Selected proceedings of LSRL 38

Two types of (apparently) ditransitive light verb

constructions*

An analysis of Spanish ditransitive constructions with light verb dar reveals

that despite surface similarity these constructions belong to two groups
corresponding to distinct argument structures. While expressions like dar
permiso/ánimo ‘give permission/encouragement’ correspond to double-
object constructions, experiencer constructions like dar miedo/envidia ‘give
fear/envy’ correspond to an unaccusative structure that patterns syntactically
and semantically with configurations with psychological predicates of the
piacere/gustar 'like' type. On the present account, the morphosyntactic and
semantic properties of the construction –including subject properties of the
dative, case, and restrictions on bare nouns– derive directly from the way
sentences are built in the syntax, not from stipulations in lexical entries or
linking rules. The proposal is extended to cover predicates formed with other
light verbs (e.g., ser ‘be’, parecer ‘seem’, resultar ‘be’, quedar ‘remain’).

1. Introduction

The Spanish verb dar ‘give’ combines with many bare nouns into light verb
expressions of the form 'give something to somebody': dar+ apoyo
‘support’, envidia ‘envy’, calor ‘heat’, vergüenza ‘shame’, miedo ‘fear’,
muerte ‘death’, gusto ‘pleasure’, lástima ‘pity’, ganas ‘wishes’, permiso
‘permission’, asco ‘disgust’, etc. These constructions involve three
arguments: one bears nominative case, another one dative case, and a bare
noun appears as direct complement of the verb.

(1) El plantel siempre le da apoyo al técnico.

the team.NOM always CL.DAT gives support the coach.DAT
‘The team always supports the coach.’

*I thank the audience of LSRL XXXVIII and two anonymous reviewers for useful
comments and suggestions.

1
Ditransitive light verb constructions – M.C. Cuervo

(2) Al técnico le dan rabia las protestas.

the coach.DAT CL.DAT give.PL fury the complaints.NOM
‘The complaints make the coach furious.’

I will argue that these '(di)transitive' dar expressions belong to two different
groups, such that sentences (1) and (2) correspond to two systematically
distinct argument structures, that is, they have different underlying
representations. Specifically, I argue that sentence (1) is truly ditransitive
and corresponds to a double-object construction (i.e., the dative DP is an
internal argument). In contrast, sentence (2) –and psychological dar-
expressions in general– corresponds to an unaccusative configuration in
which the dative argument is merged outside the verbal phrase (i.e., it is not
an internal argument). This claim is supported by systematic contrasts in
syntactic properties. I further argue, building on Masullo (1992), that the
structure of (2) patterns syntactically and semantically with configurations
with psychological unaccusative verbs of the gustar 'like' type (3).

(3) Al técnico no le gustan las protestas.

the coach.DAT NEG CL.DAT like.PL the complaints.NOM
‘The coach doesn't like complaints.’

The parallel between (2) and (3) can only be made and accounted for if we
assume a particular structure for psych predicates of Belleti & Rizzi’s third
type, specifically, a structure where the nominative argument is not a
complement of the verb (contra Belleti & Rizzi 1988; Fernández Soriano
1999; Bruhn de Garavito 2002; etc.).1 The analysis can naturally be extended
to account for psychological and non-psychological predicates with other
stative light verbs (ser ‘be’, parecer ‘seem’, resultar ‘be’, quedar ‘remain’ +
Adj/Adv).

1 The parallelism argued for by Masullo (1992) refers mainly to the status of the

dative argument and the lack of external argument; the present analysis extends to
cover the details of the internal structure of the verbal phrase.

2
 Selected proceedings of LSRL 38

(4) Al técnico le quedan grandes esas zapatillas.

the coach.DAT CL.DAT remain.PL big those trainers.NOM
‘Those trainers are too big for the coach.’

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the properties of the

constructions, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between
them. In Section 3 I present an analysis of each construction which accounts
for the properties described in the previous section. A parallelism between
psychological dar expressions and psychological predicates of the gustar
type is revealed, and its predictions are tested. In Section 4 the analysis is
extended to other light verb expressions, both psychological and non-
psychological. Conclusions are presented in Section 5.

2. Morphosyntactic properties

The three-argument dar-expressions appear in sentences that share several

morphosyntactic features. In all cases, the light verb appears immediately
followed by a non-referential bare noun. Two other argument DPs appear:
one in nominative, one in dative case. The verb agrees in person and number
with the nominative DP; the dative DP is doubled by an agreeing (in person
and number) dative clitic.
So far, there seems to be one class of dar-expressions. The data in this
section, however, will present a series of morphosyntactic contrasts that
strongly suggest that there are two different types of dar-expressions, which
I will refer to as ditransitive dar-expressions (DitDar) and psychological
dar-expressions (PsychDar). In particular, we shall see that the dative DP in
DitDar behaves like a regular dative in a ditransitive construction, while the
dative in PsychDar exhibits many subject properties.

2.1. Clitic doubling

All dative arguments in Spanish must be doubled by a clitic, with the only
exception of arguments in ditransitive constructions that express transfer of
possession (Strozer 1976, Masullo 1992, Demonte 1995, among others).

3
Ditransitive light verb constructions – M.C. Cuervo

Clitic doubling of the dative is optional for DitDar (5) but obligatory for
PsychDar (6).

(5) Dimos apoyo a tres candidates.

we.gave support to three candidates
‘We supported three candidates.’

(6) *Las protestas dan miedo al técnico.

the complaints.NOM give.PL fear the coach.DAT
‘The coach is afraid of the complaints.’2

2.2 Word order

Normal word order (that is, the word order for wide focus interpretation,
with nuclear stress; see Zubizarreta 1998) is Nom-V-Dative for DitDar, but
Dative-V-Nom for PsychDar, as illustrated in (1)-(2). This clearly argues for
a difference in underlying structures. Reverse orders are ungrammatical with
neutral stress, but possible if the preverbal DP receives contrastive stress.

2.3 Indefinite quantifiers

Spanish indefinite generalized quantifiers can appear in subject position, but

not in left-dislocation (Masullo, 1992). According to this test, given the
ungrammaticality of (7) with neutral stress, a preverbal dative DP is left-
dislocated in the case of DitDar; the dative appears in subject position in
PsychDar (8).

(7) *A nadie le da apoyo el equipo.

nobody.DAT CL.DAT gives support the team.NOM
‘The team doesn’t support anybody.’

(8) A nadie le dan miedo las protestas.

nobody.DAT CL.DAT give.PL fear the complaints.NOM

2 Clitic doubling is also required in Dat-V-Nom, but since left-dislocated objects

independently require doubling, it is important to see that with PsychDar clitic

doubling is required independently of word order.

4
 Selected proceedings of LSRL 38

‘Nobody is afraid of the complaints.’

2.4 Binding

The nominative DP can bind a possessive in the dative in DitDar (9); it is

the dative DP that binds the possessive in the nominative in PsychDar (10).
Sentences b are ungrammatical or very degraded even if with contrastive
stress on the first DP.

(9) a. El equipoi no le dio bola a sui técnico.

the team.NOM NEG CL.DAT gave ball his coach.DAT
‘The team didn't pay attention to its coach.’

b.??Al técnicoi no le dio bola sui equipo.

the coach.DAT NEG CL.DAT gave ball his team.NOM
*‘Its team didn't pay attention to the coach.’

(10) a. Al técnicoi le dio lástima sui equipo.

the coach.DAT CL.DAT gave pity his team.NOM
‘The coach felt pity for his own team.’

b.??El equipoi le dio lástima a sui técnico.

the team.NOM CL.DAT gave pity its coach.DAT
‘*Its coach felt pity for the team.’

2.5 Scope

In regular ditransitive predicates, inverse scope is impossible between a

quantifier in the preverbal nominative and a quantifier in a postverbal dative;
if order is inverted, reverse scope is possible (Cuervo 1999).3 In the order
Dat>Nom, reverse scope obtains in DitDar (11b) but not in PsychDar (12).
This suggests that the preverbal dative in PsychDar is not left-dislocated.

3
If the order of nominative-dative is reversed, as in (11b), the dative is left-dislocated, and
the sentence must be uttered with special intonation to be acceptable. This requirement on
intonation does not apply to (12).

5
Ditransitive light verb constructions – M.C. Cuervo

(11) a. Un técnico le dio aliento a todo equipo. *∀ >> ∃

a coach.NOM CL.DAT gave encouragement every team.DAT
‘A coach encouraged every team.’

b. A un equipo le dio aliento todo técnico. ∀ >> ∃

a team.DAT CL.DAT gave encouragement every coach.NOM
‘Every coach encouraged a team.’

(12) A un técnico le dio lástima todo equipo. *∀ >> ∃

a coach.DAT CL.DAT gave pity every team.NOM
‘A coach felt pity for every team.’

2.6 Superiority

In Spanish, a multiple wh-question that violates superiority lacks a pair-list

reading and can only be interpreted as an echo question (Cuervo (1999).

(13) ¿A quién le gritó quién?

who.DAT CL.DAT shouted who.NOM
‘At whom shouted who?’
# … Mary shouted at Peter, Daniel shouted at Stephanie, etc.

In order to obtain a pair-list reading, DitDar requires Nom-V-Dative (14)

while PsychDar requires Dative-V-Nom (15). This is expected if the
nominative is merged higher than the dative in (14) but lower in (15).

(14) ¿Quién le da aliento a quién?

who.NOM CL.DAT gives encouragement who.DAT
‘Who encourages whom?’

(15) ¿A quién le da lástima quién?

who.DAT CL.DAT gives pity who.NOM
‘Who pities whom?’

6
 Selected proceedings of LSRL 38

2.7 Raising with parecer ‘seem’

The argument that raises from a transitive clause embedded under parecer
'seem' is the nominative subject (16). In the case of PsychDar, in contrast, it
is the dative that raises (17), as in the case of dative subjects with
unaccusative predicates (Masullo, 1992).

(16) El equipo parece haberle dado apoyo al técnico.

the team.NOM seems have.CL.DAT given support the coach.DAT
‘The team seems to have supported the coach.’

(17) a. Al técnico parecen haberle dado rabia las propuestas.

the coach.DAT seem have.CL.DAT given anger the proposals.NOM
‘The suggestions seem to have angered the coach.’

b.??/*Las propuestas parecen haberle dado rabia al técnico.

the proposals.NOM seem have.CL.DAT given anger the coach.DAT
‘The suggestions seem to have angered the coach.’

2.8 Accusative clitic

In certain contexts, an accusative clitic can refer back to the bare noun in
DitDar (18). The fact that this is never possible with PsychDar (19) suggests
that accusative case is not available with these predicates.

(18) ¿Le dieron apoyoi al técnico? Æ Sí, se loi

dieron
CL.DAT gave support the coach. DAT Yes, CL CL.ACC gave
‘Did they give support to the coach? Yes, they gave it to him’

(19) ¿Le dimos miedoi al técnico? Æ *Sí, se loi dimos

CL.DAT gave fear the coach.DAT Yes, CL CL.ACC gave
‘Did we frighten the coach? Yes, we did’

7
Ditransitive light verb constructions – M.C. Cuervo

All these data strongly argue for a systematic difference between DitDar and
PsychDar.4 Specifically, the data show that DitDar behaves like an ordinary
ditransitive structure in which a nominative subject asymmetrically c-
commands a dative DP. In contrast, PsychDar constructions parallel the
behaviour of unaccusative predicates in which a preverbal dative DP
asymmetrically c-commands the postverbal nominative.

3. Analysis

3.1. The ditransitive structure of DitDar

Data from binding, scope, superiority, raising and word order show that
DitDar expressions such as dar apoyo ‘support’, dar permiso ‘allow’, dar
aliento ‘encourage’, dar cuerda ‘wind up’, dar muerte ‘kill’, correspond to
regular ditransitive structures. In other words, sentence (20) is a double-
object construction.

(20) El plantel siempre le da apoyo al técnico. (=1)

the team.NOM always CL.DAT gives support the coach.DAT
‘The team always supports the coach.’

I follow Cuervo’s (2003a) analysis of Spanish double-object constructions in

terms of low applicatives (Pylkkänen 2002).

(21) VoiceP
3
DPSubj 3 vP
Voice 3
vDO 3 ApplP
Root 3A
DPDat 3
Appl0 DPObj

4 M. Teresa Espinal (p.c.) points out that, interestingly, the two types of expressions
I argue for are formed by different light verbs in Catalan: while DitDar expressions
employ the Catalan light verb donar ‘give’, PsychDar expressions use either donar or
fer ‘make’. See also Espinal 2004.

8
 Selected proceedings of LSRL 38

Structure (21) expresses the direct relation between the direct and the
indirect objects. The applicative head, Appl, takes an object DP as its
complement and projects a specifier, in which the dative argument is
licensed. The verbal root combines with the low applicative phrase and then
merges with the verbal head. Dative case is inherent, expressed by the
particle a in the DP and the dative clitic in Appl0. Apparent optionality of
clitic doubling is expected if (20) is a double-object construction: that is the
way the two variants of the dative alternation are expressed in Spanish
(Masullo 1992, Demonte 1995, Cuervo 2003a).
The difference between the double-object construction in (21) and that of
DitDar reduces to the lack of verbal root (dar spells-out the head vDO) and
the size of the complement of Appl.

3.2. The unaccusative structure of PsychDar

Data in section 2 show that, in contrast to DitDar, PsychDar expressions

such as dar +lástima 'pity', +miedo 'fear', +asco 'nausea' +hambre/sed
‘hunger/thirst', etc., are not regular ditransitive structures; rather, they have
an underlying unaccusative structure in which the dative argument is higher
than the nominative. Unlike in ditransitives, there is no direct (possessive)
relation between the dative argument and the bare noun. In a sentence like
(22), the dative DP is an experiencer related to a stative predicate. Its
structure appears in (23).

(22) Al técnico le dan rabia las protestas. (=2)

the coach.DAT CL.DAT give.PL fury the complaints.NOM
‘The complaints make the coach furious.’

(23) ApplP
3
DPDat 3 vP
al técnico Appl 3
le DP 3
las protestas v 6
dan n +√rabia

9
Ditransitive light verb constructions – M.C. Cuervo

In (23), dar is the expression of a stative v which combines with the noun
(n+√), which expresses the experience, and projects a specifier, where the
"stimulus" nominative DP is merged. Crucially, here the dative experiencer
is licensed as the specifier of a high Applicative head, that is, an applicative
that takes the vP as its complement, not a DP (Pylkkänen 2002). VoiceP is
not projected: there is no accusative case or (agentive) external argument.

3.2.1 Accounting for morphosyntactic and semantic properties

In the analysis of psychological dar constructions presented above, the
semantics derives directly from the configuration; the analysis can also
account for their morphosyntactic properties.
Dative case of the experiencer is not stipulated as a property of the verb:
it is inherent case assigned by Appl. This means that whenever an
applicative is licensed, there will be a dative clitic, and licensing does not
depend on particular verb types. This licensing and case-agreement
relationship between the DP and the applicative head is expressed by the
dative particle a in the experiencer DP and by the agreeing clitic as the spell-
out of Appl.
In (23), the dative experiencer is higher than the nominative argument.
This hierarchy accounts for the asymmetric syntactic relation between the
arguments, as expressed by binding, superiority, and scope possibilities of
the dative DP over the nominative DP.
The dative DP is not only relatively higher than the nominative but it also
displays subject properties, related to word order, movement and
predication, as presented in Section 2 (see Masullo 1992, Fernández Soriano
1999, Cuervo 1999, Bruhn de Garavito 2002 for discussion). These subject
properties derive both from its higher merge position, and from its
movement to the specifier of Tense (subject position) and satisfaction of EPP
(sentences are 'about' the dative argument).
The verb agrees, in person and number, with the postverbal DP. Verbal
agreement proceeds in the same way as in other Spanish unaccusative or
passive configurations, with no requirement of movement to specifier of
Tense. In the present case, there is a split between EPP checking and
agreement, one DP –the dative– satisfying EPP on T, while another –the

10
 Selected proceedings of LSRL 38

nominative– checks case and triggers verbal agreement (see Béjar 2000,
Cuervo 2003b, among others, for similar proposals of splits in checking
features of one head).
Except for dative case marking and verbal agreement, these properties
contrast with the properties of constructions with ditransitive dar
expressions, in which the nominative argument, an external argument, is
higher than the dative DP, a VP-internal argument.

3.2.2 Parallelism with psychological predicates

As noted by Masullo (1992), the configurations in which psychological dar
expressions appear share several fundamental properties with constructions
with piacere/gustar predicates ––Belletti & Rizzi’s (1988, henceforth B&R)
third kind.

(24) Al técnico no le gustan las protestas.

the coach.DAT NEG CL.DAT like.PL the complaints.NOM
‘The coach doesn't like complaints.’

Syntactically, the dative DP exhibits subject properties in both constructions

(except those related to nominative case and agreement); the nominative
argument is merged lower. In terms of their semantics, the structures are
similar in the interpretation of the dative and nominative arguments: The
dative DP is interpreted as an experiencer (a “possessor” of a psychological
state); the nominative DP is the “stimulus” (it generates the experience).
For B&R, gustar-type predicates are a kind of “double-object
construction with a non-thematic subject position” (B&R:293).

(25) S
qp
NP VP
qp
V’ NP
qp
V NP

ec piacere Theme Experiencer (B&R: 335)

11
Ditransitive light verb constructions – M.C. Cuervo

Structure (25) arises from the lexical information associated with the verb
piacere/gustar, which interacts with a general statement on thematic
prominence that states that Experiencers project higher than Themes.
Although (25) expresses the asymmetric relation between the DPs, their
proposal for psych predicates cannot express the parallelism with PsychDar
in structural terms: since the theme DP is the complement of the verb and the
experiencer is VP-internal, there is no place for the N (nP) complement of
dar to merge. The same problem arises with other approaches, such as
Masullo’s (1992) and Bruhn de Garavito’s (2002), in which the dative is an
internal argument. In contrast, Cuervo’s (2003a) analysis of dative
experiencers provides a way to express the syntactic and semantic parallel:
the dative DP is licensed outside the vP, as the specifier of a high
applicative.

(26) ApplP
3
DPDat 3 vP
al técnico Appl 3
le DP 3
las protestas vBE Root
gust-

In (26) the dative and the nominative arguments have the same properties as
in the structure of PsychDar (23). The main difference between these
configurations is that in (23) the head v –spelled out as dar– takes the bare
noun phrase as its complement (dar+NP), rather than merging with a verbal
root, as illustrated below (cf. Masullo 1992, Kornfeld 2005).

(27) [ApplP EXPDP [Appl' Appl0-le [vP THEMEDP [v' v-dar NP ] ] ] ]

3.3 Predictions of the parallelism

A crucial property of my proposal lies on the way the theme DP is licensed.

The nominative theme is licensed as the specifier of the stative vP. Thus, it is
not a complement of the verb: it is its subject. There being an internal

12
 Selected proceedings of LSRL 38

subject, there is a predication relation between the verb and the nominative
argument. The dative DP, in contrast, is not an internal argument.
If structure (26) is correct, we expect PsychDar configurations to exhibit
the following properties, shared by gustar-type constructions.
1. The nominative argument cannot be a bare noun, irrespective of whether
it appears post-verbally or preverbally.
2. The dative argument is ‘external’ to the predication relation between the
verb and the nominative DP.

3.3.1 Bare NPs

Subjects in Spanish cannot be bare nouns: they must appear with a
determiner (or some kind of heavy modification). This notion of subject
includes pre and postverbal agentive subjects, and preverbal subjects of
unaccusatives and passives, as illustrated in (28-30).

(28) *Chicos comieron manzanas.

kids.NOM ate apples.ACC
‘Some kids ate apples.’

(29) *Invitados llegaron a las ocho.

guests.NOM arrived at the eight
‘Guests arrived at eight.’

(30) *Puentes fueron construidos en los 70.

bridges.NOM were built in the 70
‘Bridges were built during the 70s.’

The restriction does not apply to direct objects (manzanas in (28)) nor to
postverbal subjects of unaccusative verbs (i.e., arguments licensed as
objects):

(31) a. Llegaron invitados a las ocho.

arrived.PL guests.NOM at the eight
‘Guests arrived at eight.’

13
Ditransitive light verb constructions – M.C. Cuervo

b. Al técnico le faltan documentos.

coach.DAT CL.DAT lack.PL documents.NOM
‘The coach is missing some documents.’

Interestingly, the restriction does apply to the postverbal nominative

argument of verbs like gustar.

(32) *Al técnico no le interesan protestas.

the coach.DAT not CL.DAT interest.PL complaints.NOM
‘The coach isn’t interested in complaints.’

The restriction on bare NPs in these disparate environments can be

generalized in terms of predication, which covers both the licensing position
of arguments and the (derived) subject position, SpecTP.

(33) The Bare Noun Phrase Constraint Revised5

“An unmodified common noun cannot be the subject of a predicate under
conditions of normal stress and intonation”

The restriction on nominative arguments of gustar-verbs is naturally

accounted for if these themes are licensed as subjects. It is mysterious if they
are regular objects of the verb. By the same token, the theme in
psychological dar configurations (34) is an inner subject, and therefore bare
NPs should not be allowed in this position. This prediction is confirmed.

(34) *Al técnico le dan rabia protestas.

the coach.DAT cl.DAT give.PL fury complaints.NOM
‘Complaints make the coach furious.’

5
Adapted from Suñer’s (1982) Naked Noun Phrase Constraint (Suñer 1982:209) (see also
Torrego 1989):
“An unmodified common noun in preverbal position cannot be the surface
subject of a sentence under conditions of normal stress and intonation”

14
 Selected proceedings of LSRL 38

3.3.2. Sentences without experiencer

It is possible for gustar-type predicates to appear in sentences without a
dative experiencer.

(35) Las protestas sin sentido no molestan /gustaron.

the complaints without sense.NOM NEG bother.PL /liked.PL
‘Senseless complaints are not bothersome/were not liked.’

As in the case of (35), the configuration proposed here for PsychDar predicts
that there is a predication relation between the theme and the predicate
dar+NP to which the dative experiencer is external. Thus, it should be
possible to express this predication without a dative argument.

(36) Las protestas sin sentido dan rabia.

the complaints without sense.NOM give.PL fury
‘Senseless complaints make you furious.’

Acceptability of sentences with no dative (36) confirms this prediction; these

sentences express some property of the nominative argument (are 'about' the
nominative argument) without restricting it to an experiencer.6
To sum up, the configuration presented in (23) can naturally account
for the syntactic and semantic properties of psychological dar
configurations. The proposal also expresses and accounts for the parallel
between PsychDar and the structure of other dative psych-predicates in the
language. Previous approaches to dative experiencer constructions cannot
account for these properties nor for the parallel.

6
As M. L. Zubizarreta (p.c.) points out, it might be that an experiencer is implied in cases
like (35)-(36). For the purposes of this argument, however, what is crucial is the possibility
of no syntactic expression of the experiencer, that is, the absence of an applicative. This is
particularly acceptable in tenses -such as present- which do not force an eventive reading of
the sentence.

15
Ditransitive light verb constructions – M.C. Cuervo

4. Other light verb constructions

The idea that the theme of PsychDar expressions is an internal subject, and
that the experiencer is external to the predication is further supported by
their syntactic and semantic parallels with predicates built by the
combination of a copular or quasi-copular verb + an adjective or adverb. The
resulting predicates can be psychological (Section 4.1) or express a non-
psychological state (Section 4.2).

4.1. Psychological predicates

Copular light verbs such as ser ‘be’, parecer ‘seem’ and resultar ‘turn out to
be’ can combine with adjectives of psychological nature such as aburrido
'boring', importante 'important', indiferente 'indifferent', to form a predicate.
Sentences (37) express a property of the books or the movies, and it is hardly
controversial that there is a predication relation between the nominative
argument and the predicate.7 Their structure appears in (38).

(37) a. Esos libros son /parecen importantes.

those books.NOM are.PL /seem.PL important
‘Those books are/seem important.’

b. Las películas japonesas resultaron aburridas.

the movies Japanese.NOM turned-out.PL boring
‘The Japanese movies turned out to be boring.’

(38) vPBE
3
DP 3
los libros v 6
son a+ importantes
/parecen

7 I am dealing here only with parecer+predicate taking a DP argument, not with parecer
taking a complement clause.

16
 Selected proceedings of LSRL 38

If an experiencer argument is added as an applied argument (39), we obtain

the structure in (40).

(39) A Vera le son /parecen importantes esos libros.

Vera.DAT CL.DAT are.PL /seem.PL important those books.NOM
‘Those books are/seem important to Vera.’

(40) ApplP
3
DPDat 3 vPBE
a Vera Appl 3
le DP 3
los libros v 6
son a +importantes

Structure (40) is identical to the structure of PsychDar expressions, except

that there the predicate is formed by a verbalizing head and a noun rather
than an adjective. As predicted, the dative argument in (40) is interpreted as
an experiencer, and the postverbal nominative cannot be a bare noun.

4.2. Non-psychological predicates

Light verbs such as ser 'be' and estar 'be', resultar 'turn out to be' and quedar
'remain' can also combine with non-psychological adjectives, or adverbs.
The subject of the predicate can be a DP (41a), or a infinitival control clause,
as viajar ahora in (41b). The subject of the infinitival clause is arbitrary
PRO.

(41) a. Esos zapatos son/resultan incómodos.

those shoes.NOM are.PL /turn-out.PL uncomfortable
‘Those shoes are/ turn out to be uncomfortable.’

b. Está difícil viajar ahora.

is difficult to travel now
‘It is difficult to travel nowadays.’

17
Ditransitive light verb constructions – M.C. Cuervo

Dative arguments can also be applied to these constructions whose

predicates are not psychological (42). In the case of an infinitival clause, its
PRO subject is obligatorily controlled by the dative argument (42b).

(42) a. Al técnico le resultan incómodos *(esos) zapatos.

the coach.DAT CL.DAT are.PL uncomfortable those shoes.NOM
‘The coach finds those shoes uncomfortable.’

b. Al técnico le está difícil viajar ahora.

the coach.DAT CL.DAT is difficult to travel now
‘It is difficult for the coach to travel now.’

The stative verb servir ‘be useful’ is another example of a non-psych

predicate that has the same structure as gustar and the light verb
constructions discussed above. Its meaning could be expressed with a
copular light verb construction (ser útil ‘be useful’). A dative argument is
understood as the individual for whom an object is useful.

(43) Al técnico no le sirven esas herramientas.

the coach.DAT NEG CL.DAT be-useful.PL those tools
‘Those tools are not useful for the coach.’

As the PsychDar and gustar class, servir can appear without a dative
argument (44a), in which case, it expresses a general property of the
nominative argument (i.e., not restricted to the sphere of an individual).

(44) a. Esas herramientas no sirven (para nada).

those tools.NOM NEG be-useful.PL for nothing
‘Those tools are not useful (at all).’

b. *A Vera no le sirven herramientas.

Vera.DAT NEG CL.DAT be-useful.PL tools
‘Tools are not useful for Vera.’

18
 Selected proceedings of LSRL 38

The ungrammaticality of a bare nominative NP in postverbal position (44b)

provides further support for the analysis of servir as belonging to the gustar
class: stative unaccusative predicates in which the postverbal DP is licensed
as an internal subject.
We have seen in this section that the structure proposed for PsychDar
constructions is very productive in the language. It not only parallels the
structure of dative experiencer verbs, but it also extends to several other light
verbs that take adjectives or adverbs to form a predicate.

5. Conclusions

I started by showing that expressions with light verb dar belong to two
different groups, ditransitive dar and psychological dar. The systematic
syntactic and semantic differences between the two types of expressions are
captured by differences in the basic argument structure of each, specifically
in the way the nominative and dative arguments are licensed.
By spelling out each piece with separate words, light verbs make the
structure of predicates more apparent, allowing us to see the ‘pieces’ inside
‘lexical’ verbs. The approach developed here has provided the elements to
discover and account for the morphosyntactic and semantic parallels
between psychological dar and B&R's third type of psych predicates. The
analysis also naturally extends to other (non-)psychological predicates
formed by a stative light verb other than dar and an adjective or adverb. The
structure proposed –a high applicative dative which takes a stative vP as its
complement– is very productive in Spanish.
The existence of these light verb+adjective/adverb predicates further
supports the idea that, despite appearances, PsychDar are not transitive
constructions. Ultimately, the proposal implies that unaccusativity is not a
uniform phenomenon; that is, it does not correspond to a single underlying
structure.
Under this approach, syntactic structures are expressed or ‘filled’ by
different kinds of elements (e.g. verbs, light verbs+adjective, etc.) that could
not be classified as belonging to one lexical class. The morphosyntactic and
semantic properties of the construction derive directly from the syntactic

19
Ditransitive light verb constructions – M.C. Cuervo

heads available in the language and the way sentences are built in the syntax,
not from stipulations in lexical entries or linking rules. This highlights the
benefits of constructionalist approaches, in terms of economy, and empirical
and explanatory coverage. As far as this analysis is able to capture the
properties of the configurations under study, it constitutes an advancement in
our understanding on how argument structure (understood as syntax)
determines verbal meanings and the interpretation of arguments.

References

Béjar, Susana. 2000. “Economy, cyclicity and markedness in Georgian

verbal agreement”. GLOW Newsletter 44:8–19.
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. “Psych-verbs and Theta Theory”.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:291–352.
Bruhn de Garavito, Joyce. 2002. “La position syntaxique de thème des
verbes à expérienceur datif”. Revue québécoise de linguistique 31.2.137–
155.
Cuervo, María Cristina. 1999. “Quirky but not eccentric: dative subjects in
Spanish”. MIT Working Papers in Linguistic 34, Papers on Morphology and
Syntax, 213–228.
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003a. Datives at Large. Ph.D. dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003b. “A control vs. raising theory of dative
experiencers”. Romance linguistics: theory and acquisition ed. by A. T.
Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge, 111–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. “Dative alternation in Spanish”. Probus 7:5–30.
Espinal, M. Teresa. 2004. “Lexicalization of Light Verb Structures and the
Semantics of Nouns”. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3.15–43.
Fernández Soriano, Olga. 1999. “Two Types of Impersonal Sentences in
Spanish: Locative and Dative Subjects”. Syntax 2.2:101–140.
Kornfeld, Laura. 2005. Formación de palabras en la sintaxis desde la
perspectiva de la Morfología Distribuida. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad de
Buenos Aires.

20
 Selected proceedings of LSRL 38

Masullo, Pascual. 1992. Incorporation and Case Theory in Spanish. A

crosslinguistic perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington,
Seattle.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Strozer, Judith. 1976. Clitics in Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
Torrego, Esther. 1989. “Unergative-Unaccusative Alternations in Spanish”.
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 253- 272
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

21