The heterogeneous nature of verbal alternations: What information structure can tell us about it
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
In this paper, I discuss Dative Alternation and Locative Alternation, proposing a cross‑linguistically heterogeneous behavior of verb alternates. I explore information structural factors and study the available basic verb patterns in contexts where no previous shared information is presumed (broad focus), which is taken as diagnostic of the derived or non-derived nature of a given verbal alternation. I examine the different discourse interpretations of the two alternates in Spanish, English, Portuguese and Turkish. I suggest a non-derived nature of the two instances of verbs in Spanish Locative Alternation. On the contrary, Dative Alternation in Spanish exhibits derivational properties from a discourse perspective. In short, I propose two types of alternates (a derivational type and a non-derivational type), for which I find evidence in the notion of scope freezing (Larson 2014, Antonyuk 2020, Cépeda & Cyrino 2020). In Spanish, an inverse scope reading is available in quantifiers in locative alternation, which supports a non-derivational analysis of the two patterns. Locative Alternation shows scope freezing, favoring a derivational analysis. I put forth a Minimalist derivation based on discourse features and the notion of feature inheritance, which accounts for the above-mentioned characteristics.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
(c) Ángel Jiménez Fernández, 2023
Aboh, Enoch. 2010. Information structure begins with the numeration. Iberia: An international journal of theoretical linguistics 2: 12–2.
Agenjo, Dolores. 2019. Los verbos con alternancia locativa transitiva en español: componentes semánticos y estructuras argumentales. PhD. thesis, Universidad Carlos III, Madrid.
Anderson, Stephen. 1971. On the role of Deep Structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of language 6: 197-219.
Antonyuk, Svitlana. 2020. The puzzle of Russian diatranstivies. In Anna Pineda & Jaume Mateu (eds.), Dative constructions in Romance and beyond, 43–74. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Antonyuk, Svitlana & Richard Larson. 2016. Scope freezing in PP dative constructions? Presentation given at Formal Description of Slavic Languages 12 (FDSL), Humboldt University.
Antonyuk, Svitlana & Roksolana Mykhaylyk. 2022. Scope freezing and object shift in Ukrainian: Does superiority matter? Remark. Syntax 25(1): 122-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12229
Aoun, Joseph & Yen-Hui A. Li. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic inquiry, 20(2): 141-172.
Armelin, Paula. 2011. Sentenças bitransitivas do portugués de Brasil revisitadas à luz da teoría de núcleos funcionais aplicativos. MA dissertation, University of Sao Paulo.
Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Liliane Haegeman, ed., The elements of grammar, 73-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Belletti, Adriana. 2001. Inversion as focalization. In Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock eds.), Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of universal grammar, 60–90. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bleam, Tonia. 2003. Properties of the double object construction in Spanish. In Rafael Núñez-Cedeno, Luis López & Richard Cameron (eds.), A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use, 233–252. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Beck, Sigrid & Kyle Johnson. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic inquiry 35(1):
–124. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438904322793356
Bentley, Delia & Silvio Cruschina. 2018. The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1): 118. 1–37. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.677
Bondarenko, Tatiana. 2018. Russian datives again: On the (im)possibility of the small clause analysis. In Denisa Lenertová, Roland Meyer, Radek Šimík & Luka Szucsich (eds.), Advances in formal Slavic linguistics 2016, 25–51. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2545511
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic inquiry 41(2): 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.287
Cépeda, Paola & Sonia Cyrino. 2020. Putting objects in order: Asymmetrical relations in Spanish and Portuguese ditransitives. In Anna Pineda & Jaume Mateu (eds.), Dative constructions in Romance and beyond, 97–116. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on Information Flow. In Russell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland & Hans Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero & María Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cifuentes Honrubia, José Luis. 2008. Removal verbs and locative alternations in Spanish. ELUA 22: 37-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.14198/ELUA2008.22.03
Contreras, Heles. 1983. El orden de palabras en español. Madrid: Cátedra.
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7991.
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7(1): 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5.
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic inquiry 22: 1–25.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fábregas, Antonio, Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández and Mercedes Tubino Blanco. 2017. 'What's up' with datives?. In Ruth Lopes, Juanito Avelar & Sonia Cyrino (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 12. Selected papers from the 45th linguistic symposium on Romance languages (LSRL), Campinas, Brazil, 29–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.12.03fab
Fedriani, Chiara & Maria Napoli. 2023. The missing dative alternation in Romance: Explaining stability and change in the argument structure of Latin ditransitives. Transactions of the Philological Society: 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12255
Fernández-Soriano, Olga. 1999. Two types of impersonal sentences in Spanish: Locative and dative subjects. Syntax 2(2): 101–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00017
Fillmore, Charles J. 1970. The grammar of hitting and breaking. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 120-133. Waltham, MA: Ginn.
Georgala, Effi. 2011. Scrambling verb-final languages and the underlying order of objects in ditransitive constructions. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17(1), 105–114. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss1/13
Goldberg, Adelle. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2007. Types of focus in English. In Chungmin Lee & Matthew Gordon, Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, 83-100. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4796-1_5
Harley, Heidi 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Harley, Heidi & Hyun Kyoung Jung. 2015. In support of the PHAVE approach to the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 46(4): 703–730. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00198
Harley, Heidi & Shigeru Miyagawa. 2017. Syntax of ditransitives. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.186
Issever, Selçuk. 2003. Information structure in Turkish. Lingua 113: 1025–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00012-3
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Current studies in linguistics 18. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. 2009. The low periphery of double object constructions
in English and Spanish. Philologia hispalensis 23: 179–200.
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. 2010. Discourse–agreement features, phasal C and the edge: a minimalist approach. Diacrítica – Language sciences series 24(1): 25–49.
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. 2020. Syntax-information structure interactions in the sentential, verbal and nominal peripheries. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. 2023. English/Spanish relatives and their relative information structure: A view from language contact in Puerto Rico. Catalan journal of linguistics 22: 29–70. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.339
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. Forthcoming. Discourse in Minimalism. In Evelina Leivada & Kleanthes Grohmann (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of minimalism and its applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2013. Feature inheritance, vP phases and the information structure of small clauses. Studia linguistica 67 (2): 185–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12013
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Bożena Rozwadowska. 2016. The information structure of dative Experiencer psych verbs. In Bożena Cetnarowska, Marcin Kuczok, & Marcin Zabawa, (eds.) Various dimensions of contrastive studies, 100–121. Katowice, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego:
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel. L. & Bożena Rozwadowska. 2017. On subject properties of datives in psych predicates. A comparative approach. Acta linguistica hungarica 64(2): 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2017.64.2.4
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Christos Vlachos. 2019. Discourse features, vP-periphery and rearrangement: Evidence from Spanish, Greek and English. Talk delivered at the 14th International Conference of Greek Linguistics. University of Patras, Greece.
Jung, Yeun-Jin & Shigeru Miyagawa. 2004. Decomposing ditransitive verbs. In Proceedings of the Seoul international conference on generative grammar, 101–120. Seoul: Hansung University.
Kato, Mary A & Francisco Ordóñez. 2019. Topic-subjects in Brazilian Portuguese and clitic left dislocation in Dominican Spanish, clitics and null subjects. Syntax 22: 229-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12180
Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111682228
Kearns, Kate. 2011. Semantics, 2nd edition. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2003. Scrambling, subscrambling and case in Turkish. In Word order and scrambling, In Simin Karimi (ed.), 125–155. Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758403.ch6
Kratzer, Angelika & Lisa Selkirk. 2020. Deconstructing information structure. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1): 113. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.968
Krifka, Manfred. 2003. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Paper presented at KASELL International Conference on English Language and Linguistics. Seoul, June 25-26. https://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Publications/DativeAlternationKorea.pdf
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55 (3–4): 243–276. https://doi.org/10.1556/aling.55.2008.3-4.2
Lacerda, Renato. 2017. Information structure in child English: Contrastive topicalization and the dative alternation. In Maria LaMendola & Jennifer Scott (ed.), Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University conference on language development, 387–400. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Lacerda, Renato. 2020. Middle-field Syntax and information structure in Brazilian Portuguese. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut.
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3): 335–391.
Larson, Richard. K. 2014. On shell structure. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203429204
Leonetti, Manuel. 2007. Los cuantificadores. Madrid: Arco Libros.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479
Levin, Beth & Jason Grafmiller. 2013. Do you always fear what frightens you? In Tracey H. King & Valeria de Paiva (eds.), From quirky case to representing space: Papers in honor of Annie Zaenen, 21–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI On-line Publications.
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mayoral Hernández, Roberto. 2015. The locative alternation as an unaccusative construction: Verbs types and subject position in Spanish. Munich: Lincom GmbH.
McIntyre, Andrew. 2006. The interpretation of German datives and English have. In Daniel Hole, André Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds.), Datives and other cases, 185–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.75.09mci
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2005. On the EPP. In Norvin Richards & Martha McGinnis (eds.), Perspectives on phases, 201–236. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8116.001.0001
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10958.001.0001
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2022. Syntax in the treetops. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14421.001.0001
Mursell, Johannes. 2021. The syntax of information structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nunes, Jairo & Mary A. Kato. 2023. Approaching the so called “topic-subjects” in Brazilian Portuguese from below. In Cilene Rodrigues & Andrés Saab (eds.), Formal Approaches to languages of South America, 171–202. London: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22344-0_7
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–256. New York: Academic Press.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. What applicative heads apply to. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 7(1.18): 197–210.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001
Quarezemin, Sandra. 2009. Estratégias de focalização no português brasileiro: Uma abordagem cartográfica. Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2013. Argument structure and argument structure alternations. In Marcel den Dikken (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, 265–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.013
Rappaport-Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1988. What to do with θ-roles. In Wendy Wilkins, editor. Thematic relations. Syntax and semantics 21: 7–36. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373211_003
Real Academia de la Lengua Española. 2009. NGRAE (Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española). Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
Repp, Sophie. 2016. Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 270–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.006.
Rodrigues, Cilene. 2023. Possessor raising and structural variations within the vP domain. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 8(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9131
Sánchez López, Cristina. 1999. Los cuantificadores: Clases de cuantificadores y estructuras cuantificativas. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española: 1025-1128. Espasa: Calpe.
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti-)causatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.126
Scher, Ana Paula. 1996. As construções com dos complementos no inglês e no português do Brasil. MA Dissertation. University of Campinas.
Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 1988. Double objects and small clauses. unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA.
Sener, Serkan. 2010. (Non-)peripheral matters in Turkish syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Simpson, Andrew, Heeju Hwang & Canan Ipek. 2008. The comparative syntax of double object constructions in Japanese, Korean, and Turkish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58: 41–62.
Torres Morais, Maria Aparecida & Heloísa Salles. 2010. Parametric change in the grammatical encoding of indirect objects in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus 22(2): 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2010.007
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. (1998) Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.