg unmarked subject disagreement

P600 (500–1000 ms), both violations; P600: 1sg marked subject disagreement > 3sg unmarked subject disagreement (700–900 ms)

Efects

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

18–41

18–40/ M=24.13

Cafarra, Janssen, 32 and Barber 2014 / priming + violation

Cafarra and Barber 2015 / violation

32

18–26

Barber and 22 Carreiras 2005 / violation

ACC

ACC + Final recognition test

(Transparent vs. Opaque nouns) × (Agreement vs. Disagreement)

(Continued)

Pararon cuando el lago ya estaba cerca vs. Pararon Transparency efect: N transparent > Opaque (200–500 ms), frontal-central cuando la lago ya estaba cerca. they stopped when them lakem was nearby vs. . . . Agreement efect: LAN-P600 (350–500 ms, 500–800 ms), central-posterior thef lakem . . . Sacó velozmente el reloj del cajón. vs. Sacó velozmente la reloj del cajón. he rapidly took them watchm out of the drawer vs. . . . thef watchm . . .

N400: Disagreement > Agreement and Transparent > Opaque, in LH/RH. Negativity extends to 500–750 ms in LH/RH LH: early sensitivity to formal gender cues (350–500 ms) RH: later efect of agreement for transparent (500–700 ms)

elm quesoM vs. *laf quesoM ‘the cheese’ elm relojM vs. *laf relojM ‘the watch’

(Transparent vs. Opaque nouns) × (Agreement vs. Disagreement) (LVF vs. RVF)

LAN (300–450 ms)—P600 in anterior and posterior areas (500–700 ms); only posterior and R-lateralised (700–900 ms) P600: Middle disagreement > Initial disagreement

El piano estaba viejo y desafnado. ‘Them pianom was oldm and out-of-tunem’ *Laf pianom . . . *Losmpl pianom El faro es alto y luminoso. ‘Them lighthousem is highm and brilliantm’ . . . es altaf. . .  . . . es altosmpl. . .

EXP2: (Sentence initital vs. Medial) × (Gender agreement vs. Disagreement) × (Number agreement vs. Disagreement)

N400: Disagreement > Agreement over central and posterior areas; both D+N, A+N. LAN: Disagreement > Agreement, D+N only. P300 latency variation: Disagreement > (longer latencies) Agreement: gender disagreement > number disagreement

el piano ‘them pianoM’ *laf piano *losmpl pianomsg faro-alto ‘lighthousem highm’ *farom-altaf *faromsg-altosmpl

EXP1: (D+N vs. N+A) × (Gender agreement vs. Disagreement) × (Number agreement vs. Disagreement)

Morphology and neurolinguistics

577

578 LD

Domínguez, de Vega, and Barber 2004 / priming

 20–28

 EXP3: 11

18–28

 19–33

 EXP2: 10

Domínguez et al. 17 2006 / priming

 18–26

 EXP1: 11

 

Orthographic search task during prime + LD at target

Task (ACCeptability judgement, Lexical Decision)

de Diego 30 bilinguals L1 Spanish Balaguer et al. M= 20; 2005 / priming L2-Spanish M=21

Exp2: 24 Exp2: 19–40 SpanishBasque bilinguals

Exp1: 24 Exp1: 18–40 BasqueSpanish bilinguals

Cafarra et al. 2017 / violation

AGE range or mean

N

Study, paradigm

Table 40.2 Continued

ruda-POZO vs. rica-RICO ‘rudeF-wellM vs. ‘richF-richM’ ibid vs. cero-CERA vs. ‘zeroM-waxF’ ibid vs. gula-PATA vs. ‘gluttonyF-pawF’ ibid vs. clavo-PUNTA vs. ‘nailM-nailF’ reacción/ regalo /camello—REFORMA ‘reaction/gift/camel—reform’

Prefxed vs. Syllabic vs. Unrelated prime

R: temer/temo/fundo ‘to-fear/fear1sg /found1sg ‘ S: negar-niego-sueño‘to-deny/deny1sg /dream1sg ‘ I: ir-voy-suprimo ‘to-go/go1sg/suppress1sg‘

ElM zapatoM vs. Laf zapatom ‘the shoe’ ElM bosqueM vs. LaF bosqueM the wood’

Examples

(Infected vs. SHG vs. Form-related vs. Synonyms) × (Unrelated vs. Related)

(Regular vs. Semiregular vs. Idiosyncratic) × (Related vs. Unrelated)

(Agreement vs. Disagreement) × (Marked vs. Unmarked gender)

Comparisons

Larger early positivity (150–250 ms); Late N400

P (250–450 ms): Infection > Synonym P (500–6050 ms): Synonym > Infection

N400: Form-related (450–650 ms) > Infection

P (250–350 ms): Infection = SHG N400 (450–650): SHG > Infection

Regular: N400 reduced in both L1 and L2 Spanish speakers. Semi-regular: reduced N400 in L1 speakers Idiosyncratic: reduced N400 in L2 speakers

Exp2: Gramm judgement—no diferences LAN + P600 Disagree > Agree main efect for all nouns (no interaction) Main efect of Marked > Unmarked nouns on LAN LAN Efect size comparison between Exps: LAN larger as self-reported amount of Spanish production increased

Exp1: Gram judgement acc: Overtly marked nouns > Unmarked nouns LAN and P600 for Disagree > Agree for marked nouns, not for unmarked Delayed 700–900 ms positivity for Disagree > Agree for all nouns

Efects

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

19–32/ M=24.1

Hinojosa et al. 2003 / violation

Linares, 33 RodríguezFornells, and Clahsen 2006 / violation

M=21

18–35

Havas, Rodríguez- 26 Fornells, and Clahsen 2012 / violation

30

19–34

29

Güemes, Gattei, and Wainselboim 2019

Reading + content questions (Stem vs. Sufx) × (Correct vs. Incorrect allomoph)

miden ‘measure3plpres‘ *miden vs. mides *meden vs. miden *medes vs. miden

Grammatical vs. La prueba ocultada por el fscal apareció. Word-category the proof hidden by the public-prosecutor violation vs. Verb appeared3sg disagreement * . . . por el apareció  . . . by the appeared3sg * . . . por el fscal aparecí. . . . by the publicprosecutor appeared1sg .

 . . . La blancura de la nieve era deslumbrante. ‘ . . . The whiteness of the snow was dazzling’.  . . . La *blanqueza del edifcio era muy notable. ‘ . . . The *whiteness of the building was outstanding’.  . . . La gigantez . . . vs. * . . . La gigantura . . . ‘The hugeness’

Reading + yes/no [A-ura]n vs. *[A-ez(a)]n vs. questions [A-ez(a)]n vs. *[A-ura]n [Productivity -ura < ez(a)]

ACC

AG: abrelatas ‘can-opener, lit. open-cans ‘ LOC: guardarropas ‘wardrobe, lit. keep-clothes ‘ MET: metepatas ‘bungler, lit. put-legs’

AGentive vs. LOCative vs. METaphoric V-N compound

(Continued)

Incorrect stem + Incorrect sufx: Right anterior N (300–500 ms)

Incorrect stem: Reduced fronto-central negativity (350–550 ms) + P600

Incorrect sufx: increased LAN + enhanced P600

Early (250–400 ms), Left frontal AN: All violations > Grammatical Early (250–400 ms) bilateral centroparietal N400: Word-category-violation > Verb disagreement P600 (500–600 ms), broad distribution: Violations > Gramatical P600 (600–700 ms), R central and R parieto-occipital: Verb disagreement > Word-category-violation

Late posterior P for incorrect -ez(a); early N for correct -ura. Fronto-central N and broad late P for incorrect -ura

AG and LOC: Increased Neg in L Anterior region (350–450 ms) MET: Increased Pos in R Anterior region (200–350 ms) Increased Pos in L and R regions (550–750 ms)

Morphology and neurolinguistics

579

580

not said

De Vega, Urrutia, and Domínguez 2010 / violation

26

18–22/M=18 ACC

LD

Task (ACCeptability judgement, Lexical Decision)

Silva-Pereyra and 24 Carreiras 2007 / violation

AGE range or mean

20–30

N

Rodríguez14 Fornells, Münte, and Clahsen 2002 / priming

Study, paradigm

Table 40.2 Continued

entiendo—ENTENDER/QUERER ‘understand1sgpres—to-understand/ to-want’ ando—ANDAR/LAVAR ‘walk1sgpres—to-walk/to-wash’

Examples

Temporal Adverb + (Real vs. Novel verb) × (Agreement vs. Mismatch)

Ayer por la tarde, en la radio, un famoso discutía sobre cirugía estética. ‘Yesterday evening, on the radio, a famous person argued about aesthetic surgery’. * . . . un famoso discutirá sobre . . . ‘a famous person will argue about’ * . . . un famoso discutaba sobre. . . ‘a famous person arguaed about’ * . . . un famoso discutará sobre. . . ‘a famous person will argua about’

(Person vs. Number) Yo salto en el patio. ‘I jump1sg in the backyard’. × (Agreement vs. *Nosotros salto . . . ‘We jump1sg‘ *Tú salto. . . ‘Yousg jump1sg‘ Disagreement) *Ustedes salto . . . ‘Youpl jump1sg‘

(Marked vs. Unmarked stem prime) × (Related vs. Unrelated infnitive target)

Comparisons

P200: Disagreement > Agreement, at frontal areas, left-lateralised for verbs, bilateral for nonce-verbs. Late AN at 375–490 ms (not typical LAN or N400) No P600

(L)AN and P600: all disagreement conditions. R and central lateralised AN for Person+Number disagreement. P600: Person+Number disagreement > Agreement/Number disagreement/ Person disagreement (500–700 ms); Disagreement > Agreement (700–900 ms)

Reduced N400 for primed unmarked (250–450 ms)

Efects

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

28

Wicha, Moreno, and Kutas 2004 / violation

W: 18–31 M: 18–23

18–29/ M=20.8

N400: semantically incongruent > congruent (175–700 ms). N (500–700 ms): Gender incongruent > Gender congruent, independent of semantic congruency, over L frontal. No P600. Enhanced Neg at unexpected disagreement (before showing [in] congruent picture)

El príncipe soñaba con tener el trono de su padre. El N400: Semantic incongruent > Semantic congruent (300–500 ms), over central sabía que cuando su padre muriera podría al fn and parietal, RH. ponerse la corona por el resto de su vida. [See P600: Gender disagreement > Gender Wicha, Moreno, and Kutas 2003] agreement (500–900 ms) over medial . . . la maleta . . . ‘theF suitcaseF’ . . . el corona . . . ‘theM crownF’ posterior sites, slightly larger over RH. . . . el maleta . . . ‘theM suitcaseF’ Congruity > Gender interaction: P600 (450–900 ms)

Silent Reading/ (Gender agreement El príncipe soñaba con tener el trono de su padre. El viewing+ vs. Disagreement) sabía que cuando su padre muriera podría al fn Recognition × (Semantic ponerse la CORONA por el resto de su vida. questionnaire congruence vs. ‘The prince dreamt about having the throne Incongruence) of his father. He knew that when his father died he would fnally be able to wear theF crownF for the rest of his life’.  . . . la CANASTA . . . ‘theF basketF’ . . . el CORONA . . . ‘theM crownF’ . . . el CANASTA . . . ‘theM basketF’

Abbreviations: a: anterior; AG: Angular Gyrus; CG: Cingulate Gyrus; f: feminine; IFG: Inferior Frontal Gyrus; L(H): Left (hemisphere); LVF: Left visual feld; m: Masculine; MFG: Middle Frontal Gyrus; MTC: Middle Temporal Cortex; MTG: Middle Temporal Gyrus; N: Negativity; Num(ber); pl: Plural; pres: Present; R(H): Right (hemisphere); RT: Reading Times; RVF: Right visual feld; sg: Singular; SHG: Stem Homograph; STG: Superior Temporal Gyrus; SMG: Supramarginal Gyrus; Viol(ation)

28

Wicha, Moreno, and Kutas 2003 / violation

Morphology and neurolinguistics

581

582

N 15

12

32

Study Carreiras et al. 2010

Carreiras et al. 2012, TMS, violation

Carreiras et al. (2015)

18–37

19–41

Age range or mean 20–35

Task ACC

Table 40.3 Summary of fMRI studies (and one TMS study)

el piano ‘them pianom’ *laf piano *losmpl pianomsg faro-alto ‘lighthousem highm’ *farom-altaf *faromsg-altosmpl

Examples

(D+N vs. S+V) × (Number agreement vs. Disagreement)

ElMSG anilloMSG ‘the ring’ vs. *LosMPL anilloMSG Ella3SG baila3SG ‘she sings’ vs. Ellas3PL baila3SG

(Agreement vs. Elmsg pianomsg Disagreement) × (TMS at *Lafsg pianomsg Broca’s vs. TMS at control *Losmpl pianomsg site [R-intraparietal sulcus])

Comparison (D+N vs. N+A) × (Gender agreement vs. Disagreement) × (Number agreement vs. Disagreement)

Activated brain regions RT: D+N > N+A; Agree > GenViol, NumViol Error: N+A > D+N NumViol > Agree + GenViol > Agree in L-premotor cortex, lIF NumViol > Agree, GenViol in R-parietal areas (intraparietal sulcus, superior parietal gyrus), driven by D+N conditions Accuracy: no main efects, but interaction of Agreement × TMS; RT: main efect of Agreement (faster grammatical pairs); no efect of TMS, but interaction: stimulation of Broca’s area reduced agreement efect No signifcant main efects of Agreement nor TMS, or interaction, in accuracy or in RT. Agreement > Disagreement: R and L insula, L IFG, L precentral, L supplementary motor area, L inferior parietal Disagreement > Agreement: AG, cingulate cortex, precuneus, MTG, and orbitofrontal cortex bilaterally; L occipital cortex, L SFG

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

9

Hernández et al. 2004

Quiñones et al. 25 2014

N 12

Study De Diego Balaguer et al. 2006

17–35 M=22.62

M=27.3

Age range or mean M=23

ACC

ACC

(Agreement (default) vs. Unagreement (grammatical person disagreement) vs. Ungrammatical person disagreement)

(Transparent vs. Opaque gender)

Task Comparison Infection (Regular vs. Irregular condition: infection) + (Generation vs. Repetition task) covert generation of 1sgpres verb or nonce verb Repetition condition: repeat verb or nonce verb + Stress monitoring

(Continued)

L: MFG, IFG, cerebellum R: sensorimotor cortex Opaque > Transparent: increased activity in LIFG (BA 44/ 45), more superior locus near BA 44/6, and in the insula near BA 47 (bilateral) and aCG. RT: disag > ag = unag fMRI: disag > ag and unag in bilateral fronto-parietal network + RH supramarginal cortex + vmOF ag, unag > disag LH iFL, broad TL activation unag > ag LH pars orbitalis and aMTC sentir–siento to-feel–feel1sgpres carroM–casaF ‘cart–house’ vs. fuenteF–arrozM ‘spring–rice’

Los pintores3PL trajeron3PL the painters3pl brought3pl  . . . trajimos1PL the painters3pl brought1pl *El pintor3.sg trajiste2.sg the painter3sg brought2sg

Activated brain regions L: IFGoperc, cerebellum R: parahippocampal gyrus, sensorimotor cortex

Examples cantar–canto to-sing–sing1sgpres

Morphology and neurolinguistics

583

584

Study N Age range or mean Quiñones et al. 53 18–42 2018 (47)

Table 40.3 Continued Task

Comparison (Transparent vs. Opaque nouns) × (Gender agreement vs. Disagreement)

Examples Activated brain regions libroM, lunaF vs. lápizM, vejezF Opaque > Transparent: bilateral book, moon vs. pencil, old-age increase in pars opercularis elM libroM, laF lunaF vs. elM lápizM, laF and triangularis within vejezF vs. *laF libroM, *elM lunaF IFG, the insula, medial part vs. *laF lápizM, *elM vejezF of superior frontal gyrus, posterior MTG, hippocampus, FG, thalamus. Transparent > Opaque: increased left-lateralised parietal regions, L-SMG, L-AG; and L-superior and middle occipital cortices, cuneus, calcarine sulcus. Disagreement > Agreement: L-lateralised parietal cortex, including AG and posterior cingulate cortex Agreement > Disagreement: increases in the posterior L-MTG and R-STG Interaction: in L-lateralised clusters: SMG, AG, hippocampus, posterior MTG/STG and pars triangularis within IFG

Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Linnaea Stockall

41 Morphology and language pathologies in Spanish Vicenç TorrensMorphology and language pathologies

(La morfología del español y los trastornos del lenguaje)

Vicenç Torrens

1 Introduction Language difculties in the acquisition of morphology are mainly found in specifc language impairment (SLI). In this chapter, I discuss the most relevant theories that analyze language acquisition in the SLI population. I describe some of the properties of the language found in SLI children, compared to mean length of utterance (MLU)-matched typically developing children, in particular the main morphological properties found in the acquisition of Tense and Agreement in the Verb Phrase and the Determiner Phrase in Spanish. The data found in the acquisition of SLI children learning Spanish as a frst language is compared with other languages, mainly Romance and Germanic languages. In general, there is a delay in the acquisition of Tense and Agreement in SLI children, compared to MLU-matched typically developing children in most languages, although details depend on the properties of those languages. Keywords: specifc language impairment; tense; agreement; processing accounts; linguistic accounts En el trastorno específco del lenguaje (TEL) se han observado difcultades en la adquisición de la morfología. En este artículo presento las teorías más relevantes que describen la adquisición del lenguaje en esta población. Se describen las propiedades del lenguaje observado en niños con TEL, en comparación con niños con un desarrollo típico del lenguaje con la misma LME; en particular, se presentan ejemplos de las principales propiedades morfológicas en la adquisición del Tiempo y la Concordancia del Sintagma Verbal y del Sintagma Determinante en castellano. Los datos observados en la adquisición del lenguaje en niños con TEL que aprenden el castellano como primera lengua se comparan con otras lenguas, principalmente lenguas románicas y lenguas germánicas. En general, se observa un retraso en la adquisición del Tiempo y la Concordancia en niños con TEL, comparado con niños con un desarrollo típico en la mayoría de las lenguas, aunque los detalles dependen de las propiedades morfosintácticas de cada lengua. Palabras clave: trastorno específco del lenguaje; tiempo; concordancia; modelos de procesamiento; modelos lingüísticos 585

Vicenç Torrens

2 Theoretical background Language impairments can be classifed as developmental or acquired disorders. The most frequent disorder afecting the acquisition, processing and attrition of morphology is specifc language impairment. This disorder is a delay in the onset of language once it has been acquired, in the absence of any other neurological, cognitive or psychological difculties. However, some recent studies in SLI in Spanish have found that these components might infuence the symptoms of this disorder, similar to the infuence of short-term memory in language acquisition (Aguado et al. 2006; Gallego, Revilla, and Schüller 2000; Girbau and Schwartz 2007; Torrens and Yagüe 2018). A question that researchers have been trying to answer is whether the errors found in this disorder are qualitatively diferent from the language found in younger children. Children with specifc language impairment have a particular difculty with the acquisition of grammatical morphemes that carry tense and agreement features. This is found in all languages, even though some authors state that it should only be found in languages with particular linguistic properties. Several studies on this have been carried out in many languages (Catalan: Bosch and Serra 1997; Serra, Aguilar, and Sanz 2002; English: Conti-Ramsden and Jones 1997; Gopnik 1990; Leonard et al. 1992; Rice, Wexler, and Cleave 1995; German: Clahsen 1991; Italian: Bottari, Cipriani, and Chilosi 1996; Spanish: Bedore and Leonard 2001; Grinstead et al. 2009, 2013; Torrens and Escobar 2009). Theoretical proposals to explain the symptoms observed in SLI children can be classifed as processing approaches, where the cause of the impairment is a cognitive mechanism, and linguistic approaches, where the authors explain the impairment based on linguistic properties.

2.1 Processing limitations Leonard et al. (1992) have proposed two hypotheses to explain the errors performed by SLI children. The Surface Hypothesis proposes that SLI children have a limited processing capacity and that this difculty might increase depending on the surface characteristics of a particular language. The surface characteristics of English morphology play a signifcant role in this respect: many of the English morphemes pose a challenge perceptually, because, as non-syllabic consonant segments and unstressed syllables, they are shorter in duration than adjacent morphemes. SLI children acquiring English would have many difculties in perceiving morphemes such as third-person singular -s or past tense -ed, and allocating a grammatical function to them. Leonard et al. (1992) predicted that Italian-, Hebrew- and Spanish-speaking SLI children would perform as well as typically developing children with comparable MLUs in the use of stressed and vowel-fnal syllabic infections, since morphological markers in Italian, Hebrew and Spanish are phonetically more salient. Another proposal by Leonard et  al. (1992) is the hypothesis of the relative sparseness of morphology in English. This hypothesis proposes that the paucity of infections in English contributes to English SLI children’s lack of attention to grammatical morphemes in favour of more dependable cues, such as word order. In contrast, in Catalan, Hebrew, Italian and Spanish, nouns, verbs, and adjectives can never appear as bare stems, and therefore the difculty wouldn’t be found in these languages. Since SLI children have limited resources, infections would be the place on which to focus attention. Leonard et al. argue that SLI children would perform as well as typically developing children with comparable MLUs in the use of noun, verb and adjective infections in Italian, Hebrew or Spanish. However, the same phonemes that are claimed to be unperceivable in the context of grammatical morphemes are perceived in lexical items in 586

Morphology and language pathologies

English. While this hypothesis can account for the characteristic absence of non-salient phonological segments, it cannot account for systematic errors that occur among separate elements in a sentence. Gathercole (2006) explains the language of SLI children as a defcit in phonological memory, SLI children having limited phonological memory capacity. Due to this limited capacity, SLI children would have a defcient phonological representation of words, which would worsen the analysis of infectional morphology and would cause a reduced lexical repertoire. Eisenson (1984) proposed the Cognitive Hypothesis, which argues that general learning mechanisms subsume all learning; defcits in language should be accounted for in terms of these general learning mechanisms. Cromer (1978) supposed that “the defcit in these children may be some kind of hierarchical structuring disability”. Following this, it is not language itself that is impaired in SLI children but rather a more general aspect of cognition. A signifcant cognitive generalization could account for the language problems typical of SLI children; all other non-language systems with the same properties are also impaired. However, there is a disparity between their performance in language tasks and their performance in other cognitive tasks (e.g. memory or attentional tasks). This hypothesis would correctly predict that there would be errors between determiners and number-marking in nouns. However, this hypothesis would also predict, incorrectly, that all hierarchical rules in the grammar would be impaired. In the same vein, Jakubowicz and Nash (2001) proposed the Computational Complexity Hypothesis, which states that simpler derivations are preserved in the grammar of SLI children; the difculties in SLI children depend on the quality of the syntactic constituents (i.e., more frequent features are easier than infrequent features). Jakubowicz (2003, 2011) suggests that SLI children will not acquire structures that involve many computations, because SLI children have numerous difculties in integrating diferent kinds of information between language and other cognitive systems.

2.2 Linguistic approaches Gopnik proposed the Feature-Defcit Hypothesis (Gopnik 1990). For Gopnik, the grammatical symptoms typical of specifc language impairment are the result of a grammar without syntactic-semantic features but which preserves grammatical class specifcations. If the missing agreement account is correct, we would not expect to fnd any genuine word order problems in SLI. Clahsen (1989, 1991) proposed the Grammatical Agreement Defcit Hypothesis, which argues that SLI children have problems establishing agreement relations between two elements in phrase structure, relations which are essential in natural language. In cases in which the use of correct word-order patterns depends upon agreement, such as in the case of the German Verb-Second (V2) phenomenon, which only applies to fnite verb forms marked for subjectverb agreement, we would predict word-order errors. If the agreement system is systematically taught in therapy, then those SLI children who acquire agreement as a result of the therapy should also generalize to correct V2. Under Clahsen’s hypothesis, the following linguistic phenomena should cause problems for SLI children: a) subject-verb agreement, b) auxiliaries, c) overt structural case-markers, d) gender-marking on determiners and adjectives. In contrast to the sub-systems of infection just mentioned, noun plurals in English and German, past-tense marking in English and participle infection in German do not fall under the control-agreement principle, because rather than being controlled by an argument category, they are marked directly in the noun or verb and contribute to its meaning. These phenomena should be unimpaired in SLI children. Van der Lely (1996, 1998) suggested the Representation Defcit for Dependent Relationships, which explains the properties of language found in SLI children, by saying that they have 587

Vicenç Torrens

difculties in building complex dependencies. Elementary local dependencies are possible in SLI children, but SLI children have difculties with long-distance dependencies. From this general proposal, she further developed her account in order to describe the process of learning diferent linguistic properties: with respect to the difculties in subject-verb agreement, this proposal states that SLI children have difculties when the infectional form of the verb is dependent on the syntactic relationship between a noun phrase and the verb and the grammatical number of the noun. With respect to the obligatoriness of movement, van der Lely (1998) observed that SLI children exhibit optionality of movement. This is inconsistent with the Principle of Economy, which establishes that a constituent must move only when a feature is unchecked. Van der Lely proposes that the optionality of movement observed in SLI children originates in their missing the Principle of Economy. On the other hand, describing the acquisition of passives in English, van der Lely (1996) found that SLI children have problems deriving the syntactic representation underlying a verbal passive sentence but not the less complex adjectival-stative passive. Rice and Wexler proposed an Extended Optional Infnite Stage account of SLI (Rice and Wexler 1996; Rice, Wexler, and Cleave 1995). This model predicts that fniteness markers are omitted for a period of time for non-impaired children and that this period is further extended for children with SLI. It also predicts that if fniteness markers are present, they will be used correctly. The Extended Optional Infnitive Stage suggests that a core grammatical limitation of children with SLI is attributable to a prolonged period in which they do not know that fniteness marking is obligatory in matrix clauses. Impairment can manifest in three possible ways: a) later-than-expected emergence of fnite forms in SLI children’s utterances, b) lowerthan-expected optional use of fnite forms once fniteness marking emerges, c) a longer-thanexpected period of OI. Rice and Wexler found that children with SLI used non-fnite forms of lexical verbs, or omitted be and do, more frequently than typically developing children in the 5.0 and 3.0 year-old groups. At the same time, like the typically developing children, when the children with SLI marked fniteness, they did so appropriately. Most strikingly, the SLI group was highly accurate in marking agreement on be and do forms. Following Rice and Wexler, children optionally cannot check more than one syntactic feature (Unique Checking Constraint, UCC). UCC states that children can check only Agreement or Tense features, but not both, and this would lead children to produce non-fnite forms; but when children apply optionally minimized violations, this constraint would overrule UCC, leading children to produce fnite forms (Wexler 1998). This optionality would be why fnite and nonfnite verbs appear as main verbs, a regular stage in child acquisition which gets extended in children with SLI.

3 Data 3.1 The acquisition of noun morphology It has been found that SLI children have a delay in morphology compared to MLU-matched typically developing children. One of the aims of the research in this feld has been to describe the linguistic properties of the language produced by SLI children. One of the features of SLI children is that they do not produce correct noun infexional morphology until signifcantly later than MLU-matched typically developing children (Torrens and Escobar 2009). In Spanish, articles and adjectives agree with nouns for number and gender (see Camacho, this volume). Some of the errors found in the acquisition of noun morphology in SLI children consist of 588

Morphology and language pathologies

incorrect number or gender agreement between the article and the noun. The following are some instances taken from Siches (1990): (1) a. las[pl] tortuga[sg] (Correct: las[pl] tortugas[pl]) ‘the turtles’ b. a lavar las[pl] mano[sg] (Correct: las[pl] manos[pl]) ‘let’s clean the hands’ c. un[m] niña[f] (Correct: una[f] niña[f]) ‘a girl’

(Joan, 5.2)

(Quico, 6.2)

(Andrés, 5.7)

There are also instances of incorrect agreement between noun and adjective (2), and between nouns and quantifers (3). (2) a. con las cañas[pl] seca[sg] (Correct: cañas[pl] secas[pl]) ‘with the dry canes’ b. Quiero leer aquel cuento[sg] pequeños[pl] (Correct: aquel cuento[sg] pequeño[sg]) ‘I want to read that small book’

(Llorenç, 6.11)

(3) Hay muchas[pl] uva[sg] (Correct: muchas[pl] uvas[pl]) ‘there are many grapes’

(Llorenç, 7.9)

(Llorenç, 6.11)

Sometimes, children misuse the plural and singular forms for nouns, as in object position, in which bare count nouns must be plural, as in (4a), and bare mass nouns must be singular, as in (4b). (4) a. Ése vende helado[sg] (Correct: vende helados[pl]) ‘That one sells ice-cream’ b. Hay comidas[pl] (Llorenç, 7.4) (Correct: hay comida[sg]) ‘There’s food’

(Quico, 5.5)

3.2 The acquisition of articles The acquisition of articles in SLI children has been studied in other languages, including English (Leonard et al. 1997), French (Methé and Crago 1996) and Italian (Leonard et al. 1992). These authors have found that children have many difculties with the use of articles in these languages. In studies describing SLI children learning Spanish as a frst language, Bosch and Serra (1997), Restrepo and Gutiérrez-Clellen (2001) and Torrens and Escobar (2009) found diferences between SLI children and typically developing children in the number of article errors. Bosch and Serra found that the most frequent error was omission rather than substitution. Restrepo and Gutiérrez-Clellen (2001) found that SLI children have many difculties in the 589

Vicenç Torrens

acquisition of defnite articles and make numerous overregularizations, although they did not fnd this difculty in the acquisition of indefnite articles. Torrens and Escobar (2009) found that SLI children produce incorrect article morphology for gender and number Agreement. The data show that SLI children do not produce correct article morphology until signifcantly much later than MLU-matched typically developing children (Torrens and Escobar 2009). The errors found in the acquisition of articles for SLI children consist of the production of schwa instead of the full article, at an age where typically developing children do not produce these errors. (5) a. Dice e papa (Correct: el papa) ‘Daddy says’ b. Yo no veo a cabeza (Correct: la cabeza) ‘I can’t see the head’ c. e hielo (Correct: el hielo) ‘the ice’

(Quico, 5.10)

(Quico, 5.10)

(Andrés, 5.1)

Errors also consist of the omission of the article, as in (6), or producing an extra article, as in (7). (6) a. para no tocar cabeza (Correct: tocar [la] cabeza) ‘in order not to touch the head’ b. No veo sol (Correct: no veo [el] sol) ‘I can’t see the sun’ c. a playa (Correct: a [la] playa) ‘to the beach’ (7) Viene un as tactor (Correct: viene un tractor) ‘A tractor is coming’

(Llorenç, 7.9)

(Llorenç, 8.7)

(Andrés, 6.8)

(Llorenç, 6.11)

Another kind of error consists of producing an article instead of another (functional) word (e.g., a preposition): (8) a. el Madrid (Correct: en Madrid) ‘in Madrid’ b. una niña está llorando un borde de un lago (Correct: al borde de un lago) ‘a girl is crying at the edge of a lake’

(Andrés, 5.7)

(Andrés, 7.9)

3.3 The acquisition of verb morphology Previous studies in the acquisition of Spanish show that SLI children do not produce correct verb morphology until signifcantly much later than MLU-matched typically developing children 590

Morphology and language pathologies

(Bedore and Leonard 2001; Grinstead et al. 2013; Simon-Cereijido and Gutiérrez-Clellen 2007; Torrens and Escobar 2009). Bedore and Leonard (2001) studied verbal infection in SLI children, age-matched typically developing children and MLU-matched typically developing children. They found that SLI children had lower scores than typically developing children in verb forms in present and past tense. Grinstead et al. (2009) found that SLI children were less profcient than age-matched and MLU-matched typically developing children in a grammaticality task for Tense. Grinstead et al. (2013) found that Tense can distinguish children with SLI from typically developing children, and that SLI children produce optional infnitives over an extended period of time in Spanish. In a study with 24 Spanish-speaking children, Bosch and Serra (1997) found that SLI children had more difculties than typically developing children in number-marking in third-person plural forms. Sanz-Torrent et  al. (2008) studied 18 bilingual Catalan-Spanish children and found that SLI children produced more forms of third-person singular and bare forms than typically developing children. The errors found in these studies usually consisted of subject-verb agreement errors. In some cases, the errors consisted of confusing the person, as in (9), or the number of the verbal form, as in (10) (examples from Torrens and Escobar (2009)). (9)

a. ¿Qué busta[3sg]? (Correct: ¿qué buscas[2sg]?) ‘What are you looking for?’ b. Ya caí[1sg] la nieve (Correct: ya cayó[3sg] la nieve) ‘It snowed’ (Lit ‘The snow already fell’)

(10) unas máquinas que sale[3sg] (Correct: unas máquinas que salen[3pl] ‘some machines that show up’

(Joan, 4.7)

(Andrés, 5.1)

(Llorenç, 6.11)

Another error consisted in the misuse of non-agreeing forms, such as infnitives, participles and gerunds. (11) a. va corriendo para no picar[inf] (Correct: va corriendo para no ser picado[pass.ptcp]) ‘s/he runs in order not to be beaten’ b. sin haciendo[ger] nada (Correct: sin hacer[inf] nada) ‘without doing anything’ c. están operarle[inf] (Correct: están operándole[ger]) ‘he’s being operated’

(Llorenç, 7.4)

(Llorenç, 8.4)

(Andrés, 7.11)

Sometimes, SLI children made errors when they could not distinguish fnite from non-fnite forms, as in (12), or replaced subjunctive with indicative or infnitives, as in (13). (12) a. Teo pon[imp] leche (Correct: Teo pone[prs-3sg] leche) ‘Teo pours milk’ b. no poder[inf] (Andrés, 7.11) (Correct: no pueden[prs-3pl]) ‘They can’t’

(Llorenç, 7.4)

591

Vicenç Torrens

(13) a. que pondría[cond] e tren (Correct: que pusiera[sbjv] el tren) ‘to put the train’ b. Hasta que no sé[ind] nadar (Correct: que no supiera[sbjv] nadar) ‘Until he could swim’ c. pa no verlo no doler[inf] (Correct: para no ver que duela[sbjv]) ‘Not to see it so it doesn’t hurt’

(Llorenç, 8.7)

(Llorenç, 8.7)

(Andrés, 7.2)

A common error was to produced regularized forms of irregular verbs: (14) a. han ponido (Quico) (Correct: han puesto) ‘They have put’ b. hacieron (Quico) (Correct: hicieron) ‘They did’ ‘S/he put’ c. caye (Llorenç, 7.9) (Correct: cae) ‘It falls’ ‘to rain’

d. venió (Llorenç, 8.1) (Correct: vino) ‘S/he came’ e. puno (Llorenç, 8.7) (Correct: puso) f. lluviar (Andrés, 5.1) (Correct: llover)

Another error was the incorrect choice of auxiliaries: the use of estar (‘to be’) instead of haber (‘to have’). In Spanish, present-perfect goes with haber, unlike in Italian or French, even for unaccusative verbs. (15) a. está ido (Correct: ha ido) ‘He’s gone’ b. la niña está encontrada (Correct: la niña fue encontrada) ‘The girl was found’

(Quico, 5.10)

(Andrés, 7.9)

With respect to lexical verbs, errors can involve switching one verb for another, as in (16), using neologisms (17), or omitting the verb altogether, as in (18). (16) a. Vimos a ver (Llorenç, 8.4) (Correct: fuimos a ver) ‘we came to see’ b. Era una vez una osa que nació un osito blanco (Llorenç, 8.4) (Correct: que dio a luz a un osito blanco) ‘Once upon a time a bear gave birth to a little white bear’ (17) a. Fuegado[ptcp] (Correct: apagado) ‘extinguished’ b. Fuegar[inf] (Correct: apagar) ‘to extinguish’ 592

(Andrés, 7.11)

(Andrés, 7.11)

Morphology and language pathologies

(18) a. Una niña y otra niña vinieron un hombre (Correct: vieron venir un hombre) ‘a girl and another girl saw a man coming’ b. Hay un cartero para una carta (Correct: hay un cartero para enviar una carta) ‘There’s a mail-man to send a letter’ c. ese hombre allí, a ese hombre (Correct: ese hombre allí, ayuda a ese hombre) ‘that man there, help that man’

(Quico, 5.10)

(Llorenç, 7.4)

(Andrés, 5.5)

4 Discussion Based on the data presented previously and discussed in previous studies, we can conclude that SLI children acquire verb and noun infectional morphology much later than their agematched and MLU-matched typically developing children. With respect to article-noun agreement, typically developing children acquire article-noun agreement at MLU  =  2.9, when they are approximately 2.6 years old (Torrens and Escobar 2009). With respect to subject-verb agreement, typically developing children acquire subject-verb agreement for present-tense at MLU = 2.1, when they are approximately 2.0 years old. The same delay can be found in all tenses under study (Torrens and Escobar 2009).

4.1 Noun morphology So far, I have described the properties of morphology development in SLI children acquiring Spanish. Children with SLI continue to exhibit gender and number agreement errors and diffculties with articles several years after matched typically developing children have acquired these morphosyntactic properties. As discussed subsequently, protracted acquisition of nominal morphology is a common feature of SLI children across various languages. Gopnik (1990) studied an SLI child learning English and French from 8.0 to 9.0 years old. Gopnik found that all the surface manifestations of the feature number on nouns were impaired. In English, the feature plural is marked morphologically in most nouns with an -s. SLI children produce nouns with and without -s; this -s is clearly not a marker for the semantic meaning of the plural, because it’s often used with a singular referent. The s-marked forms also occur incorrectly with the indefnite determiner a. In French, the only marker for plurals in the spoken language is the form of the article. In those few contexts, SLI children produce the diagnostic feature errors. Gopnik explains the data observed by postulating that, without the feature plural, the -s cannot be generated in the morphological component, nor can it follow feature-matching rules between the noun and the determiner. Following Gopnik (1990), -s is regarded as a variant phonological form with no associated meaning. The fact that -s is produced, though not to mark number, argues against the Surface Hypothesis. With respect to the acquisition of gender in French, feminine pronouns do not occur in spontaneous speech. The child uses either masculine pronouns to refer to feminine nouns, or she avoids the use of pronouns by using female proper names. In French, the article is learned and produced as a fxed unit with the noun rather than selected on the basis of a feature specifcation of the noun; all gender errors occur in contexts in which an adjective intervenes between the noun and the article. It has been found that children use the masculine pronoun several times, even when it is clear that she is referring to her mother (Jakubowicz and Nash 2001). 593

Vicenç Torrens

In Italian, Cipriani et al. (1991) and Bottari, Cipriani, and Chilosi (1994) found that SLI children barely used articles and clitic pronouns, compared to MLU-matched typically developing children. The difculties found—most frequently omissions of low-frequency items—were higher for articles than for clitic pronouns. When SLI children committed substitutions in the use of articles, they replaced them with articles with phonetic restricted contexts (Leonard et al. 1993). Leonard et al. (1992) compared Italian-speaking with English-speaking children, all with SLI; they found that both groups omitted articles, and children had similar percentages of correct use of articles, compared with their MLU-matched typically developing children. In French, Le Normand, Leonard, and McGregor (1993) compared SLI children with MLUmatched typically developing children and did not fnd any signifcative diference between these populations with respect to the rate of use of articles in obligatory contexts. This fnding might be due to the syllable structure in French. Jakubowicz et al. (1998) found that SLI children produce fewer determiners than typically developing children, but this is not statistically signifcant. However, these authors found that SLI children showed a statistically signifcant diference in the correct use of clitic pronouns compared with typically developing children. The diference between groups was much higher for the production task than in the comprehension task. It seems that testing clitic pronouns is a good indicator for diagnosis in French. Jakubowicz et al. (1998) argue that this is because clitic pronouns in French have a categorical defciency and occupy a non-argumental position. Based on these results, we conclude that nominal infection and agreement and the acquisition of articles and clitic pronouns are afected in SLI. In Spanish, like in the other Romance languages discussed here, defnite determiners and third person clitic pronouns are unstressed forms that share the same origin (see Camacho, Cuervo, this volume). Difculties in Spanish clitics in SLI are expected and are in need of further study.

4.2 Verb morphology Section 3 provided examples of the difculties in verbal morphology of SLI children acquiring Spanish. Children with SLI produce substitutions, mismatches, overregularizations and omissions until much later than typically developing children. With respect to subject-verb agreement in other languages, Gopnik (1990) found that, in an English-speaking SLI child, regular past-tense forms never occurred in spontaneous speech, though frequent irregular past forms did. The test consisted of asking the child to repeat a sentence presented in present tense, as if it was in the past. All regularly marked past tense verbs were changed to present forms by SLI children. The children often marked past tense semantically with a lexical term, which means that they understood temporality and could represent it in the semantic component. Gopnik also found that children virtually never added -s to the verb to mark the third-person singular present in spontaneous speech or in a repetition task. In a test of 20 items describing the actions of hand puppets, 19 progressive aspect verb forms were produced, 7 with both be and -ing, 6 with only be, and 6 with only -ing. Gopnik proposed that a feature-matching rule eliminates all sentences in which the feature of the verb does not match the feature in the preverbal position; in the absence of features, this rule could not operate. In English, Leonard et al. (1992) found that the most frequent error committed by SLI and MLU-matched typically developing children in third-person plural infection was the use of the third-person singular infection in its place. Instances of the third-person plural replacing the third-person singular infection were relatively rare. Clahsen (1993) observed that person and number agreement are impaired in SLI children acquiring German. Clahsen (1991) found that only one child out of ten SLI children examined (mean age: 5.6; range: 3.2 to 9.6) acquired the correct paradigm for person and number 594

Morphology and language pathologies

infection in the fnite verb; in this child (Petra), subject-verb agreement emerged at the age of about 4 years, which is much later than in typically developing children. None of the other nine children acquired the system of subject-verb agreement during the period of observation. These children used zero afxation or -n forms (i.e., infnitives), irrespective of the person and number of the subject. Rothweiler and Clahsen (1996) found that 11 out of 19 children acquiring German had problems acquiring the subject-verb agreement paradigm. The percentage of correct use of the second-person singular sufx -st in obligatory contexts was 55%, weighing each child equally. The infnitive form -n was often used as a default afx to replace fnite forms (mean rate of incorrect -n = 49%). On the other hand, a high rate of correct participle sufxation was found in SLI children: irregular participles with marked stems (which require the participle sufx -n in German) were correctly marked in most cases (83% of cases), and regular participles were correctly marked with the participle sufx -t in 86% of cases (Rothweiler and Clahsen 1996). Therefore, in infecting participles, SLI children are similar to typically developing MLU controls. These results contrast with problems the same children have with subject-verb agreement. Based on this fact, Rothweiler and Clahsen (1996) proposed that SLI children do not have a general defcit with infectional morphology but that their impairment is restricted to Agreement. Clahsen and Hansen (1993) also found relatively high rates of omission of auxiliaries and copulas, which are lexical instantiations of person and number features in German. They also found that 76% of verbs appeared in the stem or infnitive form, person agreement sufxes being rare (18% for third-person singular -t; 6% for frst-person singular -e; no occurrences of second-person singular sufx -st). Leonard et al. (1992) propose that SLI children have problems with perceptually non-salient morphemes, such as non-syllabic consonantal segments. However, this proposal can’t explain the observed dissociation between the incorrect subjectverb agreement and the correct participle sufxation produced by children acquiring German (Clahsen and Hansen 1993; see Montrul, this volume, for similar discussions in the context of heritage speakers). In contrast, the Grammatical Agreement Defcit Hypothesis can account for the data found in SLI children learning German and English as well. In Italian, Bottari, Cipriani and Chilosi (1996) found that seven SLI children produced root infnitives and lacked subject-verb agreement. They found that there is no session in which root infnitives are absent. They found that SLI children produce signifcantly more root infnitives and subject-verb agreement errors than typically developing children learning Italian as a frst language. Leonard et al. (1987) found that SLI children omitted copular verbs more often than MLU-matched typically developing children. They also found that SLI children had many difculties acquiring the third-person plural, which was substituted by the third-person singular. In French, Methé and Crago (1996) compared 28 SLI children with MLU-matched and age-matched typically developing children and found a higher rate of copular verbs and auxiliaries in SLI children. They also found that SLI children used non-fnite verbs in contexts in which a fnite verb was expected. Jakubowicz and Nash (2001) compared SLI children and typically developing children in an elicited production task and a comprehension task. They found that, for SLI children, Present Tense emerged signifcantly earlier than Past Tense and that the difculty with Past Tense afects both production and comprehension. SLI children produced non-fnite verbs or verbs in the near future instead of verbs in Present Tense. Also, SLI children produced verbs in Present Tense instead of verbs in Past Tense. Another consistent error produced by SLI children was the omission of auxiliaries and copular verbs. These data are consistent with their Computational Complexity Hypothesis. 595

Vicenç Torrens

In view of all these studies, which hypotheses are better able to account for the data? Gopnik’s (1990) Feature-Defcit Hypothesis predicts that SLI children completely lack syntactic features such as tense, aspect, gender, person and so on. Correct participle sufxation by German SLI children (Clahsen and Hansen 1993) contradicts this hypothesis. Gopnik (1992) and Gopnik and Crago (1991) propose that SLI children memorize and store infected word forms rather than constructing and applying infectional rules and thus treat regular and irregular forms in the same way. However, we have found that children with SLI produce overregularizations when marking agreement for fnite verbs. In light of the data coming from English, the extended optional infnitive stage would be suitable to explain the morphosyntactic properties of SLI children’s productions. However, the data we found in the acquisition of Spanish, where fnite verbs always have to bear agreement sufxes, leads us to the proposal that, for SLI children, not only is Tense-marking optional, but Agreement-marking is, too. In the acquisition of articles and nouns in Spanish, we observe a parallel difculty in the acquisition of number and gender agreement between nouns and the articles. Therefore, Agreement-marking would also be optional between articles and nouns. This proposal is also consistent with the data found in English, German, Italian and French discussed previously. I propose that SLI children go through a stage where Tense and Agreement-marking is optional. At this stage, fnite and non-fnite verbs are in free variation, and the fnite forms are not correctly infected. During this stage, the child knows about the possibility of head movement in the VP and the DP (an arguably needed step for agreement) and knows about the Principle of Economy (which implies that infnitival verbs do not move) but does not know that head movement is forced in the fnite case, or that non-fnite verbs cannot appear as main verbs. The Agreement-Defcit Hypothesis seems to be more suitable to describe the data found so far in Spanish, English, German and Italian. Further studies and data from other languages will shed light on the morphosyntactic properties of SLI children.

References Aguado, G., F. Cuetos, M. J. Domenzáin, and B. Pascual. 2006. “Repetición de pseudopalabras en niños españoles con trastorno específco del lenguaje; marcador psicolingüístico [Nonword Repetition in Spanish Children with SLI].” Revista de Neurología 43: 201–8. Bedore, L., and L. Leonard. 2001. “Grammatical Morphology Defcits in Spanish-Speaking Children with Specifc Language Impairment.” Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 44: 905–24. Bosch, L., and M. Serra. 1997. “Grammatical Morphology Defcits of Spanish-Speaking Children with Specifc Language Impairment.” Amsterdam Series in Child Language Development 6: 33–45. Bottari, P., P. Cipriani, and A. M. Chilosi. 1994. “Dissociations in the Acquisition of Clitic Pronouns by Dysphasic Children: A Case Study from Italian.” Unpublished manuscript. Scientifc Institute Stella Maris. Pisa, Italy. Bottari, P., P. Cipriani, and A. M. Chilosi. 1996. “Root Infnitives in Italian SLI Children.” In Boston University Conference on Language Development, edited by A. Stringfellow et al., 75–86. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Cipriani, P., A. Chilosi, P. Bottari, and L. Pfanner. 1991. “L’uso della morfologia grammaticale nella disfasia congénita.” Giornale Italiano di Psicologia 18: 765–79. Clahsen, H. 1989. “The Grammatical Characterization of Development Dysphasia.” Linguistics 27: 897–920. Clahsen, H. 1991. Child Language and Developmental Dysphasia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Clahsen, H. 1993. “Linguistic Perspectives on Specifc Language Impairment.” Working Papers Series ‘Theorie des Lexikons 37. 596

Morphology and language pathologies

Clahsen, H., and D. Hansen. 1993. “The Missing Agreement Account of Specifc Language Impairment: Evidence from Therapy Experiments.” Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 2: 1–36. Conti-Ramsden, G., and M. Jones. 1997. “Verb Use in Specifc Language Impairment.” Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 40: 1298–313. Cromer, R. 1978. “The Basis of Childhood Dysphasia: A Linguistic Approach.” In Developmental Dysphasia, edited by M. Wyke, 85–134. New York: Academic Press. Eisenson, J. 1984. Aphasia and Related Language Disorders in Children. New York: Harper and Row. Gallego, C., P. Revilla, and M. T. Schüller. 2000. “Recuerdo de material verbal en niños con disfasia functional [Memory of Verbal Material in Children with SLI].” Cognitiva 12 (1): 37–61. Gathercole, S., 2006. “Nonword Repetition and Word Learning: The Nature of the Relationship.” Applied Psycholinguistics 27: 513–43. Girbau, D., and R. Schwartz. 2007. “Non-Word Repetition in Spanish-Speaking Children with Specifc Language Impairment.” International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 42: 59–75. Gopnik, M. 1990. “Feature-Blind Grammar and Dysphasia.” Nature 344: 715. Gopnik, M. 1992. “Linguistic Properties of Genetic Language Impairment.” Unpublished manuscript. McGill University, Montreal. Gopnik, M., and M. Crago. 1991. “Familial Aggregation of a Developmental Language Disorder.” Cognition 39: 1–50. Grinstead, J., A. Baron, M. Vega-Mendoza, J. de la Mora, M. Cantú, and B. Flores. 2013 “Tense Marking and Spontaneous Speech Measures in Spanish Specifc Language Impairment: A Discriminant Function Analysis.” Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 56: 352–63. Grinstead, J., J. de la Mora, A. Pratt, and B. Flores. 2009. “Temporal Interface Delay and Root Non-Finite Verbs in Spanish-Speaking Children with Specifc Language Impairment.” In Hispanic Child Languages: Typical and Impaired Development, edited by J. Grinstead, 239–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jakubowicz, C. 2003. “Computational Complexity and the Acquisition of Functional Categories by French-Speaking Children with SLI.” Linguistics 41: 175–211. Jakubowicz, C. 2011. “Measuring Derivational Complexity: New Evidence from Typically Developing and SLI learners of L1-French.” Lingua 121: 339–51. Jakubowicz, C., and L. Nash. 2001. “Functional Categories and Syntactic Operations in (ab)normal Language Acquisition.” Brain and Language 77: 321–39. Jakubowicz, C., L. Nash, C. Rigaud, and C. Gérard. 1998. “Determiners and Clitic Pronouns in French Speaking Children with SLI.” Language Acquisition 7: 113–60. Le Normand, M. T., L. Leonard, and K. McGregor. 1993. “A  Cross-Linguistic Study of Article Use by Children with Specifc Language Impairment.” European Journal of Disorders of Communication 28: 153–63. Leonard, L., U. Bortolini, M. Caselli, K. McGregor, and L. Sabbadini. 1992. “Morphological Defcits in Children with Specifc Language Impairment.” Language Acquisition 2: 151–79. Leonard, L., U. Bortolini, M. Caselli, and L. Sabbadini. 1993. “The Use of Articles by Italian-Speaking Children with Specifc Language Impairment.” Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 7: 19–27. Leonard, L., J. Eyer, L. Bedore, and B. Grela. 1997 “Three Accounts of the Grammatical Morpheme Diffculties of English-Speaking Children with Specifc Language Impairment.” Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 40: 741–53. Leonard, L., L. Sabbadini, J. Leonard, and V. Volterra. 1987. “Specifc Language Impairment in Children: A Cross-Linguistic Study.” Brain and Language 32: 233–52. Methé, S., and M. B. Crago. 1996. “Verb Morphology in French Children with Language Impairment.” Paper presented at the Symposium on Research in Child Language Disorders. Madison, WI. Restrepo, M. A., and V. F. Gutiérrez-Clellen. 2001. “Article Use in Spanish-Speaking Children with Specifc Language Impairment.” Journal of Child Language 28: 433–52. Rice, M. L., and K. Wexler 1996. “Toward Tense as a Clinical Marker of Specifc Language Impairment in English-Speaking Children.” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 39: 1239–57. Rice, M. L., K. Wexler, and P. Cleave 1995. “Specifc Language Impairment as a Period of Extended Optional Infnitive.” Journal or Speech and Hearing Research 38: 850–63. 597

Vicenç Torrens

Rothweiler, M., and H. Clahsen. 1996. “Dissociations in SLI Children’s Infectional Systems: Evaluating Participle Infection and Agreement.” Unpublished Manuscript: University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf. Sanz-Torrent, M., E. Serrat, L. Andreu, and M. Serra. 2008. “Verb Morphology in Catalan and Spanish in Children with Specifc Language Impairment: A Developmental Study.” Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 22: 459–74. Serra, M., E. Aguilar, and M. Sanz. 2002. “Evolución del perfl productivo en el trastorno del lenguaje [Development of Productive Profle on Language Disorders].” Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología 22: 77–89. Siches, E. 1990. “Adquisició de la morfologia i retard del llenguatge.” PhD diss., Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona. Simon-Cereijido, G., and V. F. Gutiérrez-Clellen. 2007. “Spontaneous Language Markers of Spanish Language Impairment.” Applied Psycholinguistics 28: 317–39. Torrens, V., and L. Escobar. 2009. “Specifc Language Impairment in Spanish and Catalan.” In Hispanic Child Languages: Typical and Impaired Development, edited by J. Grinstead, 265–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Torrens, V., and E. Yagüe. 2018. “The Role of Phonological Working Memory in Children with SLI.” Language Acquisition 15 (1): 102–17. van der Lely, H. K. J. 1996. “Specifcally Language Impaired and Normally Developing Children: Verbal Passive vs. Adjectival Passive Sentence Interpretation.” Lingua 98: 243–72. van der Lely, H. K. J. 1998. “SLI in Children: Movement, Economy, and Defcits in the ComputationalSyntactic System.” Language Acquisition 7: 161–92. Wexler, K. 1998. “Very Early Parameter Setting and the Unique Checking Constraint.” Lingua 106: 23–79.

598

42 Morphology and language teaching Claudia H. Sánchez GutiérrezMorphology and language teaching

(Morfología y enseñanza de lenguas)

Claudia H. Sánchez Gutiérrez 1 Introduction This chapter aims to (1) prove that explicit teaching of derivational morphology (DM) in the second language (L2) Spanish classroom is necessary for students to develop morphological awareness skills, (2) present the current situation of DM teaching in L2 Spanish courses and textbooks and (3) suggest some pedagogical practices that can be easily implemented in the classroom. Concretely, I propose three simple principles of DM teaching that can overcome the limitations in DM teaching observed in textbooks and teacher’s beliefs and practices. Keywords: derivational morphology; classrooms; textbooks; teachers; second language Este capítulo tiene por objetivos (1) demostrar la necesidad de enseñar morfología derivativa (MD) en el aula de español L2 para que los estudiantes desarrollen habilidades de conciencia morfológica, (2) presentar la situación actual de la enseñanza de MD en los cursos y manuales de español L2 y (3) sugerir prácticas docentes que puedan implementarse fácilmente en el aula. Concretamente, propongo tres principios básicos de enseñanza de MD que podrían resolver algunas de las limitaciones observadas en los manuales de español L2 y en las creencias y prácticas actuales de los profesores de español. Palabras clave: morfología derivativa; clases; manuales; profesores; segunda lengua

2 Main issues on the role of morphology in language teaching The development of morphological awareness (MA), as the ability to recognize and manipulate morphemes (Carlisle 1995), has been proven to be key in second language (L2) vocabulary learning and lexical inferencing. Nation (2001), for example, proposes that knowledge about the morphological constituents of a word contributes to a deeper knowledge of said word. While he lists such morphological knowledge as only one among nine aspects that defne what lexical knowledge is, MA does play a role of its own. The argument goes as follows: a learner who is aware of the relationship between fruta [fruit] and frutero [fruit seller] will be more successful in identifying that same root in frutería [fruit shop] than a student who considers the former 599

Claudia H. Sánchez Gutiérrez

pair of words unrelated lexical units. Awareness of the structure of this morphological network will, in turn, facilitate the creation of other similar clusters of words in the mental lexicon, such as zapato [shoe], zapatero [shoe seller] and zapatería [shoe shop], which follow the exact same distribution of sufxes and meanings. Establishing such morphological links between words results in a deeper processing of their lexical characteristics and, ultimately, in a more inter-connected lexicon, which favors long-term retention and faster retrieval (Craik and Lockhart 1972). In addition to contributing to the development of deeper lexical knowledge, MA is a useful strategy for lexical inferencing (Hu and Nassaji 2014; Nassaji 2003, 2006). When reading a text that includes unknown words, the identifcation of known morphemes should facilitate the inference of the words’ meaning. A learner may not know what pianista [piano player] means, but they could recognize the root piano and the sufx -ista, which indicates professions, as in guitarrista, violinista or trompetista. Nassaji (2003) used think-aloud protocols to look into the diferent strategies deployed by learners of L2 English to infer the meaning of words while reading. He found that morphological knowledge was used 26.9% of the time and that this strategy was successful at 93%. In a subsequent article, Hu and Nassaji (2014) compared strategies used by good and bad inferencers and found that using word parts as units of lexical analysis may be useful in inferencing but can also lead to errors when learners do not have sufcient morphological knowledge. This idea was already present in Nassaji (2006), where the author compared the strategies used by learners of English possessing a deep lexical knowledge (DLK) with those utilized by learners possessing shallow lexical knowledge (SLK). Results indicate that diferences between those two groups of students do not reside in the strategies they use but rather in the success they have in applying them for the interpretation of specifc words. For instance, SLK learners used morphological information to inference the meaning of 19 words, while DLK students resorted to this strategy only 7 times. However, success rates in using it were of 95% in the latter group and 84% in the former. The author concludes that: learners who possess a deeper lexical knowledge have better access to these knowledge sources and, hence, can construct a more accurate semantic representation of the unknown word during lexical inferencing than those that do not. (Nassaji 2006, 397) Indeed, in terms of MA, partial or incomplete knowledge about word parts can lead to erroneous interpretations of a word’s meaning and be detrimental for accurate inferencing. For example, a learner who encounters the word represent and recognizes the iterative prefx re-, as in redo or reintroduce, and the verbal root present could be misled in interpreting that the verb means ‘to present something again’. This demonstrates that MA, deep lexical knowledge and inferencing accuracy are interdependent phenomena. Deep lexical knowledge results from, among other factors, detailed and nuanced knowledge of word structures and word parts, which in turn results in more accurate morphological inferencing strategies. At the same time, the more words one knows at a deeper level, by connecting them to other words in the family, the more morphological information one stores and can use for future inferences and so on. The fact that L2 learners seem to develop MA to diferent extents and that inaccurate use of such knowledge can lead to incorrect inferences of word meanings should be sufcient to advocate for the explicit teaching of morphological skills in L2 classrooms. In a recent article about the use of morphological cues in L2 Spanish inferencing, Marcos Miguel (2018) analyzed the impact of diferent characteristics of Spanish sufxes in the accurate interpretation of unknown words. She specifcally looked into cognateness (i.e., the sufx in the L2 has an equivalent in the L1 that shares both form and meaning), biuniqueness (i.e., the sufx can only be used to form derivatives 600

Morphology and language teaching

of one word-class), semantic transparency (i.e., the sufx has one single meaning) and instruction (i.e., the sufx is taught explicitly). Results indicate that cognateness and instruction are key in how informative a sufx is when inferencing a new word’s meaning. This article directly tested and proved that the explicit teaching of specifc sufxes benefts the students in developing a deeper and more accurate morphological knowledge that fosters better lexical inferences. Despite the evidence, a prevalent assumption in the literature has been that students should be able to use morphological strategies without any instruction about what morphemes are, which ones are productive and frequent in their L2, what part-of-speech (POS) they correspond to, etc. This belief has given rise to the long-standing use of the word family (i.e., all derivational and infectional forms of a base word), instead of the lemma (i.e., all infectional forms of a base word, without any derivatives), to assess learners’ lexical breadth in vocabulary tests (Bauer and Nation 1993; Nation and Waring 1997). The practical implications of considering that knowledge of the baseword communicate directly entails knowledge of what communication or communicative mean are obvious: instead of testing students on the three words, you only need to test them on the frst one. Nonetheless, as appealing as this may seem, studies in the feld depict a more complex picture. For instance, Schmitt and Zimmerman (2002) presented advanced L2 English learners with 16 prompt words that were the most frequent of their word family and asked participants to provide one adjective, one noun, one verb and one adverb to complete the family. Thus, if presented with the prompt word selection, they would be expected to write select, selective and selectively. Results indicate that word families were completed for only 18% of the prompts, indicating that no assumptions should be made too quickly about the extent to which knowing a word results in knowing the rest of the morphological family. Similar types of fndings have recently opened an active debate about the development of new English vocabulary tests that use lemmas, instead of word families, as units of assessment (Kremmel 2016; McLean 2017). Interestingly, contrary to the situation in English, Spanish frequency lists (Davies and Davies 2017) and vocabulary tests (Robles García 2020) are based on lemmas and not word families. This may be due to the heavy reliance of Spanish on productive and varied derivational patterns that are not as prominent in the English language. Whereas English relies heavily on zero-derivation and compounding, Spanish’ most productive word formation strategy is derivation, resulting in the need to recognize and use a large number of frequent afxes that change grammatical categories and word meanings (Lang 1992; Varela Ortega 2005; also see Resnik, this volume, Martín García, this volume and Batiukova, this volume). However, the recognition of the word family as an impossible unit of lexical knowledge for Spanish L2 learners, and the ensuing use of the lemma in Spanish vocabulary tests, has not resulted in a clear defense of L2 MA’s explicit teaching in the literature. This state of afairs is surprising in the context of L2 Spanish, where several studies have been carried out in the last 20 years that demonstrate the superiority and necessity of explicit approaches to MA teaching. Sánchez-Gutiérrez (2013) compared the development of MA skills in English learners of L2 Spanish at diferent levels of profciency with that of a group of beginners who received four-session training in MA. Those sessions included hands-on activities to familiarize students with specifc Spanish sufxes and their use, meaning and characteristics. While receptive MA skills did improve over time as learners increased their overall profciency, productive skills showed no progression. Alternatively, all MA skills, both receptive and productive, improved after the four weeks of explicit training, resulting in superior outcomes in the MA post-test for the beginners who completed the training than for students who had taken four years of Spanish courses in college. 601

Claudia H. Sánchez Gutiérrez

Similar calls for the need of explicit MA teaching have come from Marcos Miguel (2013), who demonstrated that L2 learners of Spanish with English as their L1 do develop morphological skills but that those are incomplete. Even at advanced levels, students tend to fail at accurately using sufxal combinatorial restrictions, resulting in what she called derivational violations. For example, a learner in her study created the impossible word *playamiento [*beachment], by applying the sufx -miento [-ment] to the root playa- [beach], even though -miento cannot be applied to nouns because it is a deverbal sufx. The product of such inaccurate morphological knowledge is a word that is impossible to understand. Morin (2003) also observes how these distributional constraints are not mastered by the students in her study, and corpus analyses by Whitley (2004) or Marcos Miguel and Sánchez-Gutiérrez (2020) provide abundant examples of such incomplete morphological knowledge when learners try to produce new words using supposedly known roots and afxes. All these authors make explicit calls for the introduction of morphological content in the L2 Spanish classroom. However, the lack of support for derivational morphological training is clearly materialized through its absence from the Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes (2006; PCIC), where all linguistic, pragmatic, sociolinguistic and other contents relevant to the development of communicative competence in Spanish are laid out as a series of descriptors organized by profciency levels. In this work, lexical morphology is not listed as content that needs to be learned but rather as a strategy that allows students to learn and infer the meaning of new words. This simplistic view of MA contradicts the fndings in previously cited literature that proves the importance of a detailed and nuanced knowledge of morphology that is rarely acquired through mere exposure to L2 input. Given the lack of support for MA teaching in ofcial curricular documents, on the one hand, and the clear need for such teaching, on the other, it seems necessary to better understand how research and ofcial documents, respectively, afect what happens in the classroom. Therefore, the next section aims to present an overview of the few studies that have approached L2 Spanish MA’s explicit teaching.

3 How is derivational morphology taught in the L2 Spanish classroom? Once the necessity of explicit MA instruction in the L2 Spanish classroom has been established, one may wonder how (if at all) DM is currently taught. Because the literature on L2 Spanish MA classroom teaching is extremely scarce, this section will include a presentation of relevant data from L2 Spanish textbooks as proxies of what may be happening in the classroom (Marcos Miguel 2015), in addition to a survey of all the studies that, to the best of my knowledge, have observed Spanish instructors’ teaching of MA skills in the classroom.

3.1 How is derivational morphology introduced in L2 Spanish textbooks? Sánchez-Gutierrez (2014) explored the DM exercises and explicit explanations included in 22 elementary Spanish textbooks published in Spain. The study focused mainly on three themes that would easily incorporate the teaching of morphological structures due to the highly productive morphological patterns of the vocabulary that they contain: nationalities (e.g., americano, coreano, italiano), professions (e.g., frutero, pescadero, zapatero) and shops (frutería, pescadería, zapatería) (see Martín García, this volume, for adjectivizations, and Resnik, this volume, for nominalizations). Results show a virtually inexistent treatment of DM even in themes that could 602

Morphology and language teaching

naturally ft some explicit practice of DM without disrupting the normal development of the curriculum. Few attempts were made to introduce DM exercises in the textbooks and, when they did, these lacked systematicity in terms of the sufxes used or even confused morphological families with meaningless orthographic similarities. In a particularly pointless exercise, students were asked to recall words in Spanish that ended in -sa. While searching for the sufx -osa would provide a long list of feminine adjectives that describe someone’s character, such as dudosa [doubtful], graciosa [funny] or peligrosa [dangerous], searching for words in -sa would result in semantically unrelated words, such as mesa [table] or prensa [press]. The blurry limits between productive afxes and meaningless orthographic endings were a constant issue in all textbooks. For example, when listing the sufxes that carry the masculine grammatical gender, several books included the word ending -or instead of the sufx -dor. This may seem trivial, but the use of -or as a cue for masculine will necessarily result in wrong gender attributions for words such as for [fower] or labor [labor]. Alternatively, the use of sufx -dor as indicative of masculine gender would provide a rule that is always true. In a follow-up study, Robles García and Sánchez Gutiérrez (2016) found similar trends in nine elementary Spanish textbooks published in the United States, which reveals that the lack of systematic treatment of DM is a reality both in European and American textbooks. In this second study, the authors focused on eight sufxes that are highly frequent and productive in Spanish: -ción, -dad, -ista, -dor, -ería, -mente, -ito and -ísimo. Results show that the frst four suffxes were never introduced as units of linguistic analysis that carry meaningful information for vocabulary learning or inferencing. All of them were rarely treated, but, when they were, it was in the context of lists of word endings that contain grammatical gender information. Only -mente and -ería were sometimes introduced as bearers of specifc meanings in relevant vocabulary sections. In one of the books, for example, words in -ería were grouped together, and there was an explicit explanation about them all sharing the same meaning: ‘shops where the objects denoted in the root are sold’. However, the authors specifed that the cause of this shared meaning was their sharing of the sufx -ía, not -ería. While the latter does create names of shops when applied to names of products, the former is mainly devoted to forming abstract nouns that describe moods, such as alegría, or names of professional specializations, such as pedagogía or anatomía. Both studies coincide in their main fndings, namely that (1) L2 Spanish textbooks do not systematically include exercises or explanations that would facilitate the development of MA and knowledge of specifc sufxes, and (2) textbook authors either decided to favor orthographic cues over morphological ones at the expense of accurate linguistic representations, or actually did not have a clear understanding of those diferences themselves. While the second conclusion seems rather disheartening, it does converge with results from Newton (2018) that point to the fact that instructors also need specifc training in MA in order to adequately and efciently make use of that knowledge in the classroom. This issue will be further discussed in the next section, which specifcally focuses on instructors’ beliefs and practices in relation to MA teaching.

3.2 What do teachers believe and do about L2 Spanish derivational morphology teaching? While textbooks play a central role in establishing the contents that will be presented and practiced in the classroom, studies have proven that the ultimate decision about how textbook and curricular materials are introduced is a responsibility of the instructor. For instance, when teaching vocabulary, the instructor is provided with a list of words that need to be practiced in 603

Claudia H. Sánchez Gutiérrez

class but can decide whether they want to point to productive morphemes in those words as part of the lesson plan. In this respect, De Miguel García (2005) surveyed 40 L2 Spanish teachers in Spain about their vocabulary teaching strategies, and 80% of them reported never or rarely asking the students to memorize afxes, but 50% did state that they trained students to use word parts as a vocabulary learning strategy. Given that teachers’ beliefs tend to difer from their actual practices (Borg 2003), these responses need to be corroborated by further evidence from actual classrooms and more in-depth interviews with Spanish instructors. Marcos Miguel (2017) interviewed fve L2 Spanish instructors in a large US university and observed and audiotaped their classes for two weeks. Results indicate that most instructors did not intentionally teach DM in their classes. One of the instructors, however, stuck out as more morphologically aware and included several vocabulary teaching episodes that revolved around DM. When it comes to incidental episodes, there were some instances of instructors introducing several words of a word family when teaching a new word, but these episodes were rare and unplanned. No systematic treatment of DM was found in any of the classes, and its treatment seemed random and motivated by sudden inspiration rather than actual planning. When asked about their reasons for not using DM more often in their classrooms, all instructors referred to their own learning experience and professional training. Concretely, two of the instructors stressed that their pedagogy instructors insisted on how vocabulary was all about meaning and context but never presented the more formal aspects related to word structure as important. When it came to their own learning experience, instructors argued that while study abroad programs were key in their own lexical development, classroom vocabulary teaching related to the form and meaning of words was secondary. Only one of them recalled using morphological strategies in learning vocabulary in the classroom and was, unsurprisingly, the one who planned attempts at explicit DM teaching. Half of the instructors surveyed in De Miguel García (2005) stated that they somehow trained students in using word parts as a vocabulary learning strategy. This does not correspond to the analysis of classroom practices of the fve professors observed and interviewed in Marcos Miguel (2017), where only one of them even attempted to mention DM when teaching vocabulary. While these dissimilarities may be due to the diferent samples used in both studies, the rather limited number of DM-related episodes in Marcos Miguel (2017) corresponds with trends observed in the PCIC and the textbooks.

4 How should derivational morphology be taught in the L2 Spanish classroom? If teaching materials and teacher training do not promote DM teaching, instructors who do want to respond to the needs observed in the literature about L2 MA may wonder where to get much-needed information and materials to start teaching DM in their classes. In the following sections, I will address (1) which sufxes may be more useful to teach at diferent levels of profciency and (2) what teaching method may be used when introducing those sufxes in the classroom.

4.1 What sufxes should be taught? Spanish is a language with a rich derivational morphology, as evidenced by the 110 diferent sufxes listed by the Real Academia Española (RAE 2001). These sufxes vary in frequency and productivity and are not all equally useful in the development of a deep MA in Spanish. However, only one study so far has attempted to establish a list of sufxes that should be prioritized 604

Morphology and language teaching

in the L2 Spanish classroom. Sánchez-Gutiérrez, Marcos Miguel and Robles García (2020) proposes a list of 12 sufxes that instructors could emphasize in their classrooms and teach more explicitly: -dad, -ncia, -ura, -al, -ano, -ble, -ivo, -oso, -ario, -dor, -ero and -nte. These were chosen based on three arguments: 1

2

3

They covered more than 1% of all the sufxed words in the native speakers’ sub-corpus of CEDEL 2 (Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2013). This frst criterion ensured that all sufxes were frequent enough to be relevant for the learners. They were used signifcantly more frequently by native speakers than non-native speakers in the CEDEL2 corpus. Less use of certain sufxes was taken as an indication of limited knowledge. They were not productively used in lexical innovations (e.g., *mayoridad, *governamiento) in that same corpus. Learners create new words when they have limited lexical knowledge and those new words are mostly formed with roots and sufxes. Thus, a sufx that is never used to create new lexical forms when needed is probably not as well known as one that is used repeatedly in new word formations. This fnal criterion aimed to confrm the fndings from criterion 2. Whereas the absence of a sufx in real words may simply reveal a reduced lexicon, this absence paired with limited use in new word formations probably results from limited MA.

The results of this study are, however, limited to L2 Spanish learners whose L1 is English, as participants were all L1 English speakers. Therefore, more studies of this sort should be carried out with learners of diferent L1s. Additionally, the assumptions made about learners’ knowledge (or lack thereof) of the selected sufxes are based on corpus data but should be confrmed through experimental evidence that tests actual knowledge of each sufx in diferent types of MA tasks. Data from corpora indicate how students use the sufxes, but little is known about other types of knowledge they may have developed and are not revealed in their writing. This is relevant because, as was proven in Sánchez-Gutiérrez and Hernández-Muñoz (2018) results from diferent MA tasks may indicate varying degrees of morphological knowledge. In this context, Sánchez-Gutiérrez, Marcos Miguel and Robles García (2020) may ofer useful suggestions on which sufxes to include if one wants to start teaching DM right away in the L2 Spanish classroom with L1 English speakers. However, more research is needed to establish a generalizable list of the most relevant sufxes for the L2 Spanish classroom.

4.2 What teaching method would best promote the development of L2 morphological awareness? While several proposals have been made on how to teach L2 Spanish MA (Baralo 2001; Martín García and Varela Ortega 2009; Serrano Dolader 2018; Varela Ortega 2003), none of these have been tested in terms of their efect on MA development. On the other hand, research on the benefts of explicit MA teaching does not aim to provide instructions on what exactly to do in the classroom but does describe the MA treatments that were used in the studies. For instance, Morin (2003, 2006) proposed a treatment in four steps: 1

During an initial in-class activity, students searched for words that shared a root. The instructor then pointed to common roots and sufxes and explained what meaning and POS they each carried. 605

Claudia H. Sánchez Gutiérrez

2

3

4

Throughout the rest of the semester, students were given new words weekly and had to follow the same steps (i.e., identifying roots and sufxes as well as their meaning and POS) for each of them as homework. The results from the homework were then used in class to (1) write complete sentences that provide enough context to easily recognize the semantic and syntactic properties of the words and (2) identify the meaning and POS associated with the morphemes in the word. Every time the students encountered a new word that had a very productive sufx, they were asked to recall as many words from the family as possible.

In Sánchez-Gutiérrez (2013) the treatment was carried out in only four sessions and was thus structured in a radically diferent way. During the frst session, students were trained in diferentiating morphological relations (e.g., sol [sun]–solar [solar]) from semantic (e.g., sol–luna [moon]) or orthographic ones (e.g., sol–soldado [soldier]). After a series of initial exercises to raise awareness on what constitutes a common root or afx as opposed to a superfcial orthographic relation, the researcher made a presentation to introduce the key terms in DM, such as root or sufx. Finally, students were given instructions to search for information about a given sufx. This homework was to be done in pairs, with each pair of students searching for information about one specifc sufx. During the second session, each group presented their fndings about the sufxes, including meaning, POS, various words that contain it and any restriction in its use (e.g., -mente can only be applied to feminine versions of adjectives). The third session introduced morphological fow chart activities, such as the one in Figure 42.1. Subsequently, students completed morphological decomposition exercises. They were given a word with several sufxes, such as nacionalización, and were asked to strip each sufx until they found the smallest word with meaning, thus creating a matrix as the one illustrated in Table 42.1. In order to make the exercises easier, either the whole prompt word or the root were Spanish-English cognates. The researcher organized the last session as a contest where students were challenged to create the longest possible word in Spanish. During the frst half of the session, she wrote words on the board and students had to work in pairs to compose the longest word possible that contained the prompt word. Each group’s proposed creation was then written on the board and was discussed in terms of whether it adhered to the word-formation rules studied in previous sessions. Once this exercise had been completed several times and word-formation rules had been reviewed, the actual contest started and the group that created the longest (and morphologically plausible) word in the shortest time won. Even though Sánchez-Gutiérrez’s approach was extremely explicit and focused on specifc sufxes, whereas Morin’s method was more aimed at developing word learning strategies, both teaching methods were proven useful, as students’ MA skills progressed more than in their respective control groups. Friedline (2011) confrmed the idea that several approaches may be useful as long as they provide opportunities for awareness raising on how morphemes build words in the L2. Indeed, his study showed no advantage of a teaching method based mainly on output production as opposed to one that focused on morpheme detection. The author concludes that: Hence, the fact that both treatment sessions brought the features of derivational morphology into focus (noticing) for learners for the very frst time may go a long way to explain why the treatment groups developed in tandem. In this case, the novelty efect of noticing derivational morphology may have overridden any inherent beneft of the generation efect. (Friedline 2011, 243) 606

Morphology and language teaching

Figure 42.1 Example of morphological fow chart Source: Sánchez-Gutiérrez (2013)

Table 42.1 Example of word matrix NACIONALIZACIÓN Nacionalización Nacionalizar Nacional Nación

nacionalizar + coin nacional + izar nación + al nación

Source: Sánchez-Gutiérrez (2013)

5 Conclusion and future directions This review of current literature in L2 Spanish MA teaching reveals signifcant gaps in both research and pedagogical output. Very few studies have approached this subject in Spanish, even though research in English proves that L2 MA is an important skill to develop in order to learn and infer new words. This is even more striking given the productivity of derivational processes in Spanish and the large array of sufxes that need to be learned in order to develop efcient and accurate MA skills in this language. The situation calls for replication studies in Spanish and for 607

Claudia H. Sánchez Gutiérrez

investigations that further address two of the most urgent questions in the feld: (1) what specifc sufxes need to be taught? and (2) how can they be taught most efectively? In the meantime, instructors would beneft from a set of principles based on what we already know from the limited literature that is currently available. Concretely, I  propose that any teacher who wants to introduce Spanish L2 DM in their classes should keep the following ideas in mind when designing their teaching plan: 1 2 3

Students need to be trained in detecting morphological relationships between words, using roots and afxes as cues; DM needs to be developed through raised awareness, metalinguistic discussion and repeated practice; Both receptive and productive skills need to be exercised.

If instructors start applying these principles in their classrooms, this may raise interest in the subject, textbook authors may start paying more attention to DM and more researchers may start investigating the best teaching practices to introduce DM in the classroom. However, as was evidenced in Marcos Miguel (2017), L2 Spanish instructors do not have strong DM knowledge themselves and tend to overlook this aspect of the language because they have not received appropriate training in the matter. Recently, this issue was addressed through the publication of Serrano Dolader’s (2018) book, which ofers detailed explanations about the diferent sufxes in the Spanish language and proposes numerous practical exercises to train teachers in using that knowledge for their classes. The book is not to be used directly in the classroom but provides much-needed training for instructors to develop their own MA. Future pedagogical improvements in Spanish L2 MA teaching will depend on the development of three strategic courses of action: (1) the inclusion of DM in teacher training programs; (2) the introduction of DM activities in the classroom, following the three principles listed earlier and (3) the establishment of a strong research agenda in the feld. Parallel progress in these three areas could set up a virtuous circle where researchers, teachers and teacher trainers contribute their knowledge and experience to each other’s endeavors in order to reach a common goal: ensuring that students get the best possible MA teaching experience.

References Baralo, M. 2001. “El Lexicón No Nativo y las Reglas de la Gramática.” In Tendencias y Líneas de Investigación en la Adquisición de Segundas Lenguas, edited by S. Pastor y V. Salazar, 23–38. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. Bauer, L., and P. Nation. 1993. “Word Families.” International Journal of Lexicography 6 (4): 253–79. Borg, S. 2003. “Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: A Review of Research on What Language Teachers Think, Know, Believe, and Do.” Language Teaching 36 (2): 81–109. Carlisle, J. 1995. “Morphological Awareness and Early Reading Achievement.” In Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, edited by L. B. Feldman, 189–209. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Craik, F. I., and R. S. Lockhart. 1972. “Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (6): 671–84. Davies, M., and K. H. Davies. 2017. A Frequency Dictionary of Spanish: Core Vocabulary for Learners. London and New York: Routledge. de Miguel García, M. L. 2005. “La Enseñanza del Léxico del Español como Lengua Extranjera. Resultados de una Encuesta sobre la Metodología Aplicada en el Aula.” MarcoELE. Revista de Didáctica Español Lengua Extranjera 1: 1–21.

608

Morphology and language teaching

Friedline, B. E. 2011. “Challenges in the Second Language Acquisition of Derivational Morphology: From Theory to Practice.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Hu, H. C. M., and H. Nassaji. 2014. “Lexical Inferencing Strategies: The Case of Successful versus Less Successful Inferencers.” System 45: 27–38. Instituto Cervantes. 2006. Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes. Niveles de Referencia para el Español. Madrid: Instituto Cervantes-Biblioteca Nueva. Kremmel, B. 2016. “Word Families and Frequency Bands in Vocabulary Tests: Challenging Conventions.” TESOL Quarterly 50 (4): 976–87. Lang, M. 1992. Formación de Palabras en Español. Morfología Derivativa Productiva en el Léxico Moderno. Madrid: Catedra. Lozano, C., and C. Mendikoetxea. 2013. “Learner Corpora and Second Language Acquisition: The Design and Collection of CEDEL2.” In Automatic Treatment and Analysis of Learner Corpus Data, edited by A. Díaz-Negrillo, N. Ballier, and P. Thompson, 65–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Marcos Miguel, N. 2013. “Analyzing Instruction and Learning of Derivational Morphology in the Spanish Foreign Language Classroom.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Marcos Miguel, N. 2015. “Textbook Consumption in the Classroom: Analyzing a Classroom Corpus.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 198: 309–19. Marcos Miguel, N. 2017. “Instruction in Derivational Morphology in the Spanish L2 Classroom: What Do Teachers Believe and Do?” Konińskie Studia Językowe 5 (1): 37–60. Marcos Miguel, N. 2018. “Analyzing Morphology-Related Strategies in Spanish L2 Lexical Inferencing: How Do Sufxes Matter?” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Marcos Miguel, N., and C. Sánchez-Gutiérrez. 2020. “¿Solamente o solamiento? Desafíos en el Aprendizaje de Forma y Signifcado de -mente y -miento/-mento por Hablantes de ELE.” Revista de Filología de la Universidad de La Laguna 40: 147–65. Martín García, J., and S. Varela Ortega. 2009. “La Prefjación en E/LE: Prefjos Deverbales.” In Morfología y Español como Lengua Extranjera (E/LE), edited by D. Serrano Dolader, M. A. Martín Zorraquino, and J. F. Val Álvaro, 67–89. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza. McLean, S. 2017. “Evidence for the Adoption of the Flemma as an Appropriate Word Counting Unit.” Applied Linguistics 39 (6): 823–45. Morin, R. 2003. “Derivational Morphological Analysis as a Strategy for Vocabulary Acquisition in Spanish.” The Modern Language Journal 87 (2): 200–21. Morin, R. 2006. “Building Depth of Spanish L2 Vocabulary by Building and Using Word Families.” Hispania 89 (1): 170–82. Nassaji, H. 2003. “L2 Vocabulary Learning from Context: Strategies, Knowledge Sources, and their Relationship with Success in L2 Lexical Inferencing.” TESOL Quarterly 37 (4): 645–70. Nassaji, H. 2006. “The Relationship between Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge and L2 Learners’ Lexical Inferencing Strategy Use and Success.” The Modern Language Journal 90 (3): 387–401. Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nation, P., and R. Waring. 1997. “Vocabulary Size, Text Coverage and Word Lists.” Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy 14: 6–19. Newton, J. 2018. “Teachers as Learners: The Impact of Teachers’ Morphological Awareness on Vocabulary Instruction.” Education Sciences 8 (4): 161. Real Academia Española. 2001. Diccionario de la Lengua Española (Online 22 ed.). www.rae.es. Robles García, P. 2020. “3K-Lex: Desarrollo y Validación de una Prueba de Amplitud Léxica en Español.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching. Robles García, P., and C. Sánchez Gutiérrez. 2016. “La Morfología Derivativa en los Manuales de Español Estadounidenses: Un Estudio Exploratorio.” Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 15 (1): 70–86. Sánchez Gutiérrez, C. 2013. “Priming Morfológico y Conciencia Morfológica. Una Investigación con Estudiantes Norteamericanos de E/LE.” PhD diss. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca. Sánchez Gutiérrez, C. 2014. “Morfología Derivativa y Manuales de E/LE: un Análisis Crítico.” Anexos de la Revista Española de Lexicografía 31: 163–78.

609

Claudia H. Sánchez Gutiérrez

Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C., and N. Hernández-Muñoz. 2018. “Development of Derivational Morphological Awareness in Anglophone Learners of Spanish: A Relational Knowledge Study.” Foreign Language Annals 51: 369–88. Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C., N. Marcos Miguel, and P. Robles García. 2020. “What  Derivational  Suffxes Should We Teach in Spanish as a Second Language Courses?” In Hispanic Linguistics. Current Issues and New Directions, edited by A. Morales, M. Ferreira, R. Leow, and C. Sanz, 77–94, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schmitt, N., and C. B. Zimmerman. 2002. “Derivative Word Forms: What Do Learners Know?” TESOL Quarterly 36 (2): 145–71. Serrano Dolader, D. 2018. Formación de palabras y enseñanza del español LE/L2. Abingdon: Routledge. Varela Ortega, S. 2003. “Léxico, Morfología y Gramática en la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera.” Estudios de Lingüística de la Universidad de Alicante 17: 571–88. Varela Ortega, S. 2005. Morfología Léxica: La Formación de Palabras. Madrid: Gredos. Whitley, S. 2004. “Lexical Errors and the Acquisition of Derivational Morphology in Spanish.” Hispania 87 (1): 163–72.

610

Index

absorption 433–4 accomplishment 184, 189, 213, 217, 442–3, 453–4, 530, 542–3 achievement 189, 191, 444, 454, 530, 542–3 acquisition 332, 354, 372, 456, 500, 539, 541, 550, 554, 556; frst language (L1) acquistion 546, 556, 568; second language (L2) acquistion 539, 542, 556, 568, 599 active reading 50, 89, 185, 188, 196, 198, 199, 223–8, 230–3, 433, 442–6, 493–4, 502 adjective: gradable adjective 20, 26, 49, 157–9, 200, 212, 246; perfective adjective 191, 246, 487–9; qualifying adjective 240–1, 197, 202–3, 205, 207, 210, 274; relational adjective 21–2, 153, 187, 196–7, 203, 205, 207, 223, 228, 230, 231, 233, 241, 248, 274, 284, 294, 339, 404, 407, 433 adjunct 18–20, 155, 252–3, 324–5, 340, 380, 442, 445, 481, 495 adstrate 90 adverb 8, 19, 43, 48–9, 61, 65, 75–6, 157–8, 169– 70, 189–90, 195–6, 206, 210, 214, 237–40, 243, 252, 258, 262, 276, 278, 304, 312, 341, 376–7, 384, 404, 444, 446, 465, 495, 501–2, 532, 564, 601 afx: residual afx 388 agreement 4, 18, 22, 63–4, 69, 74, 78, 104–6, 152–6, 169, 173, 177, 298, 299, 351, 442, 453, 471, 474, 503–4, 513, 515, 517, 520, 528–30; Agreement-Defcit Hypothesis 596; agreement in heritage grammars 540, 542, 546; agreement in language impairment 587–9, 594, 596; semantic agreement 467 Aktionsart 32, 184, 189, 442, 462, 451, 530, 542– 3; prefxes that change Aktionsart 249–50 allomorphy 6, 50, 51, 138, 185, 197, 342, 343, 362, 370, 392, 575, 576 amalgamation 115, 116, 122–3 analogy 90, 117, 178–9, 262, 339, 390, 402, 434, 556 animacy 99–101, 447, 479–80 anticausative 443–5, 450 antihiatic sound 391, 392, 394–5

antipassive 443, 444, 494 architecture of grammar 65, 270 argument structure 184–6, 212, 216, 219, 444–7, 471; prefxes with incidence on argument structure 24, 248, 251 aspectual prefx 16, 244 aspiration 365, 369–71 associative model 130, 552, 557 attitudinal prefx 241, 251 augmentative 77, 159, 161, 271, 273–4, 277, 393, 433, 522 autocausative 443, 444 Autonomous-Morphology (AM) models 336–7, 339 bilingualism 528, 538, 546 binarism 30, 318–19, 324–5, 377, 384, 392, 434, 479 blending 288, 300, 328–30, 341 blocking 86, 90, 340 borrowing see loanword bounded nouns see noun, count noun bracketing paradox 21–2 causative-unaccusative alternation 32, 33, 74, 89, 212–13, 215–16, 449–51, 488 circumfxation 30, 42 clitic: clitic climbing 474–6; clitic cluster 476–7, 479; clitic doubling 69, 473–4; enclitic 69, 376, 460, 466, 478, 481, 507; proclitic 69, 460, 466, 478, 481; refexive clitic 24, 73, 74, 165, 244, 265, 442, 444, 453, 470–2, 477 cohesion 149, 150, 383, 501–2 collocations 466, 471 comparative 156, 161–2, 169–71, 282, 404, 405, 499 competition 42, 43, 227, 231, 233 compositionality 57, 60, 82, 218, 296, 458, 463, 542 conditional form 132, 134, 149–50, 342, 381, 382, 499, 531, 542, 544 confation 33, 35, 62; semantic confation 431 consonantisation 361, 364, 369 611

Index

coordination 8, 11, 105, 291, 296, 298, 306, 384, 508; coordinative compound 291, 297 copula 175, 177, 193, 488, 497, 595 crazy rules 87 cultism 86, 87, 222 cumulative morpheme 9, 115 dative 71, 109–10, 131, 164, 453, 471–4, 476, 479, 507, 540, 541, 545; dative replacement 476–7; ethical dative 453, 476, 480 defectivity 60 defcit 520, 527, 587, 595–6 degree: degree sufx 157–9; extreme degree 156–7, 158, 161; gradative prefx 16, 19–20, 244 derivational chains 81, 88 desinence 7, 75, 132, 134–6, 138, 324, 378 diathesis 441–2 diminutive 6, 19, 62, 64–5, 77, 157–9, 160, 165, 270–3, 326, 362, 378, 391, 393, 394, 472, 491, 522, 529 diphthong 77, 88, 117, 125–6, 137–9, 140, 143, 145, 326, 342, 353, 378, 394, 505, 575 direct object 70, 214, 218, 294, 441, 460, 503–4, 507, 540, 541; quantized object 453 dissimilation 90, 351 distributed morphology 10, 12, 83, 107, 355, 381, 481 DOM (diferential object marking) 69, 480, 507, 540, 545 dual-mechanism model 551–2 EEG (electroencephalography) 562, 576, 577 ellipsis 11, 47, 50, 107, 108, 226, 300, 433, 517, 527 Elsewhere Principle 338, 340 empty morph 388, 418 epenthetic segment 87, 138, 140–1, 323, 327, 357, 362, 502 ERP (event related potential) 529, 555, 556, 562, 563, 575–7, 580 etymology 82, 86, 90, 168, 172, 177, 393, 431 etymon 82 event structure 183, 184, 188; event structure in verbs 210–12; prefxes that modify event structrure 251, 252 exocentricity 48, 289–90, 296, 297, 312, 506, 581 exponent 4, 69, 132, 135, 158, 167, 343, 347, 441 external argument 185–6, 199, 207, 223, 446, 460, 493, 494 external derivation 287 external prefx 251–3 feature: feature bundle 474, 478; feature composition 471, 477, 479; feature geometry 477, 479; Phi-feature 103, 110, 472 fgurative meaning 291, 313, 314 612

fniteness 507, 518–19, 526, 532, 588 fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) 555, 562–3, 576, 578–9 foot 318–20, 322, 377, 381, 383, 395 fusional morphology 9, 114, 132, 133 gender: agreement in gender 63, 106, 156, 514–15, 517, 527, 541, 545–6, 564, 565, 589; default gender marking 63, 105, 472, 528; lexically encoded gender 561, 576; morphologically encoded gender 576–8; ungendering 427–8 gerund 50, 62, 74, 132, 139, 262, 362, 375, 458, 459, 494–6, 591 glide 321, 364–5, 369, 378, 394 gradative prefx see degree Graeco-Latin stems see stem, neoclassical stem grammaticalisation 49, 173, 176, 179, 259, 262, 265, 281, 452, 468, 476, 483, 500–2 hand-wiring processes 87 hapax legomenon 229, 306 headedness 308, 309, 311, 319, 340–1; head-fnal compound 309–10, 311–12; head-initial compound 308, 309, 310–12 heritage languages 528, 531, 532, 538–40, 595 hiatus 75, 137, 326, 361, 366–7, 371; antihiatic operation 391–2, 394–5 homocategorial derivation 17, 22 homonymy 48–9, 113, 125, 391, 396, 438 hypochoristic 321, 323, 324, 326–7, 330, 404, 438 idiom 462–5; idiomatic meaning 168, 458–9, 464–5; semi-idiom 464 imperative 74, 110, 132, 175, 350, 381, 474, 478, 481, 519, 521, 531 impersonal 61, 137, 443, 445–6 inalienable possession 202, 207, 200 individual level predicate 204, 314, 492 infnitive 29, 30, 50, 62, 74, 76, 117, 122, 142, 182, 192–3, 232, 262, 426–7, 458, 461, 465–6, 474, 478, 484–5, 495, 500, 502–3, 506, 518, 532, 542, 555, 588, 591, 595 infx 6, 15, 19, 64–5, 160, 270, 317, 388, 392 instrumental 41, 42, 218, 226, 227–8, 231, 257, 312, 354, 431, 433, 505 interface 50, 269, 319, 331, 339, 417, 469, 531, 532, 539, 544, 545, 546 interfx 388–9; anterior or postprefxal interfx 389; interradical interfx (see linking element); posterior or antesufxal interfx 389 interlanguage 527 internal prefx 251–3 irradiation 432 irregularity 60, 85, 129, 173, 555, 575; irregularity pattern 144–9; irregular verb 138–44

Index

item and arrangement models 130, 150, 337 iterative 213–14, 218, 239, 244–5, 258, 277–9, 294, 330, 393, 600 laísmo 71, 111, 479 late insertion 339 leísmo 69–71, 78, 111, 479, 507 lexeme 9–10, 56 lexical aspect see Aktionsart lexical insertion 160, 338 Lexical Integrity Hypothesis 8, 11, 289 lexicalism 11, 57–8, 78, 180, 338 Lexicalist Hypothesis 336 lexicalization 50, 64, 213, 277, 354, 464 lexical phonology and morphology 83, 337 lexicon 8, 56, 60, 106, 336–40, 369, 401, 403, 469, 527, 550–2, 576, 600; lexical knowledge 83, 599–600, 605; mental lexicon 56, 58, 540, 551, 576, 600 linearization 15–17, 470, 475, 476, 480, 481 linking element 6, 287, 291, 298–9, 305, 355, 395, 459 loanword 86, 90, 104, 173, 306, 314, 378, 391, 417, 420–1, 431, 432 locality 342, 352, 357, 358 location 31–3, 406–8, 411–12, 437 locatum 31–3, 34, 35, 214, 216, 257 loísmo 71, 111, 479 markedness 325, 343, 355–6, 418, 473, 528, 578, 579, 580; marked features 180, 479; marked gender 172, 472, 565; marked number 565; marked person 471, 477, 520 MEG (magnetoencephalography) 562–3 memorization 58, 61, 533 metaphor 225, 256, 282, 303, 313, 400–1, 403, 431, 436, 464, 581; metaphorical extension 463–4; metaphorical transfer 436–7 metathesis 85, 502 metonymy 85, 502; metonymic switching 437–8 middle construction 441, 444–6, 447–9, 450 minimalist program 338 mood 9, 18, 60, 69, 116–17, 121–2, 123, 459, 467, 521–2, 531–2, 543–4 Mora, Lazaro 318–19, 322, 377 morpheme boundary 363, 366 Morphology-is-Syntax models 336, 338, 339–40 morphome 132, 144, 147, 148, 149, 337, 342 movement 219, 475, 506, 527, 532, 588, 596 nanosyntax 338, 339, 481 natural morphology 87, 417–19, 422 negation 19, 238, 475, 545; negative prefx 245–7, 257 neology 411–12 neuro-morphology 262

nominalization: agentive nominalization 183, 186, 293, 304; deadjectival nominalization 183, 533; deverbal nominalization 41, 44, 45–6, 50, 85, 183, 186, 188, 203, 247, 272, 293, 336, 355; event nominalization 185–6, 188–90, 191, 203, 214, 219, 293; place nominalization 431, 437; result nominalization 183, 184, 185–90, 192; vocalic nominalization 84 noun: abstract noun 241, 603; collective noun 388; count noun 153, 160, 295, 589; mass noun 106, 153, 168, 188, 388, 479, 480, 589 number 18, 22, 23, 48, 60, 69, 98, 179, 295, 471–2, 478–9; nominal number 98–9; number agreement 153–5; variation in number 70 onset 21, 318, 321, 330, 362, 363–4, 367–71, 395 opacity 60, 270, 368, 463 operator 25, 157, 161, 244 Optimality Theory (OT) 109, 110, 317, 343, 355, 367, 376, 392 paradigm 4, 10, 18, 50, 57, 71, 83–5, 87, 120–3, 130–2, 159, 178, 336, 350–2, 354, 419, 426, 473, 500, 501, 504, 518, 531, 552, 564; derivational paradigm 60–1, 86, 227; infectional paradigm 60, 61, 64, 144, 158–9, 337, 349, 350, 352, 354, 357, 426; paradigmatic realignment 434–5 Parallel Computation model 339 parasynthesis 23–4, 28–9, 82, 87, 188, 195, 202, 209, 217, 241, 243, 256, 257, 260, 287, 337, 488, 581 participle 485–6; active participle 493–4; adjectival participle 38, 76, 447, 489–90, 494, 581; passive participle 89, 201, 246, 493; verbal participle 489–93 passive 441, 444–5; adjectival passive 246, 485, 489–93; eventive passive 446, 486, 490; generic passive 444, 446, 447; passive adjectives 51, 198–9; SE-passive 444–6; stative passive 446, 490, 491 pedagogy 604 pejorative 77, 158, 159, 207, 227, 261, 271, 273, 274, 277, 393, 394, 402 perfect aspect 176, 475, 485, 487, 503–4, 530 perfective adjective 246, 486–9 periphrasis 74, 76, 122, 150, 175, 176, 459–62, 500–2, 503, 504 person 18, 60, 69, 71, 74, 102–3, 109, 116, 178, 351, 442, 470, 471–5 person case constraint 109–10, 477 Phrasal Spell-Out 78, 338, 339 phraseology 462 pluractionality 218 plural 4, 7, 62, 70, 71, 74, 98, 99, 105, 110, 153, 205, 248, 478, 481, 514, 516–18, 539, 579, 587, 591, 593–4; derivational plural 62 613

Index

polysemy 184, 191, 339, 401, 403, 430–2 popular etymology 90 portmanteau 320, 328, 330–1, 532 positional criteria 17 possessive 8, 31, 32, 35, 88, 176, 187, 188, 233, 299, 435, 471, 515, 517 preposition 8, 16, 19, 22, 23, 29, 33, 34, 62, 65, 73, 164, 166, 185, 199, 204, 206, 237, 238, 241, 263, 278, 294, 299, 304, 338, 340, 404, 438, 445, 464, 465, 470, 495–6, 503, 518, 540, 545, 590 preterit 75, 78, 114, 117, 119, 120, 123–5, 132, 142–3, 176, 350, 351, 353, 357, 358, 519, 530, 542, 543 preverb 33, 256, 258, 265 productivity 12, 26, 56, 60, 63, 158, 174, 184, 188, 191, 196, 207, 278, 286, 291, 292, 296, 306, 312, 313, 388, 391, 418, 424, 431, 508, 580–1, 604 pronoun: clitic pronoun 69, 74, 466, 472–6, 503, 507, 540, 546, 594; personal pronoun 102–3, 470, 472, 517; strong pronoun 69, 102, 471; weak pronoun 103 prosodic hierarchy 318–19, 376, 395 prototype 400–1, 552 quantifer 17, 22, 23–4, 25, 49, 75–6, 152, 188, 204, 275, 276, 279, 281, 304, 352, 589 readjustment rule 343, 348, 358 realizational models 10, 130, 337, 338, 339, 349 reciprocal 21, 24, 74, 244, 258, 265, 443–4 recursion 19, 22, 24–5, 56, 62, 292, 317, 319, 320, 324–6, 328–30, 384, 394 regressive derivation 84–5 rhizotonicity 140, 143, 145–56, 342 Right-Hand Head rule 340 root 5–7, 10, 16, 18, 21, 29, 45, 59, 62, 65–6, 75, 84, 107, 115, 160, 197, 238, 246, 260, 287, 339, 342–3, 348, 349, 353, 354–5, 387, 451, 474, 487, 518, 522, 541, 554, 576, 599, 600, 605, 606, 608 scope 108, 109, 281, 501, 503; scope outside the word 11, 238, 250, 273, 279 SE: aspectual and non-aspectual 443, 451, 453; paradigmatic and non-paradigmatic 443; spurious se 338, 477–8, 480; unaccusative SE 443 selection 17–19, 26, 210–11, 217 semantic shift 314, 407, 580 semelfactive 191, 213–14 separationist models 337 single-mechanism model 552–3, 556, 558 SLI (specifc language impairment) 586–7, 593, 594, 595 sonority 363–4, 371 614

stage level predicate 491–2 stem 7, 9–10, 65, 132, 134, 230, 232, 234, 351, 353, 370, 382, 420, 553; neoclassical stem 16, 65, 287, 300; stem allomorphy 351–5, 358, 378–9 stress: primary stress 375–6, 382, 481, 505; secondary stress 384, 395; word stress 378, 385 strong preterit 78, 142–3, 148, 357–8; analogical strong preterit 75 subordination 393, 460, 496, 502; monoclausality 459, 460, 467, 468; subordinative compound 291–2, 293, 296–7, 299 substrate 90 subtraction 44, 46 sufxal string 388 suppletion 59, 138, 159, 170, 183, 342, 349–50 syntactic atom 8, 11, 57 TAM (tense-aspect-mood) 115, 117, 349, 353 telicity 32, 189, 191, 216, 244, 249, 250, 252, 262, 453, 454, 486, 492, 496, 519–20, 530, 542 theme vowel 10, 45, 115–16, 117, 123–4, 163, 173, 210, 219, 312, 339, 342, 352, 358, 391, 394, 488, 545 trigger: lexical trigger 351–2; phonological trigger 351, 353, 356; syntactic trigger 352–3; triggertarget relation 348, 352–3 truncation 154, 219, 320–8, 420 unaccusative variant see causative-unaccusative alternation unbounded nouns see noun, mass noun underspecifcation 107, 110, 341, 355, 477, 514; underspecifcation hypothesis 532 universal vernacular 78 ustedeo 73 velarization 365, 368, 369, 370–1 verb: anticausative verb 445, 450, 451; auxiliary verb 132, 133, 176, 177, 180, 459, 462, 465, 475, 485, 500, 502, 503–4, 506, 519; causative verb 32, 41, 74, 89, 212–13, 215, 216–7, 449–50, 460, 488; change of state verb 32, 34, 174, 198, 212, 213, 219, 241, 243, 244, 256, 445; consumption verb 452; inherently pronominal verb 447; light verb 458, 466–8, 487; movement verb 191, 256, 258, 261, 452, 459; stative verb 5, 257, 452, 453, 485, 530; transitive verb 5, 74, 77, 176, 185, 188, 199, 215–16, 231, 261, 294, 299, 312, 444–5, 447, 449–50, 452, 494, 503, 506, 507; unaccusative verb 76, 77, 176, 185, 312, 442, 444, 447–9, 450, 488, 503, 592; unergative verb 77, 185, 188, 312, 442, 494 verbalization 30, 31, 186, 209–11; corradical verbalization 217–18; deadjectival verbalization

Index

29, 31, 32, 35, 44–5, 217; denominal verbalization 32, 35, 41, 44, 217 vocabulary item 339, 342, 343, 382 voice 132, 173, 175, 180, 441–2, 471, 485, 502, 507; oppositional and non oppositional voice morphology 442, 443, 450 voseo 73, 78

possible word 337, 388, 602, 606; prosodic word 180, 318, 319, 325, 328–9, 369–70, 376, 377; word as syntactic atom 8, 11; word frequency 554 word and paradigm models 10, 87, 88, 130, 337 word formation rules 12, 83, 337, 417, 419, 427–8, 557, 606

word: existing word 159, 287, 337, 402; learned word 97, 259, 395, 533; nonce word 517, 523;

zero derivation 31, 339, 533, 601 zero morph 31, 35, 45, 115, 117

615

Taylor & Francis eBooks www.taylorfrancis.com A single destination for eBooks from Taylor & Francis with increased functionality and an improved user experience to meet the needs of our customers. 90,000+ eBooks of award-winning academic content in Humanities, Social Science, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medical written by a global network of editors and authors.

TAYLOR & FRANCIS EBOOKS OFFERS: A streamlined experience for our library customers

A single point of discovery for all of our eBook content

Improved search and discovery of content at both book and chapter level

REQUEST A FREE TRIAL [email protected]