INCORPORATION AND CASE THEORY IN SPANISH A CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE, by Pascual José Masullo A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Weshington 1992 Approved by ll), FBuperdsory Committee Gi L Sed Program Authorized to Offer Degree 9/1 Date 2é SNOB. COMPRCSICINE |Chapter 3 SE AS AN INCORPORATED ARGUMENT 0, Overview ‘The multiple uses of the clitic se in Spanish (and in Romance in general) have been intensively studied, not only in traditional grammar, but also more recently within several theoretical frameworks (Burzio, 1986; Cinque, 1988; Manzini, 1986; Otero, 1986; Roberts, 1987; to mention but a few). However, while inost of the uses of this clitic have been well documented and desciibed, thiere is not to date a comprehensive analysis that will encompass them all. Moreover, soine uses have barely been dealt with within the generative framework In this chapter, I would like to propose, following Baker's (1988) ofiginal idea regarding passive and other dethematized constructions, that se can best be analyzed as an incorporated argument. This will allow us to relate the argument alternations in which se-constructions participate by postulating a similar underlying representation for both alternants. Besides, contrary to most assumptions (Williams, 1981; Grimshaw, 1992) I will attempt to demonstrate that 3f cant not only stand for the external argument of the verb, but also for a variety of internal arguments. As we shall see in the ensuing discussion, there are some “minor’ (jin the sense of not fully productive) constructions in which se stands for the direct argument, or a source argument, Below I list the arguméht alternations involving se to be covered in this chapter:@ @ @ @ ©) 215 a. Hoy vendimos cien ejemplares del libro Today we sold a hundred copies of the book bb. Hoy se vendieron cien ejemplares de! libro (IMPERSONAL) Today SE sold a bundred copies of the book ‘A hundred copies of the book were sold today’ a, Juan rompi6 ef vaso ‘Tobn broke the glass’ bb. El vaso se rompi6 (ERGATIVE) ‘The glass SE broke The glass broke! Dr. Rodriguez opera a Juan ‘Dr Rodriguez will operate on John’ bb, Juan se operaré eon el Dr. Rodriguez (CAUSATIVE) John SE will operate with Dr Rodriguez ‘Joha will be operated on by Dr Rodriguez! Juan y Maria no se enticnden ohn and Mary do not understand cach othes’ b, Juan no so entiende con Marfa (RECIPROCAL) John not SE understands with Mary John and Mary do not understand each other’ a, Juan olvid6 apogar la haz “John forgot to turn off the Bight’ bb. Juan se olvid6 de apagar la luz (ANTIPASSIVE) John SE forgot to turn off the light “ohn forgot to turn off the light” or 2