Re: Double coding of Castilian datives

Javi wrote:
The term "dative" is not very useful describing modern Spanish.

Thanks to everyone who's replied so far. As often happens, people have
spent a lot of effort here arguing over use of terms. I suppose that
can't be avoided.

I imagine that this double coding only occurs with certain verbs such
as _gustar_ 'please', _faltar_ 'be absent' and _hacer falta_ 'be
needed'. These form a special syntactic class with the following
features:

A. The dative represents a notional experiencer of a state. If coded as
an overt nominal phrase it often (but not always) precedes the verb.

B. The subject represents a notional cause of a state. If coded as an
overt nominal phrase it usually follows the verb.

Does the
class have any other members?

Yes, certainly: "dar" and similars (as "regalar", "ofrecer", etc.),
"quitar" and similars, and probably many others, are more often than not
used with a double dative.

_Dar_, _ofrecer_ etc. don't sound like the class I decribed.

_Gustar_ and _faltar_ (hereinafter 'Class X') are verbs of state with
valence 2 (dative = experiencer, subject = something like cause) and an
unusual constituent order DVS (if D is an overt nominal phrase).

_Dar_ and _ofrecer_ (hereinafter 'Class Y') are verbs of giving with
valence 3 (subject = giver, object = thing given, dative = receiver)
and typically the usual SVO order (if O is an overt nominal phrase).

Both classes X and Y take 'real' datives, as opposed to patients which
happen to have gained the marker _a_ due to being specific and animate.

The picture I'm getting is something like this:

Double coding occurs only with 'real' datives, not patient/objects that
have taken _a_.

The use of double coding is very frequent (obligatory) with Class X
verbs, and frequent but not obligatory with Class Y verbs.

Does that make sense?

Are there any verbs that expect a 'real' dative relation, but don't fit
into my Class X or Class Y?

Thanks for everything,

Samuel

.

Quantcast