The High Applicative Syntax of The Dativus Commodi/incommodi in Romance

Author's Copy
The high applicative syntax of the dativus

commodi/incommodi in Romance1
YVES ROBERGE AND MICHELLE TROBERG
Abstract
Dative benefactive/adversative arguments, also known as the dativus com-

modi/incommodi (DCI) in the Latin grammatical tradition, present variable
behaviour in Romance. This paper compares and contrasts the syntactic re-
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
strictions on DCIs in five Romance languages to reveal that clitic-doubling
covaries with the possibility of lexical DCIs and the possibility of combin-
ing the DCI with a bare unergative. We argue that Pylkknens (2002) High
Applicative analysis should be broadened to account for these Romance da-
tives and their variable behaviour so that the DCI clitic is always generated
as the head of a high applicative projection. Doubling and non-doubling lan-
guages diverge based on the type of D-element that merges in the specifier of
ApplP. In clitic-doubling languages (Romanian and Spanish), the DCI essen-
tially matches the Bantu high applicative construction in that lexical datives,
as DPs, are merged in the specifier position of the applicative phrase. The Appl
head in doubling languages may also introduce a pro as an applied argument
whose reference is recovered via the agree relation established with the applied
morpheme. In non-doubling languages (French, Portuguese, Italian), the DCI
functions quite differently. It may only occur in clitic form as the head of the
applied phrase, since lexical indirect objects are PPs and consequently may
not merge in Spec,ApplP. A result of this restriction is that an expletive opera-
tor is merged in the specifier, binding a VP-internal referential DP, accounting
for the restriction on bare unergatives.
1. We would like to thank the following people for their comments and suggestions: Marc
Authier, Emanuel da Silva, Anna-Maria di Sciullo, Jose Ferreira, Nicolas Guillot, Virginia
Hill, Monica Irimia, Michael Lettieri, Stefania Marzano, Diane Massam, Marco Nicolis, Ana
Teresa Prez-Leroux, Mihaela Pirvulescu, Lisa Reed, Milan Rezac, Mario Saltarelli, and two
anonymous Probus reviewers. Funding for this research was provided in part by a Major
Collaborative Research Initiative grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada (412-2003-1003, Di Sciullo).
Probus 21 (2009), 249289 09214771/09/021-0249

DOI 10.1515/prbs.2009.008 Walter de Gruyter
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
250 Yves Roberge and Michelle Troberg
Introduction
The peculiar properties of the dativus commodi/incommodi (DCI) in Romance

e.g., French Les invits lui ont mang tout ce quil y avait dans le frigo. The
guests ate everything in the fridge on him/her. (Jones 1996: 293) have made
it the subject of a number of independent studies, the most recent of which have
converged on the idea that this type of dative argument should be represented
as a high applied argument in the sense of Pylkknen (2002). These analyses
do not, however, provide a formal account of the clear syntactic restrictions on
the DCI that exist in languages like French, Italian, and Portuguese for which
the DCI is only licit as a dative clitic and is infelicitous in most intransitive
contexts. While the head of the applied phrase has been identified as the most
probable source of these constraints, the features that determine them have not
been explored.
The aim of this paper is to account for such syntactic restrictions by com-
paring the DCI in five Romance languages and evaluating them against more
straight-forward cases of high applied arguments. We make the original and
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
crucial generalization that clitic doubling covaries with the possibility of full
nominal DCIs and with the use of this dative argument in intransitive contexts.
Assuming a high applicative analysis in which the dative clitic is the func-
tional head, we claim that the fundamental difference between DCIs in dou-
bling and non-doubling languages derives from the fact that dative-marked
lexical DPs are available in the former, but not in the latter. That is, in Spanish
and Romanian, a lexical DP may merge as the specifier of the applicative head,
receiving dative case manifested as a bound morpheme, and triggering phi-
feature agreement with the head. There is thus a clear parallel between theses
clitic-doubled DCIs and high applied arguments in the Bantu languages.
On the other hand, no lexical DP may merge with the applied head in French,
Italian, and Portuguese, for in these languages, lexical dative arguments are
not DPs, but prepositional phrases headed by a. Since the Appl head always
selects for an individual in its specifier (Pylkknen 2002), PPs are blocked
from merging in this position. The lack of dative case is therefore claimed to
account for the lack of lexical DCIs in non-doubling languages. In order to
account for the puzzling fact that DCIs in French, Italian, and Portuguese must
co-occur with an otherwise unrelated referential DP in their domain, we claim
that the Appl head still requires the merger of a DP in its specifier and that in
this instance, it is a null operator with scope over VP, binding a referential DP
within it. The operator satisfies the selectional requirement of the Appl head,
whose case and theta properties have been absorbed by the clitic.
In Section 1 we review the properties of high applicative arguments as pro-
posed in Pylkknen (2002). The well-studied Bantu languages, and as it turns
out Latin as well, exemplify the straight-forward case for which the high ap-
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
Dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance 251
plicative argument does not appear to be subject to any formal restrictions.

Section 2 provides a detailed description of the DCI in five modern Romance
languages: French, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian, and Spanish from which
the doubling/non-doubling generalization emerges. Section 3 presents a unified
analysis of the DCI in Romance as a high applicative argument and advances
a formal account of the restrictions in non-doubling languages. Section 4 sug-
gests our view of how Romance languages diverged from their Latin ancestor,
and Section 5 concludes.
1. The properties of high applicative arguments Bantu and Latin
This section reviews the semantic and syntactic properties of high applicative
arguments as proposed in Pylkknen (2002). While benefactive/malefactive ar-
guments in the Bantu languages provide the classic, straightforward examples
of high applied arguments, we show that the analysis also captures the Latin
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
dativus commodi/incommodi (DCI). In doing so, we emphasize both the con-
tinuation and the divergence of the Romance DCI from its Latin ancestor, a
point to which we return in Section 4.
1.1. High applicative arguments
Focusing on the question of how certain non-core arguments are introduced

into argument structures, Pylkknen (2002) proposes that cross-linguistically,
there are two main types of non-core indirect objects: those that are in a the-
matic relation with the event described by the verb, and those that are in a
transfer of possession relation with another individual. Following the tradition
of Bantu linguistics, she calls such additional arguments applied arguments.
High applicatives are individuals introduced by a functional head which takes
a predicate of events as its argument and which relates the individual to the
event described by the verb, as shown below.
(1) High applicative

ApplP
applied argument DP Appl
Appl vP
applicative marker
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
In contrast, low applicatives are individuals introduced by a functional head

which attributes to it the role of Recipient or Source and relates it to the direct
object of the verb (the Theme).
(2) Low applicative
V ApplP
applied argument DP Appl
Appl DP
applicative marker
The differences between these two types of applicative constructions make a
number of predictions. First, high applicative heads should be unrestricted in
their ability to combine with the various verb types. In contrast, since low ap-
plicative heads denote transfer of possession, they may not occur with unerga-
tives and make no sense with static verbs. In addition, given that low applied
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
arguments may only occur with the individual which is the internal argument
of the verb, they cannot co-occur with a second internal argument of the verb.
This means that while high applicatives may combine with any so-called di-
transitive verb, low applicatives may not.
Following these diagnostics, the applied arguments shown below, taken from
several Bantu languages, are clearly high; they can occur with unergative verbs
(3a), with static verbs (3b), and with ditransitive verbs (3c).
(3) a. Mukasa o-amb-el-a Katonga
Mukasa.3SG PAST-speak-APPL-FV Katonga
Mukasa spoke for Katonga (Venda: Pylkknen 2002: 10)
b. Nd-o-far-el-a Mukasa khali
1SG-PAST-hold-APPL-FV Mukasa pot
I held the pot for Mukasa (Luganda: Pylkknen 2002: 25)
c. Umugre a-r-mu-he-er-a imbwa ibiryo
woman SP-PR-OP-give-APPL-ASP dog food
The woman is giving food to the dog for him (Kinyarwanda:
adapted from McGinnis 2001: 3)
On the other hand, the diagnostics suggest that a language like English does not
have high applicative arguments. While non-core indirect objects may combine
to form a possession relation with another individual (4a), they may not com-
bine with a transitive verb in the absence of such a relation (4b). Nor can they
combine with unergative (4c), static (4d), or ditransitive verbs (4e); examples
(4ad) from Pylkknen (2002).
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
(4) a. I baked him a cake.2

b. *He ate the wife food.
c. *I ran him.
d. *John held Mary the bag.
e. *I wrote Mary a letter to the minister. / *I wrote Mary the minister
a letter.
In what follows, we examine what these diagnostics can tell us about similar
non-core indirect objects in Latin and the Romance languages.
1.2. The Latin DCI as a high applied argument
Interestingly, the Latin dativus commodi/incommodi, a non-core dative argu-

ment, patterns like benefactive/malefactive high applied arguments in Bantu.
In the Latin grammatical tradition, the DCI is described as the person in whose
interest or to whose detriment the action is performed. It refers to the person
concerned by the event and entails no transfer of possession relation with an-
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
other individual.3
(5) a. Sol omnibus lucet.

sun.NOM everybody.DAT shine.3SG
The sun shines for everybody. (Petronius, Satyricon, 100, in Van
Hoecke 1996: 7)
b. Alteri vivas oportet si vis
other.DAT live.SUBJ.2SG should.3SG if wish.2SG
tibi vivere.
you.DAT live.INF
You should live for others if you wish to live for yourself. (Seneca,
Epistulae ad Lucilium, 48,2, in Van Hoecke 1996: 8)
c. His Caesar imperat frumentum
them.DAT Caesar.NOM demand.3SG wheat.ACC
exercitui
army.DAT
From them, Caesar demands wheat for his army (Caesar, Bellum
Gallicum 5,20,4, in Lavency 1997: 163)
2. The only reading of this sentence is one in which the indirect object receives the cake.
3. The various functions of the Latin dative have traditionally been described in semantic terms,
and as a result, DCIs tend to encompass both subcategorized and non-subcategorized dative
arguments. For example, Latin grammars generally group the DCIs illustrated in (5) with the
dative argument of so-called intransitive verbs like nocere to harm and invidere to envy.
We use the term DCI only as it pertains to non-subcategorized arguments.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
d. cibum tibi et familiae curet uti coctum

food.ACC you.DAT and slaves.DAT care.3SG so cooked
habeat [uilica]
have.SUBJ.3SG [farmers wife.NOM]
the farmers wife takes care to have the meal cooked for you and
the slaves (Cato, De agri cultura 143, 2, in Serbat 1996: 466)
e. si quid peccat [filius], mihi peccat
if someone offend.3SG [son.NOM] me.DAT offend.3SG
if my son offends someone, it is at my cost (Terence, Adelphoe
1156, in Ernout and Thomas 1964: 62)
Note that Latin DCIs, like benefactive/malefactive arguments in Bantu, can

occur with unergative verbs (5a, b), ditransitive verbs (5c), and they clearly
do not entail a possession relation with the direct object, as shown in (5e). It
thus seems reasonable to capture the DCI in Latin in the same way as applied
benefactive/malefactive arguments in Bantu. As expected, slight differences
exist with respect to the properties of the head. The applicative head in Latin is
null and assigns dative case to the applied argument in its specifier (6a), while
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
the head in Bantu is a bound morpheme and the applied argument bears no case
marking (6b).
(6) a. DCIs in Latin

ApplP
DPDAT Appl
Appl vP

b. Applied benefactive/malefactives in Bantu
ApplP
DP Appl
Appl vP

1.3. A note on the dativus ethicus
The present analysis maintains the crucial distinction between the dativus com-
modi/incommodi and the dativus ethicus. They are similar in that neither is sub-
categorized by the verb, but unlike DCIs, the dativus ethicus (DE) is limited to
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
first and second person pronouns. Moreover, rather than denoting the person
who benefits or who is adversely affected by the event, the DE roughly desig-
nates, in emphatic clauses, the person taken as witness among the performers of
the utterance (see Maurel 1982: 79 and Lavency 1997: 164). Woodcock (1959),
for example, translates the first person pronoun of the Latin DE as please! or
pray, and the second person pronoun as for your pleasure I tell you this, you
will be surprised to hear, or lo and behold!. These translations, while slightly
archaic, are noteworthy because they reflect the non-referential reading of the
DE. As Cardinaletti and Stark (1994: 51) assert, the DE is a discourse particle,
and as such, there is no referent to these pronouns, not even derivatively.
(7) a. Quid mihi Celsus agit?

how me.DAT Celsus.NOM act.3SG
How, pray, doth Celsus fare? (Horace, Epistulae 1,3,15, in Wood-
cock 1959: 47)
b. At tibi repente venit ad me Caninius
but you.DAT suddenly came.3SG to me Caninius.NOM
mane.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
morning
But, lo and behold, Caninius suddenly came to me in the morn-
ing. (Cicero, ad Familiares Epistulae 9,2,1, in Woodcock 1959:
47)
DEs are thus semantically distinct from DCIs in Latin, as they are in Romance.
Moreover, evidence is given in Jouitteau and Rezac (2007) for French, and in
Diaconescu (2004) for Romanian, that the DE is not only semantically distinct
from the DCI, but syntactically distinct as well. We emphasize these distinc-
tions since the term ethical dative is sometimes used in the literature to refer to
DCIs. In order to mitigate terminological confusion surrounding our examina-
tion of DCIs in Romance, we maintain the Latin terms and their definitions as
proposed above. We also avoid a number of other terms that are used more or
less interchangeably in the literature to refer to Romance DCIs, DEs, or both,
some of the more common being ethical, affected, free, or nonlexical
dative, or dative of interest.
2. The DCI in Romance
This section illustrates the empirical generalization distinguishing the behav-

iour of the DCI in dative clitic-doubling languages from that in non-doubling
languages. According to the languages and varieties that we have examined,
DCIs in dative clitic-doubling languages, like Romanian and Spanish, appear
to have similar syntactic properties to those in Latin. On the other hand, DCIs
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
in non-doubling languages, like French, Portuguese, and Italian, present two

striking restrictions: they may only occur as pronominal clitics and they must
c-command a DP, be it a direct object, or the object of a preposition.4 This
section also resolves confusion arising between DCIs in Romance and other
non-core dative arguments such as possessor and extended datives. Each has
its own syntactic behaviour and should thus be treated separately.
2.1. French
The DCI in French has been the subject of some consideration and studies have
converged on two points: the DCI is only acceptable in its clitic form, which
is to say that it may not be expressed as an a-phrase, and it must c-command a
referential DP. In this sense, the properties of the French DCI are very different
from its Latin counterpart, yet it has been convincingly argued that the French
DCI is indeed a VP-external argument, as it is in Latin.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
2.1.1. Constraints on the form. A number of studies have demonstrated that
in French, DCIs are only felicitous as clitics (Rouveret and Vergnaud 1980;
Rooryck 1988; Herschensohn 1992; Authier and Reed 1992; Jones 1996).
(8) a. Les invits lui ont mang tout ce quil

the guests DAT.3SG AUX.3PL eaten all that which-it
y avait dans le frigo.
there had.3SG in the fridge
The guests ate everything in the fridge on him/her. (Jones 1996:
293)
b. *Les invits ont mang tout ce quil y
the guests AUX.3PL eaten all that which-it there
avait dans le frigo Marc.
had.3SG in the fridge to Marc
The guests ate everything in the fridge on Marc.
c. Elmer lui a dvalis deux banques le
Elmer DAT.3SG AUX.3SG robbed two banks the
mois dernier.
month last
Elmer robbed two banks for him last month.
(Rouveret and Vergnaud 1980: 170)
4. Examples that are not accompanied by a reference have been provided by our informants.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
d. *Elmer a dvalis deux banques le mois

Elmer AUX.3SG robbed two banks the month
dernier Angelo.
last to Angelo
Elmer robbed two banks for Angelo last month. (Rouveret and
Vergnaud 1980: 170)
Note that a sentence like (9) might be used to argue that lexical DCIs are actu-
ally permitted in French:
(9) Les enfants ont mang tout le gteau maman.

The children AUX.3PL eaten all the cake to mom.
The children ate all of moms cake (on her).
It is important to point out, however, that datives having a possessor reading can
often take on an additional, affected interpretation that resembles that of the
DCI. As a result, possessor datives are often treated as DCIs and vice versa.
We follow Borer and Grodzinsky (1986) in establishing the crucial syntactic
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
distinction between the two types of datives. Like Hebrew, the possessor dative
in French can be questioned but the DCI cannot :
(10) a. Possessor dative

qui est-ce que les enfants ont mang
to whom is-DEM that the children AUX.3PL eaten
tout le gteau?
all the cake
The kids ate all of whose cake?
b. DCI
* qui est-ce que Elmer a dvalis deux
to whom is-DEM that Elmer AUX.3PL unpacked two
banques le mois dernier?
banks the month last
For whom did Elmer rob two banks last month?
Since wh-movement only operates on XPs, a plausible assumption is that DCIs

are not associated with phrases, but are rather simple heads, while possessor
datives are associated with XPs.5 Given the dative in (9) can indeed be ques-
tioned, we conclude that it is not a DCI.
5. The so-called dessus datives (Elle lui a tir dessus) pattern like DCIs in that they do not
have a lexical equivalent and may not be queried (*A qui est-ce quelle a tir dessus?). If
a constituent [dessus pro] is assumed, then it satisfies the syntactic requirement of the DCI,
described further on, to c-command a referential DP.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
Similarly, the non-subcategorized lexical datives in (11) should not be treated

as DCIs either, despite the fact that they have a similar interpretation.
(11) a. Paul a ouvert cette porte Marie.
Paul AUX.3SG opened this door to Marie
Paul opened this door on/for Mary (Leclre 1976: 74)
b. Paul a fabriqu une table Marie.
Paul AUX.3SG fabricated a table to Mary
Paul made a table for Mary. (Leclre 1976: 74)
Leclerc (1976) claims that the examples in (11) are cases where a transitive
verb denoting an act of creation or destruction is employed as a ditransitive
verb like give. He explains that in these cases, the dative object is construed
as a recipient who incidentally benefits or suffers as a result of receiving an
open door, a hand crafted table, etc.6 Variation in acceptability of these kinds
of datives depends entirely on the compatibility of the meaning of the verb
and its object in a ditransitive context. We therefore take these instances of the
dative to be internal arguments of the verb, merged in the same way as they
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
would with any canonical ditransitive verb.7 Again, Borer and Grodzinskys
6. In this sense, Leclre (1976: 75) calls them extended datives.

7. Rooryck (1988) observes that extended datives do not, however, behave like subcategorized
datives. Constructions in which extended datives appear resist movement of the direct object;
the acceptability of the direct object is seriously diminished when it occurs as a clitic, when it
is relativized, and when it appears as the subject of a passive. In fact, what Rooryck observes
is a general constraint on direct objects used in contexts in which the meaning of the verb is
extended. In these cases, direct objects are most acceptable when they are lexical and when
they appear in their thematic position. For example, the verb rdiger to write or to compose
normally occurs as a strictly transitive verb for which the direct object can undergo various
kinds of movement, as shown in (i). In some contexts, however, rdiger can be used as a
ditransitive verb to mean to write to someone, shown in (ii). Notice that when the meaning
of the verb is extended to take on a transfer of possession reading, the direct object is, for
most speakers, restricted to its full nominal form and must remain in its thematic position,
shown in (iii).
(i) Je rdige la lettre / Je la rdige / la lettre que je rdige /

I write the letter / I it write / the letter that I write /
la lettre tait rdige par Marc
the letter was written by Marc
I am writing the letter/I am writing it/the letter that I am writing/the letter was written
by Marc
(ii) Je rdigerai la lettre au ministre.
I write.FUT the letter to-the minister
I will write the letter to the minister.
(iii) *?Je la rdigerai au ministre / *?la lettre que j ai
I it write.FUT to-the minister / the letter that I AUX.1SG
rdige au ministre / *la lettre a t rdige au
wrote to-the minister / the letter AUX.3SG been written to-the
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
diagnostic can serve to distinguish these extended datives from DCIs; since
they can be queried, they are not DCIs:
(12) a. qui est-ce que Paul a ouvert cette
to whom is-DEM that Paul AUX.3SG opened this
porte?
door
For whom did Paul open this door?
b. qui est-ce que Paul a fabriqu cette
to whom is-DEM that Paul AUX.3SG fabricated this
table?
table
For whom did Paul fashion this table?
2.1.2. Constraints on verb selection. In terms of verb selection, French DCIs

pattern like Latin and Bantu high applicatives in two ways. First, they may
combine with a ditransitive verb that selects both a direct and a dative indirect
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
object, shown in (13a). Second, no possession relation is implied between the
dative and the internal argument of the verb, as demonstrated in example (13b).
(13) a. Je vais te lui crire une lettre.
I go you.DAT DAT.3SG write.INF a letter
Im going to write a letter to him/her for you. (Herschensohn
1992: 126)
b. Jean lui a attrap deux rhumes.
Jean DAT.3SG AUX.3SG caught two colds
Jean caught two colds on her. (Authier and Reed 1992: 295)
On the other hand, unlike Latin and Bantu, a number of studies have pointed
out that DCIs in French are subject to a constraint which prevents them from
occurring in intransitive contexts (Herchensohn 1992, Rooryck 1988, and Au-
thier and Reed 1992). The contrast in (14) illustrates how DCIs are illicit with
unergatives, but when this same verb is used transitively, the DCI is perfectly
acceptable.
(14) a. *Paul lui a bu.
Paul him/her.DAT AUX.3SG drink.PST.PTCP
Paul drank on him. (Authier and Reed 1992: 298)
ministre
minister
I will write it to the minster/ the letter that I wrote to the minster/ the letter has been
written to the minister
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
b. Paul lui a bu trois pastis.

Paul DAT.3SG AUX.3SG drink.PST.PTCP three pastis
Paul drank three pastis on him. (Authier and Reed 1992: 298)
Interestingly, Authier and Reed (1992: 302) demonstrate that VP-internal ad-
juncts, such as locative and manner PPs, can, like direct objects, also license
DCIs with unergative verbs:
(15) a. Alfred lui a rot *(devant les invits).
Alfred DAT.3SG AUX.3SG burped (before the guests)
Alfred burped in front of the guests on him.
b. Ses hommes lui ont dfil *(avec une
his men DAT.3SG AUX.3PL paraded (with a
fleur au fusil).
flower at-the gun)
His men paraded with a flower in their guns on him.
Subcategorized oblique objects can also provide a licensing environment for
French DCIs.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
(16) Il lui a parl sa fille pendant
he DAT.3SG AUX.3SG spoken to his daughter for
trois heures.
three hours
He spoke to his daughter for him for three hours. (Rouveret and Ver-
naud 1980: 169)
Authier and Reed (1992: 302306) note however, that VP-external adjuncts
denoting cause or time, for example, do not create a licensing environment for
DCIs. Similarly, adverbs do not improve a DCI used with an unergative verb.
(17) a. *Alfred lui a rot pour choquer ses
Alfred DAT.3SG AUX.3SG burped for shock.INF his
invits.
guests
Alfred burped on him to shock his guests.
b. *Ses hommes lui dfileront demain (au
his men DAT.3SG parade.FUT tomorrow (at-the
lieu daujourdhui).
place of-today)
His men will parade tomorrow for him (instead of today).
c. *Marc lui a tudi fort bien cette anne.
Marc DAT.3SG AUX studied very well this year
Marc studied very well this year.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
2.1.3. Previous analyses. Herschensohn (1992) links the DCI to an empty

VP-internal position based on the fact that it must co-occur with a DP. The
French DCI is claimed to be a non-lexical argument of a nominal or preposi-
tional complement of the verb, much like y and en in y avoir and sen aller.
According to this analysis, DCIs would be syntactically identical to posses-
sor datives, but take on a discourse-related interpretation through Chomskys
(1991) least effort in that non-lexical datives exploit a clitic form for a sec-
ondary purpose. Reasons of semantic concision are said to restrict DCIs to
clitics.
Authier and Reed (1992) offer a comprehensive treatment of DCIs, arguing
that they are not linked to a VP-internal position. They point out that the DCI
consistently refers to an individual understood as being concerned by the event
as a whole and as such, this dative does not form a theta-chain with an empty
category within in the VP. Along the same lines as Borer and Grodzinskys
(1986) analysis of similar dative clitics in Hebrew, Authier and Reed claim
that French DCIs are caseless theta-bearing affixes generated in Agr.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
(18) IP
Spec I
Agr-S FP
AgrP
Agr-O VP
lui NP* V
V NP
(Authier and Reed 1992: 307)
Since these datives are taken to be a type of external argument much like the
canonical agentive argument, they are said to depend on case assignment within
the VP (following Burzios generalization). The general constraints on verb se-
lection fall out from this dependency as does the fact that VP-internal adjuncts
also provide a licensing environment for DCIs.
While Authier and Reeds GB analysis captures many of the French facts,
it leaves little room to account for languages that do not require their DCIs to
co-occur with a VP-internal DP, nor does it connect French DCIs with similar
applied arguments in languages like Bantu.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
2.2. Portuguese
There is a striking parallel between the constraints on French DCIs and those
on European Portuguese DCIs which are also only felicitous as clitics and pro-
hibited in intransitive contexts.
2.2.1. Constraints on the form. European Portuguese speakers only accept

the clitic form of the DCI; the full nominal counterpart of the clitic is not felic-
itous.8
(19) a. O rapaz ps-lhe o livro na estante.

the boy put-DAT.3SG the book in-the bookcase
The boy put the book on the bookcase for him.
b. *O rapaz ps o livro na estante ao Marco.
the boy put the book in-the bookcase to-the Marco
The boy put the book on the bookcase for Marco.
(20) a. Ele ligou-me amavelmente a luz.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
he connected-me.DAT kindly the light
He kindly switched on the light for me. (Vilela 1986: 146)
b. Ele ligou-lhes amavelmente a luz.
He connected-DAT.3PL kindly the light
He kindly switched on the light for them.
8. In de Andrade Berlincks (1996) survey of Portuguese datives, she claims DCIs may appear
as full nominal arguments preceded by the preposition a:
(i) Ele abre a porta aos convidados.

he opens the door to-the guests
He opens the door for the guests.
Recall that a similar example is discussed for French in (11a). We argued that these kinds
of dative arguments are construed as extended datives, or recipients, not DCIs. The same
holds for Portuguese; the dative in (i) is a recipient since recipients and possessor datives can
be questioned, while DCIs cannot:
(ii) A quem que ele abre a porta? (recipient)

to whom is that he opens the door
For whom does he open the door?
(iii) *?A quem que o rapaz traz a carta do Emanuel (DCI)

to whom is that the boy takes the letter of-the Emanuel
ao correio?
to-the post office
For whom does the boy take Emanuels letter to the post office?
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
c. *Ele ligou amavelmente a luz aos pais.

He connected kindly the light to-the parents
He kindly turned on the light for his parents.
(21) a. O rapaz traz-lhes a carta ao correio.
the boy takes-DAT.3PL the letter to-the post office
The boy takes their letter to the post office for them. (Vilela
1986: 146)
b. O rapaz traz-lhes a carta do Emanuel
the boy takes-DAT.3PL the letter of-the Emanuel
ao correio.
to-the post office
The boy takes Emanuels letter to the post office for them.
c. *O rapaz traz a carta do Emanuel ao
the boy takes the letter of-the Emanuel to-the
correio aos pais.
post office to-the parents
The boy takes Emanuels letter to the post office for his parents.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
2.2.2. Constraints on verb selection. Both Vilela (1986) and de Andrade
Berlinck (1996) point out that the Portuguese DCI is not a subcategorized ar-
gument of the verb. According to them, dative clitics of this type always have a
clear benefactive/malefactive interpretation regardless of the verb with which
they appear.
The examples in (21b), (22b), and (23) demonstrate that the DCI need not
be in a possessor relation with the theme, further showing that the Portuguese
DCI is distinct from the possessor dative.
(22) a. O vaso partiu-se-me/lhe.
the vase broke-se-DAT.1/3SG
The vase broke on me/him. (Vilela 1986: 146)
b. O vaso do Emanuel partiu-se-me.
the vase of Emanuel broke-se-me.DAT
Emanuels vase broke on me.
(23) Ele apanhou-me c uma gripe.
he caught-me.DAT here a cold
He caught a cold on me.
De Andrade Berlinck (1996: 133) notes that the DCI in Portuguese is avail-
able for all transitive verbs. Although she does not support this claim in any
detail, our informants have confirmed that this is true, as clearly demonstrated
in examples (19), (20) (21), and (23). The change of state verb in (22) also sup-
ports the claim, since these types of verbs have been argued to be underlyingly
transitive.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
In contrast, Portuguese DCIs are sharply infelicitous with unergative verbs

(24b, 25b). However, the DCI becomes more or less acceptable when the un-
ergative verb is transitivized, as it is in (24c) or when a VP-internal adjunct is
added (25c). In this sense, the Portuguese DCI patterns exactly like the French.
(24) a. Hoje, eu corri durante meia hora.

today I ran during half hour
Today I ran for half an hour.
b. *Hoje, eu corri-lhe durante meia hora. (Para o
today I ran-DAT.3G during half hour (for the
meu treinador)
my trainer)
Today I ran half an hour for him.
c. ?Hoje, eu corri-lhe uma meia maratona. (Para o
today I ran-DAT.3G a half marathon (for the
meu treinador)
my trainer)
Today I ran a half marathon for him.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
(25) a. A mulher dele fugiu anteontem.
the wife of.him fled the day before yesterday
His wife ran off the day before yesterday.
b. *A mulher dele fugiu-lhe anteontem.
the wife of.him fled-him the day before yesterday
His wife ran off on him the day before yesterday.
c. A mulher dele fugiu-lhe com o vizinho.
the wife of.him fled-him with the neighbour
His wife ran off with the neighbour on him.
2.2.3. Previous analyses. Both de Andrade Berlinck (1996) and Vilela

(1986) propose descriptive typologies of the Portuguese dative, but we are un-
aware of any formal analysis proposed for the DCI.
2.3. Italian
Much like DCIs in French and Portuguese, Standard Italian DCIs are only fe-
licitous as clitics and are illicit with unergative verbs. There are, however, va-
rieties of Italian that accept DCIs as a-phrases and which permit them with
unergative verbs. We do not examine these varieties in detail as it is well be-
yond the scope of this article, but we nonetheless note that they appear to sup-
port the correlation we advance here, between languages that permit dative
clitic-doubling and DCIs that show few restrictions in terms of their form and
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
verb selection. We leave a closer examination of DCIs in the central and south-
ern varieties for future study. In as much as is it possible, we therefore wish to
distinguish Standard Italian from other varieties, recognizing the challenge this
presents given that DCIs are generally associated with informal registers.
2.3.1. Constraints on the form. Standard Italian DCIs are only acceptable
as clitics, as the sentences in (26) show.
(26) a. Gli invitati gli hanno mangiato tutto quello
the guests him.DAT AUX.3PL eaten all that
che rimaneva nel frigo.
which remained in-the fridge
The guests ate everything that was left in the fridge on him.
b. *Gli invitati hanno mangiato tutto ci che
the guests AUX.3PL eaten all that which
rimaneva nel frigo a Marco.
remained in-the fridge to Marco
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
The guests ate everything that was left in the fridge on Marco.
With respect to the a-phrase a Marco in (26b), a DCI reading is unavailable for
all of our informants. Some, however, find it acceptable as a possessor in the
sense that the guests ate everything that Marco had left in his fridge.
In Folli and Harley (2006), Italian benefactives/malefactives are described
as licit both as clitics and a-phrases. They specify, however, that the full nom-
inal form is sharply constrained to a relationship of possession with the theme
and context-specific individuals, as the contrast demonstrates below (examples
taken from Folli and Harley (2006: 124); the translations are our own).9
(27) a. I bambini hanno mangiato tutta la torta alla

the children AUX.3PL eaten all the cake to-the
mamma.
mother
the children ate all of their mothers cake on her.
9. All of our informants strongly reject both of the examples in (27) as DCIs, although some
find them marginally acceptable as possessors (di-possessors being the preferred form). In
informal/non-school central Italian, a DCI reading is possible in (27b), but in this case, the
a-phrase a Marco must also be accompanied by a dative clitic, since this variety of Italian is
a clitic-doubling variety (Mario Saltarelli, p.c.).
(i) I bambini *(gli) hanno mangiato tutta la torta a Marco.
This observation appears to support the correlation we establish further on between lexical
DCIs and dative clitic-doubling languages.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
b. ??I bambini hanno mangiato tutta la torta a

the children AUX.3PL ate all the cake to
Marco.
Marco
the children ate all of Marcos cake on him.
As mentioned earlier, however, our analysis is strictly concerned with DCIs
as distinguished from other datives, namely possessor and extended datives.
The lexical datives cited above appear to be possessor datives, since they can
be questioned, as shown in (28a). Actual DCIs, like that in (26a), cannot, as
illustrated in (28b).
(28) a. ?A chi i bambini hanno (possessor dative)
to whom the childen AUX.3PL
mangiato tutta la torta?
eaten all the cake
All of whose cake did the children eat?
b. *A chi gli invitati hanno (with a DCI reading)
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
to whom the guests AUX.3PL
mangiato tutto ci che rimaneva nel frigo?
eaten all that which remained in-the fridge
On whom did the guests eat everything that was left in the fridge?
2.3.2. Constraints on verb selection. The selectional properties of Italian

DCIs pattern like those in French and Portuguese. For example, DCIs are
clearly VP-external arguments since they may occur with ditransitive verbs:
(29) Ti scriver una lettera al ministero.
you.DAT write.FUT a letter to-the minister
I will write a letter to the minister for you.
Italian DCIs are also dependent on the presence of a referential element within
the VP. Folli and Harley (2006: 131, Ftn. 12) demonstrate that DCIs are sharply
ungrammatical with unergative verbs like run, yet when the unergative is tran-
sitivized, the DCI becomes perfectly acceptable:
(30) a. *Gianni gli ha corso per due ore.
Gianni him.DAT AUX.3SG run for two hours
John ran for two hours for him.
b. Gianni gli ha corso mezza maratona
Gianni DAT.3SG AUX.3SG run half marathon
(per il suo allenatore)
(for the his trainer)
John ran a half marathon for him
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
Like the direct object in (30b), certain VP-internal adjuncts can correct an oth-
erwise illicit DCI:
(31) a. Lorenzo ha ruttato.
Lorenzo AUX.3SG burped
Lorenzo burped.
b. *Lorenzo le ha ruttato.
Lorenzo DAT.3SG AUX.3SG burped
Lorenzo burped on her.
c. Lorenzo le ha ruttato davanti agli
Lorenzo DAT.3SG AUX.3SG burped in front of the
ospiti.
guests
Lorenzo burped on her in front of all the guests.
Note that in Italian, unergative verbs are commonly used with what appears to
be a DCI, as (32a) demonstrates. We point out, however, that in Standard Ital-
ian, forms of the dative clitic other than the first person singular, and a-phrases,
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
are felt to be either ungrammatical or extremely bad, strongly suggesting that
these dative clitics are not DCIs.10
(32) a. Il mio bambino non mi dorme.
the my baby NEG me.DAT sleep
My baby wont sleep for me.
b. ?*Questo bambino non ti/gli dorme proprio.
this baby NEG you/him.DAT sleep properly
This baby wont sleep for you/her.
c. ?*Questo bambino non dorme a Rosa.
this baby NEG sleep to Rosa
This baby wont sleep for Rosa.
2.3.3. Previous analyses. Folli and Harley (2006) propose that Italian DCIs
are independently generated above the VP in the specifier of a high applicative
10. In some varieties of Italian, (32b) is acceptable, and yet the lexical DCI in (32c) is not. Some
speakers have indicated that the lexical DCI is improved, however, when accompanied by the
dative clitic le in a clitic-doubling construction.
(i) Il bambino non le studia (alla mamma).

the child NEG her.DAT study (to-the mother)
The child doesnt study for her (for his mother).
Not surprisingly, these speakers also permit DCIs with unergative verbs in general, supporting
the correlation that is established further on between clitic-doubling languages and DCIs that
may occur with unergative verbs.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
phrase, the head of which is null. In this sense, Italian DCIs are generated in
the same position as applied benefactive/malefactives in Bantu and DCIs in
Latin.11
(33) v
v ApplP
cl/DPDAT Appl
Appl VP

(adapted from Folli and Harley 2006: 133, 136)
To account for the fact that the high applicative head in Italian cannot merge
with an unergative vP structure, a stipulation about the semantics of the head
is proposed such that it must relate the applicative argument in its specifier to
a referential element. Unergatives fail to satisfy this requirement since, follow-
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
ing Hale and Keyser (1987, 2002), these verbs are derived from the incorpo-
ration of a bare noun complement. No analysis is given for the restriction on
a-phrases.
2.4. Romanian
Unlike the formal and selectional constraints that we see in French, Portuguese,
and Italian, Romanian DCIs may appear as clitics, or as clitics doubled with a
dative-marked full nominal argument, and they may appear with both transitive
and intransitive verbs. They thus behave much like their Latin counterparts and
like applied benefactive/malefactive arguments in Bantu.
11. The relative placement of ApplP with respect to vP is inconsequential for the present analysis.
Note that we follow Pylkknen (2002), merging ApplP above the vP and below the external
argument.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
2.4.1. Form. Romanian DCIs may appear as clitics, or as clitics doubled

with a full nominal argument, as the examples below demonstrate.
(34) a. Invitatii i-au mncat tot ce avea n

guests-the DAT.3SG-AUX.3PL eaten all that had in
frigider.
fridge
The guests ate everything in the fridge on him/her.
b. Invitatii i-au mncat lui Marc tot
guests-the DAT.3SG-AUX.3PL eaten DAT Marc all
ce avea n frigider.
that had in fridge
The guests ate everything in the fridge on Marc.
2.4.2. Verb selection. Diaconescu (2004: 209214) provides a number of

examples to illustrate that the Romanian DCI is applied to the event, and is
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
thus not generated within the VP as a low applied argument. While DCIs can
occur with transitive verbs, they can also occur with both unergative and static
verbs, shown in (35) and (36), demonstrating that they are neither dependent
on the presence of a direct object nor on an entailment of possession between
it and the direct object.
(35) a. Mihaela i alerga la antrenor/antrenorului o

Mihaela DAT.3SG ran to trainer/trainer-the.DAT a
jumatate de ora
half of hour
Mihaela ran for half an hour for the trainer
b. Mihaela i alerga o jumatate de ora
Mihaela DAT.3SG ran a half of hour
Mihaela ran for half an hour for him
(36) Ion i tine la Maria/Mariei geanta mea

Ion DAT.3SG holds to Mary/Mary.DAT bag.the my
John holds my bag for Maria
2.4.3. Previous analyses. Diaconescu argues that Romanian DCIs are gen-
erated in a high applicative phrase, following Pylkknens (2002) proposal for
the syntactic representation of applied benefactive/malefactive arguments in
Bantu.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
(37) Mihaela i alerga la antrenor/antrenorului

(adapted from Diaconescu 2004: 211)
VoiceP
DPSubj Voice
Mihaela
Voice0 ApplP
DP Appl
applied atrenorului/
argument mie, tie
Appl vPACT
applicative marker i
v0 Root
alerg-
Diaconescus proposal for Romanian DCIs parallels our own for Latin (see
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
Section 1.2). The only difference between the two lies in the expression of the
functional head: in Latin it is null while in Romanian it expresses the person
and number features of the applied argument. We adopt Diaconescus account,
with a slight modification, discussed in Section 3.1.
2.5. Spanish
Like Romanian, Spanish is also a clitic-doubling language. The Spanish DCI

patterns like Romanian in that it may appear as a simple clitic or as a clitic
doubled by a coreferential dative-marked full nominal, and it may occur both
in transitive and intransitive contexts.
2.5.1. Form. Spanish permits the DCI to appear both as a simple clitic, and
as a clitic doubled by a coreferential full nominal form headed by the dative
case marker a.
(38) a. Te lo llamo al doctor?

you.DAT him call to-the doctor
Should I call the doctor for you? (Jaeggli 1986: 25)
b. Fue l quien te lo comi, no yo.
was he who you.DAT it ate NEG I
It was he who ate it on you, not I. (Garcia 1979: 55)
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
c. Le tom la sopa de Miguelito a mam y

DAT.3SG ate the soup of Miguelito to mama and
tuvo que hacer ms.
need that make.INF more
I ate Mikes soup on my mother and she had to make some
more. (Roldn 1972: 30)
d. En lo mejor de la operacin, al cirujano se
in the middle of the operation to-the surgeon se
le llenaron de lgrimas los ojos del
DAT.3SG filled of tears the eyes of-the
paciente.
patient
In the middle of the operation, the patients eyes filled with tears
on the surgeon (to the surgeons detriment). (Roldn 1972: 27)
e. A m se me muri el perro del vecino
to me se me.DAT died the dog of-the neighbour
que estaba cuidando.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
that was.1SG caring-for
The neighbors dog, which I was looking after, died on me.
(Roldn 1972: 31)
Judgments vary widely on these cases. Some find only first and second person
clitics to be felicitous while others accept third person clitics but do not accept
full nominal forms like those in (38c), (38d), and (38e).
2.5.2. Verb selection. Unlike French, Portuguese, and Italian, Spanish DCIs
do not appear to have any formal constraints on the type of verb with which
they may occur. They show no dependency on a VP-internal constituent and are
argued to be VP-external arguments in the same way as Romanian and Latin
DCIs and applied benefactive/malefactives in Bantu.
Examples (38c), (38d), and (38e) demonstrate that when Spanish DCIs oc-
cur with (underlying) transitive verbs, a possession relation between the dative
argument and the theme is not required. DCIs are thus distinct from possessor
datives and recipients. Spanish DCIs are also perfectly acceptable with unerga-
tive verbs (39ac)12 and ditransitives (39d).
12. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, some verbs alternate between unaccusative and
unergative syntax. We have thus attempted to use relatively uncontroversial unergative verbs
in our examples, following Sorace (2000).
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
(39) a. Juanita ya le camina

Juanita already DAT.3SG walks
Juanita can already walk on him/her Cuervo (2003: 194)
b. A Luisa le preocupa su nio porque no
to Luisa DAT.3SG worries her son because NEG
le duerme.
DAT.3SG sleep
Luisas son worries her because he doesnt sleep for her.
c. El nio le estudia bien a Maria para los
the boy DAT.3SG studies well to Maria for the
examenes.
exams
The boy studies hard for his exams for Maria.
d. Me lei dieron un helado al nioi
DAT.1SG DAT.3SG gave an ice-cream the.DAT kid
They gave the kid an ice-cream on me (Cuervo 2002: 194)
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
2.5.3. Previous analyses. Conclusions drawn in previous analyses depend
largely on what forms of the DCI the author finds acceptable, but all analyses
appear to converge on the basic idea that the Spanish DCI is a non-core argu-
ment. In fact, Jaeggli (1986) presents them as evidence of syntactic clitics that
are not generated in or associated with any argument position at all. Cuervo
(2003) proposes a high applicative analysis for Spanish DCIs, in which the
dative clitic is the head of the applicative phrase.
(40) Juanita ya le camina.
VoiceP
DP Voice
Juanita
Voice ApplP
Appl vP
le
vdo +Root
camin-
Cuervo (2003: 198)
The absence of a specifier reflects that fact that Cuervo does not accept full
nominal DCIs. She claims that this high applicative head in Spanish is de-
fective in the sense that it does not license an argument DP, comparing it
to other defective heads such as those involved in passive and impersonal se
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
constructions. While we agree with Cuervo that there is indeed something dif-
ferent about this head, it is not clear to us that it is defective. Rather, in the case
of French, Portuguese, and Italian, the pronominal head is super-effective in
that it encodes both the theta role and the case features assigned by the terminal
node.
2.6. Summary
Previous work on the DCI in Romance illustrates a number of the challenges

that this particular dative argument poses. One of the empirical challenges is
to distinguish the DCI from other forms of the dative, namely possessor da-
tives and the extended recipient argument of ditransitive constructions. For our
analysis, this distinction is crucial since recipients and possessors have dif-
ferent syntactic properties than DCIs and should thus be analysed separately.
Another challenge is the variability in native speaker judgments. Some speak-
ers find it difficult to accept anything outside of first and second person singular
dative clitics while others easily accept all forms of person and number.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
Where it has been previously observed that the DCI is accompanied by cer-
tain syntactic restrictions, the accounts tend to be stipulative. Authier and Reed
attempt to link the properties of the French DCI to other features of the gram-
mar, but all other accounts remain essentially descriptive. Furthermore, cross-
linguistic variation has been entirely overlooked.
We propose that a comparative approach to DCIs can offer a unified and
a more satisfactory account of their behaviour in Romance. The pattern that
emerges here, through the comparison of five Romance languages, has gone
unnoticed: the DCI in clitic-doubling languages patterns much like high ap-
plied arguments in Latin and Bantu, while the DCI in non-doubling languages
is restricted to its clitic form and it must c-command a referential DP merged
either as a direct object or as part of an adjunct PP. In other words, clitic-
doubling covaries with the possibility of full nominal DCIs and with the use of
Table 1. General syntactic properties of the DCI in Romance
French Italian Portuguese Romanian Spanish

1. Clitic doubling
2. DCI can occur as
dative-marked full
nominal
3. DCI can occur
without a referential
DP in its domain
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
this dative argument in intransitive contexts. This generalisation is illustrated

in Table 1.
An account of this systematic variation is proposed in the following section
in which a unified analysis of the Romance DCI as a high applied argument at
once captures the similarities of Romance DCIs to those in Latin and to applied
benefactive/malefactive arguments in Bantu, while allowing for the specific
constraints on the DCI in non-doubling languages.
3. A generalized ApplP for Romance
Based on the evidence assembled in Section 2, we build on the idea that the
non-subcategorized dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance should be an-
alyzed as a high applicative phrase. The generalized ApplP for Romance is
given in (41a), and is compared to its Latin counterpart in (41b), the more
straight-forward case. Note that the functional material above ApplP is omitted
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
for simplicity.
(41) a. Romance DCI structure

. . . XP
X ApplP
?? Appl
Appl vP
clDAT
v0 VP
b. Latin DCI structure
. . . XP
X ApplP
External Merge DPDAT Appl
Appl vP

v0 VP
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
The two constructions differ in two important ways. First, the Romance DCI
construction makes use of the dative clitic as its applicative head whereas, in
Latin, the head is phonologically null. Second, the applied argument in Latin
appears as a lexical DP or a pronoun and, crucially, both are morphologically
marked as datives; see the examples in (5). Romance languages, however, are
not unified in how the Spec,ApplP position is treated, leading to variation in the
realization of the applied argument. Consequently, we must elaborate both on
the nature of the applied argument in modern Romance and on the link between
the cldat and Spec,ApplP. We will see that the variation we observed in Section
2 is to be attributed to the DP/PP status of lexical DCIs and, consequently, also
to the properties of the head.
3.1. Dative clitic-doubling languages

Author's Copy
Author's Copy
Let us first detail the structure in (41a) in clitic-doubling Romance languages
such as Spanish and Romanian. To illustrate, we repeat the structure proposed
by Diaconescu introduced in Section 2.4.3.
(42) Mihaela i alerga la antrenor/antrenorului

VoiceP
DPSubj Voice
Mihaela
Voice0 ApplP
DP Appl
applied atrenorului/
argument mie, tie
Appl vPACT
applicative marker i
v0 Root
alerg-
For sentences involving only the presence of a clitic DCI, like the one in (43)
below, Diaconescu claims that they involve a defective head which does not
project a specifier, essentially extending Cuervos analysis of Spanish DCIs to
Romanian.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
(43) Mihaela i alerga o jumatate de ora

VoiceP
DPSubj Voice
Mihaela
Voice0 ApplP
Appl vPACT
i
v0 Root
alerg-
(Diaconescu 2004: 212)
This structure is problematic since it suggests that there are two types of high
applicative heads in Romanian with the exact same morphophonology, syntac-
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
tic distribution, and semantic interpretation. Furthermore, if we take the func-
tion of applicative projections seriously which is to introduce a non-core in-
direct object then there should logically be no defective applicative heads.
For these reasons, we propose that the Appl head always projects further. In
the absence of an overt coindexed DP, pro occupies the Spec,ApplP position,
as in (44), assuming the applied argument function.
(44) VoiceP
DPSubj Voice
Mihaela
Voice0 ApplP
DP Appl
pro
Appl vPACT
i/mi
v0 Root
alerg-
The generalized ApplP for clitic-doubling Romance languages is thus as in

(45):
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
(45) ApplP
DPi /proi Appl
Appli vP
clDAT
The crucial property of this version of the DCI construction is the Case status of
the doubled DCI argument. As Diaconescu and Cuervo argue, the preposition
that marks the DP as a dative la in Romanian, and a in Spanish should
be analyzed as a bound morpheme. As a result, the doubled lexical DCI is
always a morphologically marked dative DP. It thus turns out that the structure
in (41) is nearly identical to a regular clitic projection and differs only in: (1)
the categorial status of the clitic: a regular clitic is a voice projection, in the
sense of Sportiche (1996) not an Appl head; and (2) the fact that its associated
doubled DP has been externally merged: in regular clitic constructions it is
internally merged (i.e., moved) in the specifier of the clitic projection.
There is no reason to believe that this transposition of properties from a regu-
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
lar clitic projection to an applicative projection should not apply to the internal
properties of the dative clitic itself. Indeed, the dative clitic acting as an Appl
head appears to behave exactly like a regular clitic in requiring a DP in a local
agreement relation in order to value its phi features. Assuming that the dative-
marked DP, as a VP-external argument, is linked to a thematic interpretation
and receives Case by virtue of the local relation that it holds with the Appl
head, we obtain the more developed structure in (46).
(46) ApplP
DP/pro[i , uCase, u ] Appl
Appl[Case, ] vP
clDAT[u ]
The morphological instantiation of the Appl head is thus essentially a reana-
lyzed dative clitic that still behaves like a quintessential clitic with respect to
feature valuation (i.e. as an agreement marker). The ApplP differs from a reg-
ular dative clitic projection in that it involves a DP merged outside of the VP
domain.
As a result, there are no syntactic restrictions on DCIs in clitic-doubling Ro-
mance languages. The dative clitic as an applicative head continues to behave
as a clitic, but internal merge of a DP to its Spec is blocked by the clash this
would create between the thematic and Case features associated with the Appl
head, thereby forcing external merge of an independent DP (lexical or pro).
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
3.2. Non-doubling languages
In non-doubling Romance languages such as French, it has been argued that

remains a preposition and as such acts as the syntactic head of a PP which
contains the indirect object;13 see for example Herslund (1988); Roberge and
Troberg (2007).14 This has direct consequences for the analysis of the DCI.
Specifically, the indirect object may not be introduced by the Appl head since
we assume, following Pylkknen (2002), that only individuals may merge in
SpecApplP. Stated differently, the indirect object as a PP cannot act as an ap-
plied argument. As a result, the clitic appears to act simultaneously as the ap-
plied argument and as the morpheme occupying the Appl head. One way to
approach this is to equate the behavior of the clitic with that of a detransi-
tivized transitive verb which absorbs the Case and theta role normally assigned
to its internal argument. This reasoning, applied to the dative clitic, means that
despite its syntactic status as a clitic head in Appl, the dative clitic behaves
semantically as though it were referentially a strong pronoun but it remains,
morphologically, a weak pronoun, i.e., a head that must cliticize to the verb.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
As such, all of its features are interpretable. Our approach is thus at odds with
the idea that the dative clitic in its applicative uses corresponds to a defective
head. A defective head is one that is incomplete with respect to some feature(s)
and thus cannot serve as the licensing head for an element in its Spec. In con-
trast, the dative clitic as an applied morpheme in non-doubling languages is
13. For the view that the preposition introducing the indirect object in French is a Case morpheme,
see Jaeggli (1982), Ruwet (1982), Miller (1992).
14. Portuguese -phrases likewise behave as PPs, not DPs, based on the following A/A test orig-
inally proposed to demonstrate the prepositional status of French in Herslund (1988: 46).
A PP can raise out of a DP, as shown in (ii), but the same PP may not raise out of the in-
direct object constituent headed by in (iv), presumably because this in Portuguese is a
preposition.
(i) O Claude matou [DP a sogra da Simone].

the Claude killed the mother-in-law of-the Simone
Claude killed Simones mother-in-law.
(ii) [De quem]i que o Claude matou [DP a sogra ti ]
(iii) O Claude obedece [PP sogra da Simone].
the Claude obeys to-the mother-in-law of-the Simone
Claude obeys Simones mother-in-law.
(iv) *[De quem]i que o Claude obedece [PP sogra ti ]?
This diagnostic shows the same results for Italian a. Since the A/A diagnostic is invalid for
Spanish and Romanian, we adopt Cuervos (2003) position that Spanish dative a-phrases are
DPs and that the a in a clitic-doubled dative is therefore not a preposition. We likewise assume,
with Diaconescu (2004), that Romanian la in clitic-doubling contexts is a case marker, not a
preposition.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
super-effective in being able to encode the Case and theta role properties of
the Appl head and in valuing its phi features in the (extra)linguistic context.
The structure in (47) provides the non-doubling counterpart of (46) above.
(47) ApplP
Appl
Appl[Case, ] vP
clDAT[i , uCase, u ]
The difference between doubling and non-doubling languages is thus linked

to the DP/PP status of lexical indirect objects and consequently, the function
of the dative clitic. In doubling languages, the clitic is a simple applicative
agreement morpheme, whereas in non-doubling languages, the clitic acts both
as the applied argument and the Appl morpheme.
We have claimed that in doubling languages the only restriction on the DCI
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
part of the structure is the natural one that Spec,ApplP be filled by a DP or pro
given that the Appl cannot be vacuously merged to vP, i.e., without actually
introducing an applied argument. Interestingly, despite the status of the dative
clitic as the applied argument in non-doubling languages, a restriction on the
DCI projection remains in that the Appl head appears to require the overt pres-
ence of a licensing DP in its c-command domain. This is a strange property
from a theoretical perspective since this dependency relation involves two fully
independent constituents having nothing to share. Logically, this restriction
could be attributed to properties of the dative clitic or to the applicative projec-
tion itself.
Accordingly, one potential approach would be to extend our analysis of dou-
bling languages to non-doubling languages and to conceive of the high applica-
tive phrase as more or less equivalent to a dative clitic phrase in the sense of
Sportiche (1996). However, since the dative clitic receives its theta role from
the position and its reference directly from the (extra)linguistic context (like a
strong pronoun), a dependency on a nominal element in its domain is superflu-
ous. It would be as though the clitic probed for a DP without actually entering
into any kind of agree or checking relation with it. One might liken such a de-
pendency to a remnant property of the clitic, but introducing the possibility of
such vacuous probing into the model does not conform to a minimalist agenda
and as such should be set aside.
We thus turn to the possibility that the dependency relation is a property of
the applicative projection. Does the Appl head itself probe for an overt referen-
tial nominal element in its domain? Motivating such a dependency as a feature
of the projection would in essence be saying that high applicative projections
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
in non-doubling languages are fundamentally different than those in most other

languages, a clearly undesirable avenue to pursue within a minimalist frame-
work which seeks to attribute variation to lexical items, not to the syntax. There
is, however, the possibility that the dependency on an overt DP is linked to the
selectional requirements of Appl, given that the fundamental property of an
Appl head (whatever overt or null morpheme occupies it) is the selection of a
nominal element in its Spec. Our analysis takes this essential property of ApplP
as its point of departure.
But before we present our analysis of this dependency/restriction in non-
doubling Romance languages, it is important to demonstrate what the analysis
is not. Indeed, it might be tempting to assign an interpretive function to the re-
striction on DCIs in non-doubling languages. Intuitively, the DCI construction
carries informational content on two fronts: an extra argument is introduced,
and the commodi/incommodi interpretation arises. In doubling languages as
well as in Latin and Bantu the external merger of a DP in Spec,ApplP visibly
fulfills the first function and, it would appear, the second function follows from
it. In other words, introducing an individual as an argument of an event implies
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
that the individual is somehow involved in this event. Non-doubling languages
offer a very different picture in that no external merger of a lexical DP occurs.
We have argued above that in non-doubling languages the clitic acts as the
applied argument. This results in the absence of a separate lexical dative DP
which, in turn, could result in a lack of visibility of the commodi/incommodi
semantics. Intuitively, everything seems to function as though the individual in-
troduced by the clitic in Appl could only be affected by the event denoted by the
verb phrase if and only if the event involved another DP. To illustrate, an eat-
ing event would not be sufficient in itself to support the commodi/incommodi
interpretation. To do so it would have to involve, say, something that was eaten
(e.g., everything that was in the refrigerator) or another object (e.g., a cush-
ion or couch on which the eating was done). Under this approach, the Appl
head would thus probe a nominal which would then act both as a signal that
the dative clitic corresponds to a DCI not to a VP-internal argument and
that it is somehow affected by the event. Yet, as tempting as this approach may
be, the introduction of interpretive considerations to assign a functional rai-
son dtre to the restriction is misguided. After all, the commodi/incommodi
interpretation is entirely dependent on the nature of the event of which the DCI
is an argument and there is no logical reason to believe that, for instance, the
addition of an internal argument to an event built on the basis of an unergative
verb should somehow render that event more liable to affect the extra argument
represented by the dative clitic. Furthermore, the lack of such requirement in
Latin and clitic-doubling Romance languages would remain a complete mys-
tery. The restriction on French DCIs cannot reduce to an interpretive require-
ment on the construction. In our view, the apparent interpretive function of the
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
VP-internal DP is simply a by-product of the universal properties of the high

applicative.
The systematic restrictions we see in French, Portuguese, and Italian appear
to be quite mechanical in nature. For purposes of presentation, a useful par-
allel can be drawn between our analysis and that of Butler and Mathieu (2004)
in which they discuss visibility in the C domain. Following Chomsky (2000,
2001), they state that the uninterpretable EPP feature on C can normally be
erased through two different processes. The first is external Merge, as is the
case with Q particles in Chinese, which are base-generated in the C domain.
Another mechanism is internal merge of a question word to Spec CP, as with
WH raising found in other languages. But, Butler and Mathieu (2004) argue
that a third possibility exists, namely, the merger of a null operator in Spec,CP.
This, we believe, offers a viable approach to French-type DCIs. Throughout
this paper, we have emphasized that the principal function of the Appl head is
to introduce an applied argument. In every language, except the non-doubling
Romance languages presented here, this function is accomplished in one single
way: external merge of a DP in Spec. Clearly this merger fulfills the selectional
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
requirements of the Appl head. Now, for French-type DCIs, even though the
principal function of the applicative head is satisfied semantically by the da-
tive clitic, the syntactic part of the selectional requirement remains unfulfilled;
Spec,ApplP must be filled by an externally-merged DP. Yet, in French, there is
simply no lexical DP candidate that can satisfy this requirement since it would
remain without Case and theta role. We propose that the only candidate in the
lexicon that can satisfy the syntactic selectional requirement of Appl in these
languages is an operator, which incidentally must bind a DP in its domain. The
condition in non-doubling languages on an overt DP merged below the Appl
is thus a result of the merger of an expletive operator in Spec,ApplP. The final
structure we propose for DCIs in non-doubling languages is given in (48).
(48) ApplP
Op[iD] Appl
Appl[Case, , uD] vP
clDAT[i , uCase, u ]
. . . DP
Note that the DP in question must be referential. The following examples are
adapted from Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980: 170). They involve direct objects
that are part of idioms, and as such are non-referential.
(49) a. *Il lui a cass la crote.
he DAT.3SG AUX broken the crust
He had a bite to eat on him/her.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
b. *Il lui a pris la poudre descampette.

he DAT.3SG AUX took the powder of-escape
He took to his heels on him/her.
As expected, the addition of a place complement renders these sentences quite

acceptable:
(50) a. Il lui a cass la crote sur ses beaux

he DAT.3SG AUX broken the crust on his beautiful
coussins de cuir.
cushions of leather
He had a bite to eat on him on his nice leather cushions.
b. Il lui a pris la poudre descampette dans
He DAT.3SG AUX took the powder of-escape in
une runion importante.
a meeting important
He took off on him/her in an important meeting.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
Given the expletive nature of this operator, it may not be surprising that the
DP needs to be referential since a similar link can be found in other expletive
constructions. Furthermore, the reason why unergative verbs are excluded in
DCI constructions in non-doubling languages becomes clearer: the bare N ob-
ject in unergative VPs is non-referential and as such cannot serve for expletive
operator binding.
Finally, the VP-internal DP appears frozen in place and as such cannot be
raised by overt A or A -movement as shown by the following examples with
WH interrogatives (51a vs. 51b, c).15
15. Note that extraction of a DP out of a PP in French cannot be used to support our observation
since preposition stranding is not allowed in Standard French. The sentence in (i) is thus
ungrammatical for independent reasons.
(i) *Quest-ce quil lui a cass la crote sur?

what he DAT.3SG AUX broken the crust on
What did he have a bite to eat on him on?
We provide examples in (ii) involving extraction of the whole PP, which are equally ungram-
matical, in contrast with the equivalent sentences without DCI (iii).
(ii) a. *Sur quoi il lui a cass la crote? (see (50a))

on what he DAT.3SG AUX broken the crust
On what did he have a bite to eat on him?
b. *Devant qui Alfred lui a rot? (see (15a))
in-front-of whom Alfred DAT.3SG AUX.3SG burped
In front of whom did Alfred burp on him?
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
(51) a. *Quest-ce que Paul lui a

what Paul him/her.DAT AUX.3SG
bu?
drink.PST.PTCP
What did Paul drink on him?
b. Quest-ce que Paul a bu?
what Paul AUX.3SG drink.PST.PTCP
What did Paul drink?
c. Paul lui a bu la
Paul him/her.DAT AUX.3SG drink.PST.PTCP the
meilleure bouteille.
best bottle
Paul drank the best bottle on him.
Given the structure in (48), illicit extraction of the VP-internal DP is reminis-

cent of weak crossover effects, which have been at the center of much dis-
cussion in the Government and Binding literature. A classic example of weak
crossover is given in (52), where the WH phrase has been moved over the c-
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
commanding DP (his mother), which includes a pronoun coindexed with the
variable.
(52) *Whoi does [ hisi mother ] love ti ?
A-movement and topicalization do not normally induce weak crossover effects.
(53) a. [ Every girl ] i seems to [ heri mother ] ti to be intelligent

b. Johni, [ hisi mother ] really likes ti
Interestingly, passives with DCI in French only seem weakly ungrammatical:
(54) a. ??La meilleure bouteille lui a t

the best bottle him/her.DAT AUX.3SG AUX
bue.
drink.PST.PTCP FEM
The best bottle has been drunk on him.
(iii) a. Sur quoi il a cass la crote?

on what he AUX broken the crust
On what did he have a bite?
b. Devant qui Alfred a rot?
in-front-of whom Alfred AUX.3SG burped
In front of whom did Alfred burp?
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
b. La meilleure bouteille a t
the best bottle AUX.3SG AUX
bue.
drink.PST.PTCP FEM
The best bottle has been drunk.
c. Ils lui ont bu la
the him/her.DAT AUX.3PL drink.PST.PTCP the
meilleure bouteille.
best bottle
They drank the best bottle on him.
And Clitic Left-Dislocation yields grammatical results.16
(55) La meilleure bouteille, ils la lui ont

the best bottle they it.ACC him/her.DAT AUX.3PL
bue.
drink.PST.PTCP
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
The behavior of the DCI construction in French with respect to crossover ef-
fects thus lends support for the structure in (48), although the lack of corefer-
ence between the operator and the VP-internal DP prevent us from concluding
that the DCI construction is in every (relevant) respect identical to the ones that
have traditionally given rise to crossover effects.
Finally, the possibility of internal merger of a DP into Spec,ApplP can be
ruled out based on the fact that this solution would not account for the DPs
which are constituents of oblique objects or circumstantial PPs, in (15), (16),
(25), and (31). Island constraints block movement, and movement of the en-
tire PP is not permitted since only individuals may merge in Spec,ApplP. One
might also consider the possibility that pro and only pro is able to occupy
Spec,ApplP in non-doubling languages, but this would leave no account for
the structural requirement that a referential DP must merge within the VP, a
condition captured by the operator analysis proposed above.
16. Note that in Spoken French, the accusative pronoun is normally not pronounced and this
string surfaces as simply ils lui ont bue. The same holds when the dative clitic is a thematic
argument:
(i) Le marteau, ils le lui ont donn.

the hammer they it.ACC him/her.DAT AUX.3PL give.PST.PTC
Le marteau, ils lui ont donn.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
3.3. Summary
To sum up, Romance DCI constructions share the same generalized high ApplP
and can be divided into two types according to the nature of the element that
fulfills the function of applied argument: DP or pro in doubling languages or
the dative clitic in non-doubling languages. In the following section we ask
how the Romance languages could have split into these two types.
4. How might the two DCI types have emerged?
This section, while highly speculative in nature, presents what we believe to be

a realistic scenario of how the generalized DCI projection could have evolved
from Latin to modern Romance and at the same time given rise to the split
observed in the previous section. It also illustrates how different languages use
what they have at their disposal (their idiosyncratic characteristics) in combi-
nation with the general properties of Universal Grammar in order to express or
realize similar grammatical concepts.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
Let us first consider, for example, the introduction and expression of the
well-studied applied benefactive/malefactive argument in the Bantu-type lan-
guages. Peterson (2007) shows that the lexical source for the applicative head
is predicative (a verb or an adposition):
Seen from a diachronic perspective, the applicative object was the object of
either a transitive verb or an adposition which governed it as an object. This
syntactic status is simply an aspect of its origin which is not lost when the ap-
plicative objects governing verb or adposition grammaticalizes as an applica-
tive marker. (Peterson 2007: 125)
In other words, the reanalyzed predicative element maintains a local relation

with its argument, but as an applicative morpheme, it neither selects the ar-
gument nor attributes a theta role to it. These functions are achieved through
merger as specifier of the applicative head.
(56) a. Nd-o-far-el-a Mukasa khali

1SG-PAST-hold-APPL-FV Mukasa pot
I held the pot for Mukasa (Luganda: Pylkknen 2002: 25)
b. ApplP
Mukasa Appl
Appl vP
-el-
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
In contrast, the Appl head in Latin is empty. We assume that the productive
morphological case-marking that existed in Latin made it possible for the head
to be devoid of overt morphological content.
(57) a. Sol omnibus lucet.

sun.NOM all.DAT shines
The sun shines for everyone. (Petronius, Satyricon, 100, in Van
Hoecke 1996: 7)
b. ApplP
omnibusDAT Appl
Appl vP

How do modern Romance languages fit into this picture considering that the
two structures proposed in (46) and (48) evolved from that in (57b)? We sug-
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
gest that while the lexical items which merge to form the high applicative pro-
jection in the Bantu languages are derived from a predicate and its complement,
those in Romance are derived from a probe and its goal.
The presumed first step in the diachronic change involves the loss of mor-
phological dative case marking on Latin DPs from the High Roman Empire
(Serbat 1996: 435) and the eventual replacement of dative-marked DPs by
PPs (hostibus ad hostes enemies). The consequences for the Latin ApplP
are significant. Since, as we have seen, an Appl head only selects an individual
as its argument, the Latin high ApplP can no longer serve to introduce a regular
DP. However, pronouns remain morphologically case marked and as such can
continue to act as applied arguments in Late Latin. This first step is illustrated
in (58).
(58) a. Classical Latin b. Late Latin

ApplP ApplP
DPDAT Appl pronounDAT Appl
Appl vP Appl vP

Assuming that the dative clitic forms in Romance are direct descendants of
the Latin dative pronouns, it is likely that the dative pronoun in the Spec,ApplP
(58b) was at some point reanalyzed as occupying the position of the Appl head,
giving rise to the generalized Romance ApplP proposed in (41a). The process
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
is illustrated in (59).17
(59) a. Late Latin b. Modern Romance

ApplP ApplP
pronounDAT Appl Appl
Appl vP Appl vP
clDAT
In clitic-doubling languages, PPs were reanalyzed as dative DPs and were con-
sequently able to merge in SpecApplP as an applied argument. In non-doubling
languages, PPs remained PPs, resulting in a significant redistribution of labour
between the applicative morpheme and the element occupying Spec,ApplP.
Given the referential properties of the dative clitic, it was able to absorb the
Case and theta role features of Appl and was also able to acquire reference
from the (extra)linguistic context. The clitic therefore took on the function of
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
both the Appl marker and the applied argument. The syntactically defined se-
lectional requirements of the applicative were satisfied, as they still are, by an
expletive operator.
5. Conclusion
The formal constraints on DCIs in the five Romance languages examined in

this paper provide evidence for the existence of two different types of gram-
mars based on whether or not the language permits clitic-doubling. In both
types, the DCI is generated as the head of an applicative projection. However,
the two types diverge based on the type of D-element that merges in the spec-
ifier of ApplP. In clitic-doubling languages (Romanian and Spanish), the DCI
essentially matches the Bantu and Latin-type applicative construction in that
lexical datives, as DPs, are merged in the specifier position of the applica-
tive phrase. The Appl head in doubling languages may also introduce a pro as
an applied argument, its reference recovered via the agree relation established
with the applied morpheme. In non-doubling languages (French, Portuguese,
Italian), the DCI functions quite differently. It may only occur in clitic form
as the head of the applied phrase, since lexical indirect objects are PPs, not
dative-marked DPs, and consequently may not merge in Spec,ApplP. A result
17. This is of course a possible, but not necessary evolution and is likely attributed to the cliti-
cization of the dative pronoun. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, when English lost
morphological dative case, the dative pronouns were not reanalyzed as verbal heads.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
of this restriction is that an expletive operator is merged in the specifier, binding

a VP-internal referential DP.
As for the diachronic scenario that lead to the observed split in Romance lan-
guages, we argue that the loss of morphological dative case marking on DPs
from the High Roman Empire had significant consequences for the Latin ap-
plicative construction in that it could no longer serve to introduce a regular DP
as an applied argument, only pronouns. These applied pronominal arguments
were eventually reanalyzed as the applied morpheme itself, occupying the head
of the projection and freeing up the specifier position for the merger of lexi-
cal dative-marked DPs, or, in the case of French, Portuguese, and Italian, an
expletive operator.
University of Toronto
yves.roberge@utoronto.ca
michelle.troberg@utoronto.ca
References
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
Authier, J.-Marc & Lisa Reed. 1992. Case theory, theta theory, and the distribution of French
affected datives. The Linguistic Review 9:4. 295311.
Borer, Hagit & Yosef Grodzinsky. 1986. Syntactic cliticisation and lexical cliticisation: The case
of Hebrew dative clitics. In Hagit Borer (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 19, 175217. New York:
Academic Press.
Butler, Alastair & ric Mathieu. 2004. Split-DPs, generalized EPP and visibility. In Martha McGin-
nis & Norvin Richards (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49. 4957. Cambridge,
Mass.: MITWPL.
Cardinaletti, Anna & Michal Stark. 1994. The typology of structural deficiency. On the three gram-
matical classes. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2). 41109.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michael &
Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89155. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in
language, 152. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cuervo, Mara Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, Mass., MIT.
de Andrade Berlinck, Rosane. 1996. The Portuguese dative. In William Van Belle & Willy Van
Langendonck (eds.), The dative, vol. 1, 119151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Diaconescu, Rodica. 2004. Romanian applicative constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Ottawa.
Ernout, Alfred & Franois Thomas. 1964. Syntaxe latine. 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck.
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2006. Benefactives arent Goals in Italian. In Jenny Doetjes & Paz
Gonzlez (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004, 121142. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Garcia, Maryellen. 1979. Spanish preverbal clitics: The affected entity construction. In James P.
Lantolf, Francine Wattman Frank & Jorge M. Guitart (eds.), Colloquium on Spanish and
Luso-Brasilian Linguistics, 4858. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser. 1987. A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers
10. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press.
Herschensohn. 1992. On the economy of Romance non-lexical datives. In Paul Hirschbhler &
Konrad Koerner (eds.), Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, 123134. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Herslund, Michael. 1988. Le datif en franais. Louvain: Peeters.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Jones, Michael Allan. 1996. Foundations of French syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jouitteau, Mlanie & Milan Rezac. 2007. The French ethical dative, 13 syntactic tests. Bucharest
Working Papers in Linguistics 9(1). 97108.
Lavency, Marius. 1997. Grammaire latine. 2nd edn. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Leclre, Christian. 1976. Datifs syntaxiques et datif thique. In Jean-Claude Chevalier & Maurice
Gross (eds.), Mthodes en grammaire franaise, 7396. Paris: Klincksieck.
Maurel, Jean-Pierre. 1982. Datifs libres et datifs lis en latin. Cahiers de Grammaire 4. 5992.
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the phrase structure of applicatives. Linguistic. Variation
Yearbook 1. 105146.
Miller, Philip. 1992. Clitics and constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. London: Garland.
Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pylkknen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral thesis, Cambridge, Mass., MIT.
Roberge, Yves & Michelle Troberg. 2007. Thematic indirect objects in French. Journal of French
Language Studies 17. 297322.
Author's Copy
Author's Copy
Roldn, Mercedes. 1972. Concerning Spanish datives and possessives. Language Sciences 21. 27
32.
Rooryck, Johan. 1988. Critres formels pour le datif non lexical en franais. Studia Neophilologica
60. 97107.
Rouveret, Alain & Jean-Roger Vernaud. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject: French
causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 97202.
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1982. Grammaire des insultes et autres tudes. Paris: Seuil.
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76:4.
859890.
Serbat, Guy. 1996. Grammaire fondamentale du latin, vol. 6: Lemploi des cas en latin. Louvain-
la-Neuve: Peeters.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.),
Phrase structure and the lexicon, 213276. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Van Hoecke, Willy. 1996. The Latin dative. In William Van Belle & Willy Van Langendoncke
(eds.), The dative, vol.1, 337. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vilela, Mrio. 1986. As categorias de objecto indirecto em portugus. In Morphosyntaxe des
langues romanes. Actes du XVII e congrs international de linguistique et philologie romanes,
vol.4, 139149. Aix-en-Provence: Publications Universit de Provence.
Woodcock, E.C. 1959. A new Latin syntax. London: Methuen.
Author's Copy

The High Applicative Syntax of The Dativus Commodi/incommodi in Romance

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The High Applicative Syntax of The Dativus Commodi/incommodi in Romance

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Author's Copy

The high applicative syntax of the dativus

YVES ROBERGE AND MICHELLE TROBERG

Dative benefactive/adversative arguments, also known as the dativus com-

Probus 21 (2009), 249289 09214771/09/021-0249

250 Yves Roberge and Michelle Troberg

The peculiar properties of the dativus commodi/incommodi (DCI) in Romance

Dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance 251

plicative argument does not appear to be subject to any formal restrictions.

1. The properties of high applicative arguments Bantu and Latin

1.1. High applicative arguments

Focusing on the question of how certain non-core arguments are introduced

(1) High applicative

applied argument DP Appl

252 Yves Roberge and Michelle Troberg

In contrast, low applicatives are individuals introduced by a functional head

applied argument DP Appl

Dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance 253

(4) a. I baked him a cake.2

1.2. The Latin DCI as a high applied argument

Interestingly, the Latin dativus commodi/incommodi, a non-core dative argu-

(5) a. Sol omnibus lucet.

254 Yves Roberge and Michelle Troberg

d. cibum tibi et familiae curet uti coctum

Note that Latin DCIs, like benefactive/malefactive arguments in Bantu, can

(6) a. DCIs in Latin

1.3. A note on the dativus ethicus

Dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance 255

(7) a. Quid mihi Celsus agit?

2. The DCI in Romance

This section illustrates the empirical generalization distinguishing the behav-

256 Yves Roberge and Michelle Troberg

in non-doubling languages, like French, Portuguese, and Italian, present two

(8) a. Les invits lui ont mang tout ce quil

Dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance 257

d. *Elmer a dvalis deux banques le mois

(9) Les enfants ont mang tout le gteau maman.

(10) a. Possessor dative

Since wh-movement only operates on XPs, a plausible assumption is that DCIs

258 Yves Roberge and Michelle Troberg

Similarly, the non-subcategorized lexical datives in (11) should not be treated

6. In this sense, Leclre (1976: 75) calls them extended datives.

(i) Je rdige la lettre / Je la rdige / la lettre que je rdige /

Dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance 259

2.1.2. Constraints on verb selection. In terms of verb selection, French DCIs

260 Yves Roberge and Michelle Troberg

b. Paul lui a bu trois pastis.

Dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance 261

2.1.3. Previous analyses. Herschensohn (1992) links the DCI to an empty

262 Yves Roberge and Michelle Troberg

2.2.1. Constraints on the form. European Portuguese speakers only accept

(19) a. O rapaz ps-lhe o livro na estante.

(i) Ele abre a porta aos convidados.

(ii) A quem que ele abre a porta? (recipient)

(iii) *?A quem que o rapaz traz a carta do Emanuel (DCI)

Dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance 263

c. *Ele ligou amavelmente a luz aos pais.

264 Yves Roberge and Michelle Troberg

In contrast, Portuguese DCIs are sharply infelicitous with unergative verbs

(24) a. Hoje, eu corri durante meia hora.

2.2.3. Previous analyses. Both de Andrade Berlinck (1996) and Vilela

Dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance 265

(27) a. I bambini hanno mangiato tutta la torta alla