In this work I investigate the syntax and interpretation of two groups of spatial prepositions in Spanish: “small” Ps (e.g.
This paper addresses the syntax of two groups of spatial prepositions in Spanish. These prepositions have the property that they come in pairs, and both members of the pair are very often reported by native speakers to be equivalent in meaning. (1) below shows an example with the
(1)
a.
El
the
libro
book
está
is
bajo
under
la
the
mesa.
table
‘The book is under the table.’
b.
El
the
libro
book
está
is
debajo
de
of
la
the
mesa.
table
‘The book is under the table.’
(2)
a.
Juan
Juan
estaba
was
escondido
hidden
tras
behind
la
the
columna.
column
‘Juan was hidden behind the column.’
b.
Juan
Juan
estaba
was
escondido
hidden
detrás
de
of
la
the
columna.
column
‘Juan was hidden behind the column.’
(3)
a.
María
María
se
paró
stood
ante
front
la
the
catedral.
cathedral
‘María stood in front of the cathedral.’
b.
María
María
se
paró
stood
delante
de
of
la
the
catedral.
cathedral
‘María stood in front of the cathedral.’
It is clear that the Ps in the (a) and (b) examples in (1)–(3) above have a different morphological make-up. In the (a) examples the Ps (
The purpose of this work is twofold. In the first place, I show that in spite of the apparent synonymy between the (a) and (b) examples in (1)–(3), there are several contexts and syntactic environments in which the differences between small and big Ps come to light. In the second place, I propose that all the differences we observe can be explained if we postulate that the Ps in (a) and (b) project different structures. In other words, the contribution made by this work is both empirical and theoretical.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 I present the first syntactic asymmetry between small and big Ps. I show that a bare nominal (e.g.
In this section I analyze the behavior of small and big Ps with respect to bare nominals. First, I review some general observations made about the distribution of bare nominals in Spanish inside the clause. I show how these facts are best captured if we assume, following Cuervo (
It has been widely observed in the literature (
(4)
a.
Tus
your
amigos
friends.
trajeron
brought
vino/
wine.
copas.
wine-glasses.
‘Your friends brought wine/wine glasses.’
b.
*Vino
wine.
es
is
bueno
good
para
for
la
the
salud.
health
‘Wine is good for the health.’
(5)
a.
Cayeron
fell
amigos.
friends.
‘(Some) friends dropped by.’
b.
*Amigos
friends.
cayeron.
fell
‘(Some) friends dropped by.’
(6)
a.
Fue
was
encontrado
found
petróleo
oil.
en
in
Jamaica.
Jamaica
‘Oil was found in Jamaica.’
b.
*?Petróleo
oil.
fue
was
encontrado
found
en
in
Jamaica.
Jamaica
‘Oil was found in Jamaica.’
The contrast between (4a) and (4b) shows that the restriction on bare nominals applies to subjects (4b) and not to objects (4a). The examples with unaccusatives and passives, in (5) and (6) respectively, show, furthermore, that the restriction applies to a subset of subjects, namely, preverbal ones. As we can see from the facts in (5) and (6), the sentences are grammatical if the bare nominal subjects
The observation that bare nominals cannot appear as preverbal subjects is captured by Suñer (
| (7) | |
| An unmodified common noun in preverbal position cannot be the surface subject of a sentence under conditions of normal stress and intonation. | |
| ( |
However, as Cuervo (
In (8) below we see an example where the bare nominal
(8)
a.
*Chicos
kids.
festejaron.
celebrated
‘Kids celebrated.’
b.
*Festejaron
celebrated
chicos.
kids.
‘Kids celebrated.’
c.
Los
the
chicos
kids.
festejaron.
celebrated
‘The kids celebrated.’
d.
Festejaron
celebrated
los
the
chicos.
kids.
‘The kids celebrated.’
In (8a)
Apart from this, there is a set of facts that is simply not covered by (7). This is the case of bare nominals as the subject of small clauses, an example of which is given in (9) (example from
(9)
*Tu
your
amiga
friend
consideraba
considered
interesantes
interesting
películas.
movies.
(Cf. las películas)
‘Your friend used to consider movies to be interesting.’
In (9) we can see that a bare nominal like
Cuervo proposes the following formulation to explain the bare nominal facts.
| (10) | |
| An unmodified common noun cannot be an A-specifier. ( |
Let’s now briefly review how the new formulation in (10) captures the bare nominal facts presented in this section. The bare nominals
In the next section I discuss the asymmetric behavior of small and big Ps in their ability to allow bare nominals. Following (10), I argue that this asymmetry is explained if the nominal that follows a small P (e.g.
As mentioned in section 1, it is a well-known fact that most varieties of Spanish display pairs of locative prepositions like the ones shown in the (a) and (b) examples below (examples (1)–(3) are repeated as (11)–(13)).
(11)
a.
El
the
libro
book
está
is
bajo
under
la
the
mesa.
table
‘The book is under the table.’
b.
El
the
libro
book
está
is
debajo
de
of
la
the
mesa.
table
‘The book is under the table.’
(12)
a.
Juan
Juan
estaba
was
escondido
hidden
tras
behind
la
the
columna.
column
‘Juan was hidden behind the column.’
b.
Juan
Juan
estaba
was
escondido
hidden
detrás
de
of
la
the
columna.
column
‘Juan was hidden behind the column.’
(13)
a.
María
María
se
paró
stood
ante
front
la
the
catedral.
cathedral
‘María stood in front of the cathedral.’
b.
María
María
se
paró
stood
delante
de
of
la
the
catedral.
cathedral
‘María stood in front of the cathedral.’
It is interesting to note that an unmodified bare nominal such as
(14)
El
the
pirata
pirate
escondió
hid
el
the
tesoro
treasure
bajo
under
tierra.
earth
‘The pirate hid the treasure underground.’
However, this is not the case for all Ps. A bare nominal cannot be the complement of a big P like
(15)
*El
the
pirata
pirate
escondió
hid
el
the
tesoro
treasure
debajo
de
of
tierra.
earth
‘The pirate hid the treasure underground.’
It appears to be the case, furthermore, that the difference in the availability vs. unavailability of bare nominals is not unique to the
(16)
a.
La
the
ciudad
city
estaba
was
enterrada
buried
bajo
under
nieve.
snow
‘The city was buried in snow.’
b.
*La
the
ciudad
city
estaba
was
enterrada
buried
debajo
de
of
nieve.
snow
‘The city was buried in snow.’
(17)
a.
Había
have.
personas
people
escondidas
hidden
tras
behind
muros.
walls
‘There were people hidden behind walls.’
b.
?Había
have.
personas
people
escondidas
hidden
detrás
de
of
muros.
walls
‘There were people hidden behind walls.’
(18)
a.
Me
gusta
like
pintar
paint.
sobre
on
madera.
wood
‘I like to paint on wood.’
b.
*Me
gusta
like
pintar
paint.
encima
on.top
de
of
madera.
wood
‘I like to paint on wood.’
What the data in (14)–(18) show is that whereas a bare nominal is possible as the complement of a small P like
| (19) | |
| An unmodified common noun cannot be an A-specifier. ( |
Specifically, I propose that bare nominals are banned in the Spanish PPs in the (b) examples in (16)–(18) for exactly the same reason that they are banned inside the clause: unmodified bare nominals cannot be A-specifiers. This amounts to saying that the nominal that follows a small P like
(20)
(21)
In the following section I motivate the structures in (20) and (21). Building on work by Terzi (
Authors like Terzi (
One of the main pieces of evidence that leads Terzi (
(22)
Stathika
stood-1
piso
behind
tis.
she-
‘I stood behind her.’
(23)
Kathomun
was.sitting-1
epano
on
tu.
he-
‘I was sitting on him.’
As genitive case appears primarily on the complement of nominals in Modern Greek, this seems to constitute strong evidence that a nominal element of some kind is involved in these structures.
Once having established the existence of a nominal in the structure of locative Ps, Terzi points out that there is a strong parallelism between adjectives and locative Ps. This leads her to propose that locative Ps are not themselves nouns, as has been argued for in the literature (
Terzi then extends her analysis of Greek locative Ps to Spanish locative Ps, and suggests that locative Ps in Spanish can also be argued to contain an unpronounced PLACE noun. The presence of this unpronounced noun is responsible for the “nominal flavor” of these Ps, an observation that has very often been reported in the literature, but that has never received a satisfactory explanation. Specifically, Terzi points out that the presence of silent PLACE might explain, among other things, why a locative PP headed by
(24)
El
the
gato
cat
me
espiaba
was.spying
desde
from
debajo
de
of
la
the
mesa.
table
‘The cat was spying on me from under the table.’
(25)
Venía
was.coming
un
a
hombre
man
detrás
mío.
mine
‘A man was coming behind me.’
The analysis that Terzi arrives at is the one shown in simplified form in (26) below.
(26)
My analysis of small and big Ps in Spanish will considerably build on Terzi’s analysis of Greek and Spanish locative Ps. My proposal will, however, differ from hers in certain important respects. I will assume with Terzi that it is necessary to postulate a silent noun PLACE in the structure of locative Ps. However, although Terzi suggests that silent PLACE is present in the complement of all locative Ps, I will propose that it is present in the complement of big Ps (e.g.
(27)
?El
the
gato
cat
me
espiaba
was.spying
desde
from
bajo
under
la
the
mesa.
table
‘The cat was spying on me from under the table.’
(28)
*Venía
was.coming
un
a
hombre
man
tras
behind
mío.
mine
‘A man was coming behind me.’
I will therefore propose that there is a silent noun PLACE in the complement of big Ps but not in the complement of small Ps.
Another important point in which my analysis will differ from Terzi’s is that I will not assume that the locative is a modifier of silent PLACE. I will propose rather that it is a P head, the head of PPLoc in (25)/(26), selecting either a Possessor-Possessum structure (in the case of big Ps) or a single DP (in the case of small Ps). The reason for this is that although a locative-as-modifier analysis may be justified for Modern Greek, there is in principle no evidence that points in this direction for Spanish. As adjectives are the only words that can modify a noun directly in Spanish, I assume that under a locative-as-modifier analysis this is what locative Ps would need to be considered. However, small and big Ps in Spanish do not exhibit adjectival properties. For one thing, they do not allow comparatives and degree words, as shown in the examples below.
(29)
a.
Pusimos
put.
los
the
estantes
shelves
sobre
over
la
the
mesada.
counter
‘We put the shelves above the counter.’
b.
*Pusimos
put.
los
the
estantes
shelves
very
sobre
over
la
the
mesada
counter
‘We put the shelves too high up above the counter.’
c.
*Pusimos
put.
un
a
estante
shelf
more
sobre
above
la
the
mesada
counter
than
the
other
‘We put one shelf higher above the counter than the other one.’
(30)
a.
Juan
Juan
se
paró
stood
detrás
de
of
la
the
columna.
column
‘Juan stood behind the column.’
b.
*Juan
Juan
se
paró
stood
very
detrás
de
of
la
the
columna.
column
‘Juan stood a considerable distance behind the column.’
c.
*Juan
Juan
se
paró
stood
more
detrás
de
of
la
the
columna
column
than
Pedro.
‘Juan stood further behind the column than Pedro.’
In short, I have shown that at least in Spanish locative Ps do not exhibit adjectival properties.
To summarize this section, in this work I propose an analysis where small and big Ps project different structures. For big Ps like
(31)
(32)
In this section I analyze two other syntactic asymmetries exhibited by small and big Ps: namely, the (un)availability of coordination and adverb intervenetion facts. I argue that these otherwise puzzling phenomena can receive a natural explanation if we assume the structures proposed in this work. In section 4 I discuss the interpretative contrasts: in particular, the availability of (non-)locative meanings and the (non-)delimited interpretation of the nominal.
One surprising contrast between small and big Ps is that whereas coordination of the complement of a big P is perfectly grammatical, coordination of the complement of a small P is considerably degraded, as illustrated in (33a) and (33b), respectively.
(33)
a.
Hay
have.
migas
breadcrumbs
debajo
[de
of
la
the
cama
bed
y
and
de
of
la
the
mesa].
table
‘There are breadcrumbs under the bed and the table.’
b.
*?Hay
have.
migas
breadcrumbs
bajo
under
[la
the
cama
bed
y
and
la
the
mesa].
table
‘There are breadcrumbs under the bed and the table.’
What makes this set of data particularly puzzling is the fact that phrases like
(34)
a.
[La
the
cama
bed
y
and
la
the
mesa]
table
están
are
en
in
el
the
depósito.
warehouse
[subject]
‘The bed and the table are in the warehouse.’
b.
Tenemos
have.
que
that
lustrar
polish.
[la
the
cama
bed
y
and
la
the
mesa].
table
[object]
‘We have to polish the bed and the table.’
The unavailability of coordination in (33b) remains, therefore, somewhat of a mystery.
Interestingly, Demonte (
(35)
*Visité
visited.1
A
[mi
my
hermana
sister
y
and
la
the
tía
aunt
Enriqueta].
Enriqueta
‘I visited my sister and Aunt Enriqueta.’
Compare this with the following grammatical sentence.
(36)
Visité
visited.1
[
A
mi
my
hermana]
sister
y
and
[
A
la
the
tía
aunt
Enriqueta].
Enriqueta
‘I visited my sister and Aunt Enriqueta.’
Demonte (
With this observation in mind, I suggest that the ungrammaticality of (33b) receives the same explanation as the ungrammaticality of (35). In other words, I propose that in the complement of
As discussed in section 2, Ps like
To be concrete, what I propose is that a small PP like
(37)
I further propose that this null Case-assigner is affixal in nature and needs to attach to an appropriate host. I take PLoc to be such a host. In the example above,
(38)
It is worth pointing out that the analysis of the null Case-assigner proposed here builds on Pesetsky’s (
| (39) | (?)It was widely believed [CP C [IP he liked linguistics]] |
| (40) | *[CP C [IP He liked linguistics]] was widely believed. |
In (39), null C incorporates into V. However, (40) is ruled out because in this structure null C would be moving out of an island (specifically, a subject). The parallelism between null K and null C will be taken up again at the end of this section.
I now go on to show how, with these two assumptions in mind (namely, that there is a Case-assigner in the structure of Ps, and that this Case-assigner needs to attach to a host), the mystery of the ungrammaticality of (33b) suddenly dissolves. Example (33b) is repeated below as (41).
(41)
*?Hay
have.
migas
breadcrumbs
bajo
under
[la
the
cama
bed
y
and
la
the
mesa].
table
‘There are breadcrumbs under the bed and the table.’
As mentioned before, it has been observed (
(42)
(43)
As the structure in (43) is not possible (because, as was mentioned above, Case-assigners cannot be omitted in coordinate structures) we are simply going to disregard it.
With the ungrammaticality of (41) now explained, let’s take a brief look at (33a), the big P counterpart of (33b), repeated here as (44).
(44)
Hay
have.
migas
breadcrumbs
debajo
[
of
la
the
cama
bed
y
and
of
la
the
mesa].
table
‘There are breadcrumbs under the bed and the table.’
Example (44) does not of itself tell us anything interesting about the structure of big Ps. Its grammaticality is fully expected, as coordination of elements of the same category (with the exception precisely of the nominals mentioned in this section) is assumed to be possible. However, notice that (45) is ungrammatical, on a par with (41) and (35).
(45)
*Hay
have.
migas
breadcrumbs
debajo
of
[la
the
cama
bed
y
and
la
the
mesa].
table
‘There are breadcrumbs under the bed and the table.’
The ungrammaticality of (45) is more interesting because it seems to confirm the intuition that
Finally, it is important to point out that the asymmetry in coordination facts exhibited by the
(46)
a.
?Juan
Juan
se
paró
stood
ante
front
[la
the
catedral
cathedral
y
and
la
the
casa
house
de
of
gobierno].
government
‘Juan stood in front of the cathedral and the house of government.’
b.
Juan
Juan
se
paró
stood
delante
[de
of
la
the
catedral
cathedral
y
and
de
of
la
the
casa
house
de
of
gobierno].
government
‘Juan stood in front of the cathedral and the house of government.’
(47)
a.
?Apoyó
placed.3
el
the
bolso
bag
sobre
on
[el
the
dibujo
drawing
y
and
la
the
tarjeta].
card
‘He/she placed the bag on the drawing and the card.’
b.
Apoyó
placed.3
el
the
bolso
bag
encima
on.top
[del
of.the
dibujo
drawing
y
and
de
of
la
the
tarjeta].
card
‘He/she placed the bag on top of the drawing and the card.’
In sum, the structures we end up with for small and big Ps (with the addition of the KP layer argued for here) are the ones schematized in (48) and (49) below.
(48)
(49)
Before closing this section, I would like to point out a welcome consequence that follows from the structures in (48) and (49). I proposed earlier that both the nominal selected by a small P and the nominal selected by a big P were KPs. I postulated that in small PPs K was null and affixal and I pointed out that in big PPs K was overt (in this latter case, spelled out as
(50)
a.
El
the
libro
book
está
is
debajo
de
of
la
the
mesa.
table
‘The book is under the table.’
b.
*El
the
libro
book
está
is
debajo
la
the
mesa.
table
‘The book is under the table.’
This brings us back again to the parallel between null K and null C mentioned earlier in this section. The claim made here is that the ill-formedness of (50b) receives the same explanation as the ill-formedness of (40) (repeated as (51) below): both involve movement out of an island.
| (51) | *He liked linguistics was widely believed. |
I will now present data that shows that when an adverb intervenes between a small P and its complement the sentence is ungrammatical, but when an adverb intervenes between a big P and its complement the sentence is acceptable to some speakers and unacceptable to others. I argue, once again, that these facts constitute evidence in favor of the structures presented in this work.
Consider the following:
(52)
a.
Hay
have.
migas
breadcrumbs
bajo
under
(*
probably
la
the
cama.
bed
‘There are probably breadcrumbs under the bed.’
b.
Hay
have.
migas
breadcrumbs
debajo
(%
probably
de
of
la
the
cama.
bed
‘There are probably breadcrumbs under the bed.’
What we can see from the facts above is that an adverb like
(53)
a.
Juan
Juan
se
escondió
hid
tras
behind
(*
probably
la
the
columna.
column
‘Juan probably hid behind the column.’
b.
Juan
Juan
se
escondió
hid
detrás
(%
probably
de
of
la
the
columna.
column
‘Juan probably hid behind the column.’
(54)
a.
Deberíamos
should.1
pararnos
stand.
ante
front
(*
perhaps
la
the
estatua
statue
de
of
mármol.
marble
‘We should perhaps stand in front of the marble statue.’
b.
Deberíamos
should.1
pararnos
stand.
delante
(%
perhaps
de
of
la
the
estatua
statue
de
of
mármol.
marble
‘We should perhaps stand in front of the marble statue.’
What I suggest here is that these facts can be easily accommodated if we assume the structures for small and big Ps proposed so far, and a general restriction on adjunction, such as McCloskey’s Adjunction Prohibition (
McCloskey (
| (55) | a. | |
| b. | I would |
However, these adverbs cannot appear to the left of the complementizer when they modify material inside the embedded clause. The examples below are all ungrammatical if the adverbial is construed with the lower clause (examples from
| (56) | a. | * |
| b. | *She swore |
McCloskey thus schematizes this observation in the following way.
(57)
(58)
(59)
What the representations above show is that while adjunction to the VP complement of T (57) and adjunction to the TP complement of C (58) are possible, adjunction to the CP complement of V (59) is not. To capture these facts, McCloskey posits the following restriction on adjunction, which he labels the Adjunction Prohibition.
| (60) | |
| Adjunction to a phrase which is s-selected by a lexical (open class) head is ungrammatical. ( |
I now go on to show how the Adjunction Prohibition can help us account for the different possibilities of adjunction for small and big Ps.
Let’s go back to the data in (52a) and (52b), repeated below as (61a) and (61b), and see how the Adjunction Prohibition can shed light on the patterns we observe.
(61)
a.
Hay
have.
migas
breadcrumbs
bajo
under
(*
probably
la
the
cama.
bed
‘There are probably breadcrumbs under the bed.’
b.
Hay
have.
migas
breadcrumbs
debajo
(%
probably
de
of
la
the
cama.
bed
‘There are probably breadcrumbs under the bed.’
According to the structure we proposed for small Ps, in (61a)
(62)
Here,
In (61b), there should be two possible sites of attachment for
(63)
a.
b.
In (63a)
Another important respect in which small and big Ps differ is that small Ps may give rise to PPs with a non-locative reading, whereas this is hardly ever the case for big Ps. The examples below illustrate this asymmetry. Example (64) shows this contrast for
(64)
Estos
these
chicos
kids
están
are
*debajo
de/bajo
of/under
mi
my
responsabilidad.
responsibility
‘These kids are under my responsibility.’
(65)
Nicolás
Nicolás
decidió
decided
seguir
follow.
*detrás
de/tras
of/behind
los
the
pasos
steps
de
of
su
his
padre.
father
‘Nicolás decided to follow in his father’s footsteps.’
(66)
Nos
quedamos
remained
sin
without
palabras
words
*delante
de/ante
of/ front
su
his
generosidad.
generosity
‘His generosity left us speechless.’
This contrast can be explained if big PPs have in their structure a silent PLACE element.
There is another interesting respect in which small and big Ps differ. Although speakers typically report no difference in meaning between sentences like (67a) and (67b), they do report a contrast between the (a) and (b) examples in (68)–(69).
(67)
a.
Se
paró
stood
bajo
under
el
the
toldo.
canopy
‘He/she stood under the canopy.’
b.
Se
paró
stood
debajo
del
of.the
toldo.
canopy
‘He/she stood under the canopy.’
(68)
a.
Nos
acostamos
lay
a
to
descansar
rest.
bajo
under
el
the
sol.
sun
‘We lay down to rest in the sun.’
b.
#Nos
acostamos
lay
a
to
descansar
rest.
debajo
del
of.the
sol.
sun
‘We lay down to rest right underneath the sun.’
(69)
a.
Me
gusta
like
dormir
sleep.
bajo
under
las
the
estrellas.
stars
‘I like to sleep under the stars.’
b.
#Me
gusta
like
dormir
sleep.
debajo
de
of
las
the
estrellas.
stars
‘I like to sleep right underneath the stars.’
The (b) examples in (68) and (69) are not ungrammatical but are semantically anomalous. The only contexts in which sentences like (68b) or (69b) would be acceptable would be, for instance, in a situation in which there is a fake sun and fake stars and the speaker decides to lie right under them (as in, for instance, the case of glow-in-the-dark stars and a glow-in-the-dark sun in a child’s room). The intuition seems to be that for the (b) sentences to be felicitous, the Figure (the speaker’s body in (68b)) and the Ground (the sun in (68b)) need to be somehow aligned. In other words, it looks like the big P examples necessarily give rise to a more ‘punctual’ reading of the Ground. The nominal has to be understood as having clearly defined boundaries; it has to be interpreted as delimited. In contrast, in the small P examples the Ground can receive a non-delimited interpretation.
(70)
a.
Juan
Juan
se
paró
stood
ante
front
el
the
lindísimo
nice.
paisaje.
landscape
‘Juan stood before the beautiful landscape.’
b.
#Juan
Juan
se
paró
stood
delante
del
of.the
lindísimo
nice.
paisaje
landscape
‘Juan stood before the beautiful landscape.’
(71)
a.
Hay
have.
escarcha
frost
sobre
on
la
the
pradera.
prairie
‘There’s frost on the prairie.’
b.
#Hay
have.
escarcha
frost
encima
on.top
de
of
la
the
pradera.
prairie
‘There’s frost on the prairie.’
Sentence (70a) can normally describe a situation in which Juan stands before a beautiful landscape. (70b), on the other hand, requires a very specific context. It would be acceptable, for instance, if Juan is standing before a poster or a painting depicting a landscape, but would sound odd otherwise. In a similar fashion, whereas (71a) typically describes a situation in which there is frost on a prairie, (71b) seems to imply that the frost is on a prairie that is not real, such as the one on a drawing or a board game. In other words, what examples (70) and (71) appear to confirm is that in a big PP the nominal is necessarily interpreted as being “delimited” (i.e. as having clearly defined boundaries). Note that if the nominal already describes a surface that is delimited, no contrast arises between the pairs, as expected. This can be seen in the following example with the nominal
(72)
Hay
have.
escarcha
frost
encima
on.top
de/sobre
of/on
la
the
mesa.
table
‘There is frost on the table.’
The question of course is why this contrast should arise. In other words, why is it that big Ps force a delimited reading of the nominal, while small Ps do not? I believe these facts can receive an explanation if we assume the structures for small and big Ps proposed in this work. What I suggest, specifically, is that the interpretative effect that we observe here is a direct consequence of the fact that the nominal is a possessor in the case of big Ps, but not in the case of small Ps. I believe taking a quick look at possessors in dative constructions may throw some light on this matter. In the next subsection I go on a brief excursus and make some independent observations about the behavior of possessors in dative constructions in Spanish. After the excursus, I come back and discuss the examples presented in this section.
As Cuervo (
(73)
Pablo
Pablo
le
mandó
sent
un
a
diccionario
dictionary
a
to
Gabi.
Gabi
‘Pablo sent Gabi a dictionary.’
(74)
Pablo
Pablo
le
puso
put
azúcar
sugar
al
to.the
mate.
mate
‘Pablo put sugar in the mate.’ (Lit. ‘Pablo put the mate sugar.’)
In this excursus I do not go into the specifics of Cuervo’s analysis of datives. I simply bring to light an observation that she makes when discussing recipient datives like (74) which I believe is relevant to our understanding of the behavior of small and big Ps.
Cuervo suggests that the general condition for a dative goal is that it should be able to be interpreted as a recipient or intended possessor. This would explain why, although both (75) and (76) are perfectly grammatical, there is a contrast between (77) and (78) (example (74) is repeated as (77)).
(75)
Pablo
Pablo
puso
put
azúcar
sugar
en
in
el
the
mate.
mate.
‘Pablo put sugar in the mate.’
(76)
Pablo
Pablo
puso
put
azúcar
sugar
en
on
la
the
mesa.
table.
‘Pablo put sugar on the table,’
(77)
Pablo
Pablo
le
puso
put
azúcar
sugar
al
to.the
mate.
mate
‘Pablo put sugar in the mate.’ (Lit. ‘Pablo put the mate sugar.’)
(78)
#Pablo
Pablo
le
puso
put
azúcar
sugar
a
to
la
the
mesa.
table
‘Pablo put sugar on the table.’ (Lit. ‘Pablo put the table sugar.’)
Cuervo argues that the contrast between (77) and (78) arises because the sugar becomes part of the mate when added to it, but it cannot become part of the table. In other words, the reason why the sentence comes out anomalous is that, unlike the mate, the table is not a likely recipient or intended possessor for the sugar. The fact that
(79)
El
the
mate
mate
tiene
has
azúcar.
sugar
‘The mate has sugar in it.’
(80)
#La
the
mesa
table
tiene
has
azúcar.
sugar
‘There’s sugar on the table.’
Although this observation seems to me to be correct, there is a contrast that still remains unexplained. Consider (81) and (82).
(81)
Los
the
pescadores
fishermen
tiraron
threw
petróleo
oil
en
in
el
the
mar.
sea
‘The fishermen poured oil into the sea.’
(82)
#Los
the
pescadores
fishermen
le
tiraron
threw
petróleo
oil
al
to.the
mar.
sea
‘The fishermen poured oil into the sea.’ (Lit. ‘The fishermen poured the sea oil.’)
In the situation described in (81) above, the oil
What appears to bring about the anomaly is that the sea is non-delimited, it is unbounded, and that for some reason unbounded entities do not make good possessors. That the non-delimited nature of the possessor is what seems to be at issue appears to be confirmed by the grammaticality of (84) below.
(83)
Juan
Juan
tiró
threw
cloro
chlorine
en
in
la
the
pileta.
swimming-pool.
‘Juan poured chlorine into the swimming pool.’
(84)
Juan
Juan
le
tiró
threw
cloro
chlorine
a
to
la
the
pileta.
swimming-pool
‘Juan poured chlorine into the swimming pool.’ (Lit. ‘Juan poured the swimming-pool chlorine.’)
The situation described by (84) is almost identical to the one described in (82): in both cases an element dissolves in a liquid and becomes part of it. The only difference between (84) and (82), which both contain the clitic
(85)
#El
the
mar
sea
tiene
has
petróleo.
oil
‘There is oil in the sea.’
In contrast,
(86)
La
the
pileta
swimming-pool
tiene
has
cloro.
chlorine.
‘The swimming-pool has chlorine.’
If the intuition that possessors need to be delimited is on the right track, then this may explain the examples (68)–(71) presented at the beginning of this subsection. I have repeated example (68) as (87) for ease of exposition.
(87)
a.
Nos
acostamos
lay
a
to
descansar
rest.
bajo
under
el
the
sol.
sun
‘We lay down to rest in the sun.’
b.
#Nos
acostamos
lay
a
to
descansar
rest.
debajo
del
of.the
sol.
sun
‘We lay down to rest right underneath the sun.’
A possible hypothesis is that the anomaly of (87b) (and (69b), (70b), and (71b), for that matter) might be attributed to some kind of semantic clash between the non-delimitedness expressed by the nominals in these examples (
An interesting question which arises at this point is why the incompatibility between possessors and non-delimitedness (or unboundedness) should exist. It is likely that the answer to this question lies in the type of possession involved here. I would like to suggest that all of these instances of possession have the following in common: they express part-whole relationships, with the possessor being conceptualized as “the whole” and the possessum as one of its parts, in the sense of Hornstein, Rosen & Uriagereka (
In this article, I introduced a series of syntactic and interpretative asymmetries between small and big Ps, and showed how each of these asymmetries supported a different analysis for small and big Ps. In this final section, I review what part of our analysis it is that each piece of evidence discussed in the previous sections supports and show how all the pieces of the jigsaw put together confirm the structures proposed.
In section 2, I provided evidence that the nominal in the structure of a small PP is a complement and that the nominal in the structure of a big PP is a specifier. Two pieces of evidence seem to provide support for this claim. The first piece of evidence comes from the distribution of bare nominals. I pointed out that Cuervo proposed that bare nominals were banned from A-specifier positions in the clause in Spanish. I argued that the fact that bare nominals were not possible in the structure of big Ps but were possible in the structure of small Ps was a direct consequence of this fact: the nominal in the structure of a small P was a complement but the nominal in the structure of a big Ps was an A-specifier. The coordination facts presented in section 3.1 provide support for this specifier versus complement status of the nominal. In this section, I proposed that the complement of a small P was a KP. This led to a unified analysis of both the nominal in small and big PPs as KPs, the difference being that in the case of small PPs, K is null, whereas in the case of big PPs, K is overt (and spelled out as
I also provided evidence that shows that the structure of a big P is more complex than the structure of a small P. In section 3.2 I discussed adverb intervention facts. I pointed out that when an adverb such as
In section 4.1 I discussed the presence versus absence of locative readings. I pointed out that big PPs are forced to have a locative interpretation, whereas small PPs can have locative or non-locative readings. I proposed that the obligatory locative reading was a direct consequence of the presence of silent PLACE: as silent PLACE is present in the structure of big PPs, these PPs necessarily have a locative interpretation. As small PPs do not have a silent PLACE element as part of their structure, the locative interpretation is not forced on them.
In section 4.2 I observed that the nominal in the complement of big Ps has to be understood as delimited. In contrast, the nominal in the complement of a small P can be interpreted as delimited, but it can also receive a non-delimited interpretation. I made some independent observations about possessors in dative constructions and drew attention to the fact that in these structures there is also a requirement that the possessor should be interpreted as delimited. I therefore attributed this delimitedness effect to the fact that the nominal in big PPs is a possessor, the possessor of silent PLACE, whereas there is no possessor in the structure of small Ps.
To sum up, the evidence gathered seems to show that: (A) the structure of big PPs is more complex than the structure of small PPs; (B) the nominal in the complement of big Ps is a specifier, whereas the nominal in the complement of small Ps is not; (C) the structure of big Ps, unlike the structure of small Ps, contains a silent PLACE element; (D) the nominal in the structure of big PPs is a possessor, whereas the nominal in the structure of small PPs is not. These are precisely the structures I proposed in this work.
There are of course many questions which remain. One important question to address is why big Ps (e.g.
Another important question is the following: Why can the complement of big Ps be omitted
There are also two other interesting contrasts between small and big Ps not addressed in this work. One of them has to do with the fact that whereas an animate DP can be the complement of a big P, as in for instance,
Finally, I would like to point out that the contrasts exhibited by small and big Ps also seem to be exhibited by other pairs of Ps such as
1 = first person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person,
The glossing of many of the examples in this work has not been an easy task. The reason for this is that most of the Spanish morphemes that make up the Ps that are the object of this paper do not have an obvious equivalent in the glossing language, English. In the case of roots (e.g.
Related to footnote 1, another complication arises with the glossing of the morpheme
Although small Ps (e.g.
The label “A-specifier” stands for “Argumental specifier.” This term is used to designate an argument that merges as the specifier of the head that selects it as opposed to merging as its complement. For example, in a sentence like
One reason that leads Cuervo (
As is expected from the behavior of bare nominals in general, examples like (15) tend to become considerably better if the bare nominal is modified or coordinated, as shown below.
(i) debajo de of tierra earth muy very húmeda moist ‘under very moist earth’
(ii) debajo de of tierra earth y and arena sand ‘under earth and sand’
Although the Ps in the
Note that whereas *
An objection that might be raised to the data in (14)–(18) is that the small P + bare nominal strings presented here constitute lexicalized phrases of some kind. There is strong evidence, however, that this is not the case. For instance, lexicalized phrases like
In (21) the P
An anonymous reviewer draws attention to the fact that when the nominal that is the complement of the P is replaced by a possessive pronoun, the possessive pronoun always surfaces in the masculine singular, independently of the gender and number of the nominal it replaces.
(i) debajo de of la the. mesa table.
(ii) debajo [
As the reviewer points out, these facts, also discussed in Fábregas (
Under Terzi’s analysis the [QP/NP
Inside the QP/NP
It is important to mention that the idea that some locative Ps select a complement with silent PLACE whereas others do not is entertained but later on dismissed by Terzi (
This sentence has a grammatical reading under which the speaker is not comparing how far behind the column Pedro and Juan are, but is comparing, rather, whose position can be better described as ‘being behind the column.’ In other words, the interpretation would correspond to something like ‘Juan stood more properly behind the column than Pedro.’ Under this reading,
An anonymous reviewer mentions that, in the context of a marathon, it would be felicitous to utter sentences like the those below.
(i) Juan Juan se paró stood very detrás del of.the pelotón group de of entrada. entry ‘Juan stood very much behind the group at the entrance.’
(ii) Juan Juan se paró stood more detrás del of.the pelotón group than Pedro ‘Juan stood further back behind the group than Pedro.’
According to what the reviewer suggests, in these examples
An anonymous reviewer points out that while a sentence like (35) is ungrammatical if it describes two events, it becomes grammatical if it describes a single event. In other words, (35) is possible if, for example, my sister and Aunt Enriqueta live together and a single visit is involved. However, the focus of the discussion in the text is the two-event-reading, the one that renders the omission of
I am assuming here a Conjunction-as-head analysis, following work by Thiersch (
As stated above, this structure is impossible for (41). For the availability of this structure for other PPs under specific circumstances, see footnote 23.
For a very interesting discussion regarding how extraction is possible out of KPs in Spanish but impossible out of lexical PPs see Jiménez-Fernández (
As mentioned in the main text, there would not be a single KP but rather coordination of KPs in the case of sentences like (33a) and (33b).
An anonymous reviewer points out that, just as was the case with (35) Visité
Note that we have an explanation for the grammaticality of (50a) and for the ungrammaticality of (50b). We have also provided an explanation for the availability of
Note that I do not suggest that adjunction to DP is another possibility. In other words, I do not propose the following structure as another option for the attachment of the adverbial in (61a):
The following appears to be an exception to the claim that big Ps do not give rise to a non-locative interpretation:
Also worth noting (thanks to an anonymous reviewer) is the fact that the big P
If it is true that small PPs do not contain a silent PLACE element as part of their structure, and if it is also true that silent PLACE is responsible for the locative interpretation of PPs, then we still need to explain where the locative interpretation comes from when small PPs such as
Note that although the sun is in itself an entity with delimited boundaries, in expressions like
The reader may have noticed that if it is true that possessors indeed have to be delimited, then the ban on bare nominals as the complement of big Ps (e.g. *
For arguments in favor of the existence of a Possessive Phrase inside Hungarian PPs see Dékány (
I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this line of analysis.
I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for bringing this example with a genitive pronoun to my attention.
I thank Christina Tortora for her help and feedback during all the stages of this research. This article would not have been possible without her constant guidance and support. I am also grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions. All errors are mine.
The author has no competing interests to declare.