Dative arguments
The point is to be aware that Spanish relies on a highly productive process called
‘incorporation of dative arguments’, which doesn´t exist in English. This device allows
speakers to add an affected participant to an event expressed originally by an intransitive or
transitive verb thereby speakers maintain the basic meaning of the verb while enriching it in
different but similar ways. So, it is an ingenious device that keeps the basic meaning of a
word while it is expanded, that is, we describe with one word different but related
meanings.
An appropriate way to think about is to frame this device within the Core Event and,
hence, the Core Grammar of a sentence. The Core Event is the one essentially regulated by
the lexical meaning of the verb. Incorporation is a way to keep the essential narrative of a
verb while adding another participant and relation into the plot.
For example, let’s take the verb in (1):
(1) a. Sobró un libro.
b. A Pedro le sobró un libro.
The simplest form of the verb is ‘a’. The verb denotes a state and it has a single argument
‘un libro’. It is hard to express the same content in English, probably one would say ‘One
book is left over’. Now, this state is enriched by the addition of a dative argument in ‘b’.
The reading that inserts this argument into the ‘sobrar’ event is vague: it could be
that Pedro is the owner several books and he was selling them and he was short of selling
them all by one. It might be that he was putting books on a shelf and there is one book that
doesn’t fit in it, and so on. In this case we would say like ‘Pedro was one book short from
putting them all in the shelf’.
(2) a. La sangre corre por las venas.
b. A Pedro no le corre sangre por las venas.
Here we have an activity ‘correr’ that is instantiated by an intransitive verb and then we add
in ‘b’ a participant that is the owner, so to speak, of the veins.
There are at least two different situations. In the first situation the participant is introduced
into the Core Event through its relation to another participant. Typically, this incorporated
argument is the possessor of a core argument or responsible of it at the moment the event
took place. This is the case of (3)
(3) A Pedro se le rompió el auto.
The original sentence is
(4) El auto se rompió.
Then, we incorporate an argument that is both responsible for the car at that time (Pedro
was the driver, owner or guardian of the car) and indirectly affected by the change of state.
In English we would say in this case, 'the car broke on Pedro' but this is not as frequent as
its Spanish counterpart. A particular instance of this type is the so called ethical dative like
the one in (5)
(5) Me lo echaron al niño.
In this case, the dative participant is a human related to another human core participant and
it is also indirectly affected by the event.
A situation that is entirely different is represented by the following example:
(6) Pedro le gritó a María.
In this case, the original verb frame is:
(7) Pedro gritó
In this case, a sound emition event is added a participant that is the recipient of this sound
emition. This incorporation transforms the verb into a communication event and, in this
sense, a social interaction event. The meaning is changed entirely, now the event belongs to
a quite different domain of experience.
The list of verbs that allow argument incorporation includes stative as well as dynamic
verbs such as:
faltar ‘lack’
crecer ‘grow’
romperse ‘break’
llegar ‘arrive’
salir ‘go out’
salirse ‘come off’
caer ‘fall’,
caerse ‘fall down’,
molestar ‘bother’
quedar ‘remain’
sobrar ‘be-extra’
importar ‘matter’
doler ‘hurt’
alcanzar ‘reach’
correr 'run'
etc.
(8) Al libro le faltan las tapas thebook.
DAT CL.DAT lack.PL the covers ‘The book has no covers/ is missing its covers’
(9) A los chicos les creció rápido el pelo.
elpelo the kids.DAT CL.DAT grew.SG quickly the hair ‘The kids’ hair grew quickly’
(10) A Vera se le rompió el televisor
Vera.DAT CL.REF CL.DAT broke.SG the TV.NOM ‘The TV broke on Vera’
English uses an entirely different way to expand the meaning of one verb into a set of
related but different meanings: phrasal verbs.
¿necesitaserhumano?
Obviously, dative argument is more salient even if it is not the most affected one. To me
the notions of saliency and affectedness are orthogonal. They might conflate in some cases
but not in others.
(2) a. Una lágrima corrió por su cara.
b. A Pedro le corrió una lágrima por su cara.
vínculo: posesión no enajenable
possession: P le sacó/quitó el libro.
(3) A Juan le salió un grano.
vínculo: posesión no enajenable.
(4) A Pedro se le rompió el auto.
Involucramiento del oyente
(5) Yo no te como parado en ningún lado.
(6) Pedro le cayó a la casa sin avisar. <-- Pedro
Los periodistas le cayeron todos al Kun.
(7) Miguel se le achicó a Pedro.
Aquí 'Pedro' no es un elemento vinculado, es un argumento independiente tanto como en
(8) Pedro le gritó/gritó/ a Susana.
En (7) Pedro funciona como el estímulo subsidiario de un Experimentante que cambió de
estado tanto como en 'Miguel se asustó con el ruido'. En centro del evento es el cambio de
estado, y Pedro es interpretado como afectado por esa situación o bien como un estímulo
inerte, inactivo sólo activado por el Experimentante. El origen de la situación es el
Experimentante, Pedro no tiene nada en sí que lo haga amenazante o invencible.
Juan le ganó la carrera.
Contactverbs y se:
Rasparse
Quemarse
Golpearse
Frotarse
Change of position verbs and ‘se’
Tirarse
Levantarse
Pararse
