Spanish Clitics, Events and Opposition Structure

predicate P whenever it is possible, instead of using a catalog of thetaroles, which are difficult to justify. The use of abduction operations is limited here to predicates already present in the core event structure. In other words, predicates from the OS introduced by the core event are tried first. In this case, the OS [:at(z, y), at(z, y)] encodes the change of location that is required by a verb like poner (‘put’). Alternatively, the use of abduction can be restricted to predicates that are related to the arguments of those predicates by way of Qualia. In Fig. 7.12 P(w) is congruent (Š) with at(z,y), unifying w with z via Abduction: at(w,y) Š P(w) based on the telic role of azúcar (sugar). The structure can be simplified as follows: e4 D e2, given there is no distinction between both sub-events. Next, sentence (22) is a variation of the classical ethical dative (10a). The possible operations are the same, either in the interpretation (i) or (ii): P Š :has y. This can be interpreted in two ways. It can be a benefactive, the case in which the argument introduced by the clitic wants the food to be eaten (e.g. (10a)). Otherwise, it is a negatively affected participant, the case in which the argument introduced by the clitic doesn’t want the food to be eaten (e.g. one of the possible interpretations of 10d). These are discourse dependent interpretations. We have shown that the paradigm of variations in one or more arguments yields different interpretations. Those interpretations can be computed using the abduction operation constrained by the OS and the Qualia, i.e., it specifies an argument that participates in the OS (Fig. 7.13). (22) le comió (la comida) (a Marı́a). cl-3pSgDat eat-past (food) (to Marı́a). i) ‘(he/she) ate (the food) for (he/she) Marı́a.’ ii) ‘(he/she) ate (the food) from/on Marı́a.’ 7 Spanish Clitics, Events and Opposition Structure 165 Fig. 7.14 Acusative clitic (se) linked to the FORMAL predicate in the Qualia 7.4 Reconsidering the Clitic se Given the clitic se is underspecified for Case, the available options are the following, (a) accusative behavior, which corresponds to reflexive, inherent, ergative,24 inchoative, middle and (b) dative behavior which corresponds to impersonal, ethical, possessive and locative. 7.4.1 Accusative Case: Reflexive, Inherent, Ergative, Inchoative and Middle se In these cases and if the clitic is not se, but an accusative clitic, the verb must be transitive or transitivizable. In the following examples the clitic se is linked to the FORMAL predicate in the Qualia. The structure represented in Fig. 7.14 shows, as a blueprint, the general schema that corresponds to the following sentences in (23). The subject (if any, given Spanish is a pro-drop language) and the verbal agreement link to an argument in the Agentive role. The accusative clitic links to an argument in the Formal role. If there is no Dative clitic (the simplest cases we are considering here), no argument is bound to the telic role. (23) a. Juan se afeitó. reflexive John SE shaved. ‘John shaved himself.’ b. Se reı́a. inherent reflexive SE laughed. ‘He/she laughed.’ c. El barco se hundió. ergative The ship SE sank. ‘The ship sank’. d. Juan se fue/durmió. inchoative Juan SE went/slept. ‘Juan left/fell asleep.’ e. Las manzanas se comen fácilmente. middle The apples SE eat easily. ‘Apples are eaten easily.’ 24This interpretation of ergatives is quite similar to the one in Bouchard (1995).