References

ADESSE. Base de datos de verbos, alternancias de diátesis y esquemas sintáctico-semánticos del español. Universidade de Vigo. http://adesse.uvigo.es/ (accessed 25 May 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Aissen, Judith.2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory21. 435–483.10.1023/A:1024109008573Search in Google Scholar

Alarcos Llorach, Emilio. 1994. Gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Search in Google Scholar

Andrews, Avery.1985. The major functions of the noun phrase. In TimothyShopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. I, 62–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira.1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Belloro, Valeria.2007. Spanish clitic doubling: A study of the syntax-pragmatics interface. Buffalo, NY: University of New York doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar.2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Jae JungSong (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0020Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar & JohannaNichols.2009. Case marking and alignment. In AndrejMalchukov & AndrewSpencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 304–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199206476.013.0021Search in Google Scholar

Bossong, Georg.1998. Le marquage differentielle de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In JackFeuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110804485.193Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan.2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82(4). 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace.1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Company, Concepción. 2001. Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization: Spanish as a special kind of primary object language. Studies in Language25(1). 1–47.10.1075/sl.25.1.02comSearch in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard.1979. Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana3. 13–21.Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard.1989 [1981]. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard.2012. Some argument-structure properties of “give” in the languages of Europe and Northern and Central Asia. In PirkkoSuihkonen, BernardComrie & Valery D.Solovyev (eds.), Argument structure and grammatical relations: A crosslinguistic typology, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.126.02comSearch in Google Scholar

Croft, William.1988. Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In MichaelBarlow & Charles A.Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, 159–179. Stanford: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William.2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary & IrinaNikolaeva.2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

de Hoop, Helen & AndrejMalchukov.2007. On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua117(9). 1636–1656.10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.010Search in Google Scholar

Delbecque, Nicole.2001. A Construction Grammar approach to transitivity in Spanish. In KristinDavidse & BéatriceLamiroy (eds.), The nominative & accusative and their counterparts, 81–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cagral.4.06delSearch in Google Scholar

DeMello, George. 2002. Leísmo in contemporary Spanish American educated speech. Linguistics40(2). 261–283.10.1515/ling.2002.012Search in Google Scholar

Demonte, Violeta.1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus7. 5–30.10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5Search in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew.1986. Primary objects, secondary objects and antidative. Language62(4). 808–845.Search in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew.1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In JoanBybee, JohnHaiman & Sandra A.Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 115–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.82.09drySearch in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W.1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63. 805–855.10.2307/415719Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W.2003. Discourse and grammar. In MichaelTomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol. 2, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E.Kumpf & William J.Ashby (eds.). 2003. Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.14Search in Google Scholar

Dumitrescu, Domnita.1997. El parámetro discursivo en la expresión del objeto directo lexical: Español madrileño vs español porteño. Signo y seña7. 305–354.Search in Google Scholar

Dumitrescu, Domnita.1998. “A” personal, duplicación clítica y marcadez: español porteño vs. español madrileño. In AengusWard (ed.), Actas del XII Congreso de la Asociación Internacional de Hispanistas, 140–152. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Search in Google Scholar

Fernández Ordóñez, Inés. 1993. Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo: Estado de la cuestión. In OlgaFernández Soriano (ed.), Los pronombres átonos, 63–96. Madrid: Taurus.Search in Google Scholar

Fernández Ordóñez, Inés. 1999. Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo. In IgnacioBosque & VioletaDemonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 1, 1317–1398. Madrid: Espasa.Search in Google Scholar

Flores, Marcela.2002. Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo: Sus orígenes y evolución. México: UNAM.Search in Google Scholar

Flores, Marcela & ChantalMelis.2007. El leísmo desde la perspectiva del “marcado diferencial del objeto”. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española2. 83–107.10.54166/rhle.2007.02.03Search in Google Scholar

García, Erica C.1975. The role of the theory in linguistic analysis: The Spanish pronoun system. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Search in Google Scholar

García, Erica C. & RicardoOtheguy. 1977. Dialect variation in leísmo: A semantic approach. In Ralph W.Fasold & Roger W.Shuy (eds.), Studies in language variation, 65–87. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

García García, Marco. 2007. Differential object marking with inanimate objects. In Georg A.Kaiser & ManuelLeonetti (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages” (Arbeitspapier 122), 63–84. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Search in Google Scholar

García García, Marco. 2014. Differentielle Objektmarkierung bei unbelebten Objekten im Spanischen. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110290974Search in Google Scholar

García-Miguel, José M.1991. La duplicación de complemento directo e indirecto como concordancia. Verba18. 375–410.Search in Google Scholar

García-Miguel, José M.1995. Las relaciones gramaticales entre predicado y participantes. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Search in Google Scholar

García-Miguel, José M.1999. Grammatical relations in Spanish triactant clauses. In Leon G.de Stadler & ChristoffEyrich (eds.), Issues in cognitive linguistics, 447–470. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Genetti, Carol.1997. Object relations and dative case in Dolakha Newari. Studies in Language21(1). 37–68.10.1075/sl.21.1.03genSearch in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.3Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1984. Direct object and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case. In FransPlank (ed.), Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.syn2Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E.1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gutiérrez Ordóñez, Salvador. 1999. Los dativos. In IgnacioBosque & VioletaDemonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 1, 1855–1930. Madrid: Espasa.Search in Google Scholar

Haiman, John.1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language59(4). 781–819.10.2307/413373Search in Google Scholar

Haiman, John.1985. Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K.2004 [1984]. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. (revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen). London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2005a. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery3(1). 1–21.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.280Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2005b. Ditransitive constructions: The verb “give”. In MartinHaspelmath, Matthew S.Dryer, DavidGil & BernardComrie (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures – WALS: An interactive cross-linguistic database for typological research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2007. Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language14(1). 79–102.10.1075/fol.14.1.06hasSearch in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics19(1). 1–33.10.1515/COG.2008.001Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology15(3). 535–567.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2013. Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntax of bound person forms. In DikBakker & MartinHaspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 197–226. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110331127.197Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd & ChristaKönig. 2010. On the linear order of ditransitive objects. Language Sciences32(1). 87–131.10.1016/j.langsci.2008.07.002Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A.Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56(2). 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar

Iemmolo, Giorgio.2010. Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language34(2). 239–272.10.1075/sl.34.2.01iemSearch in Google Scholar

Iemmolo, Giorgio.2011. Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexing. Pavia: Università degli Studi di Pavia doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. Object-, animacy- and role-based strategies: A typology of object marking. Studies in Language30(1). 1–32.Search in Google Scholar

Klein-Andreu, Flora. 1981. Distintos sistemas de empleo de “le”, “la”, “lo”. Perspectiva sincrónica, diacrónica y sociolingüística. Thesaurus36. 284–304.Search in Google Scholar

Klein-Andreu, Flora. 2000. Variación actual y evolución histórica: Los clíticos le/s, la/s, lo/s. München: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Klein, Udo & Peterde Swart.2011. Case and referential properties. Lingua121(1). 3–19.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.005Search in Google Scholar

Kliffer, Michael D.1984. Personal “a”, kinesis and individuation. In PhilipBaldi (ed.), Papers from the XIIth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 195–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.26.15kliSearch in Google Scholar

Laca, Brenda.1987. Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español. Romanistisches Jahrbuch38. 290–312.10.1515/9783110244946.290Search in Google Scholar

Laca, Brenda.2006. El objeto directo: La marcación preposicional. In ConcepciónCompany (ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Primera parte: La frase verbal, Vol. 1, 423–475. México: Fondo de Cultura Economica.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.1984. Actance variations and categories of the object. In FransPlank (ed.), Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 269–292. London: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica36(3–4). 141–190.10.1515/flin.2002.36.3-4.141Search in Google Scholar

Leonetti, Manuel.2004. Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics3. 75–114.10.5565/rev/catjl.106Search in Google Scholar

Leonetti, Manuel.2008. Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus20(1). 33–66.10.1515/PROBUS.2008.002Search in Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej, MartinHaspelmath & BernardComrie.2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 1–63. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220377.1Search in Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej & Peterde Swart.2009. Differential case marking and actancy variations. In AndrejMalchukov & AndrewSpencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 339–355. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199206476.013.0023Search in Google Scholar

Maldonado, Ricardo.2002. Objective and subjective datives. Cognitive Linguistics13(1). 1–65.10.1515/cogl.2002.010Search in Google Scholar

Miles, Cecil & RomeliaArciniegas.1983. Tener a: A Spanish myth. Hispania66(1). 84–87.10.2307/341212Search in Google Scholar

Næss, Åshild. 2004. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua114(9–10). 1186–1212.10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005Search in Google Scholar

Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.72Search in Google Scholar

Newman, John.1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110823714Search in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna.1983. On direct and oblique cases. Berkeley Linguistic Society9. 170–192.10.3765/bls.v9i0.2000Search in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna.2011. Ingush Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Nishida, Chiyo.2012. A corpus study of Mexican Spanish three-participant constructions with and without clitic doubling. Linguistic Discovery10(3). 208–240. doi:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.422.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.422Search in Google Scholar

Pensado, Carmen (ed.). 1995. El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor.Search in Google Scholar

RAE & AALE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española, 3 vols. Madrid: Espasa.Search in Google Scholar

Roegiest, Eugeen.1990. La tipología sintáctica del objeto transitivo en español. Verba17. 239–248.Search in Google Scholar

Romero, Juan.2013. Accusative datives in Spanish. In BeatrizFernández & RicardoEtxepare (eds.), Variation in datives: A micro-comparative perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199937363.003.0010Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna.2003. Person agreement and the determination of alignment. Transactions of the Philological Society101(2). 339–370.10.1111/1467-968X.00122Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna.2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812729Search in Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael.1976. Hierarchies of features and ergativity. In R. M. W.Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A.1997. Discourse motivations for the core-oblique distinction as a language universal. In AkioKamio (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.36.06thoSearch in Google Scholar

Torrego Salcedo, Esther. 1999. El complemento directo preposicional. In IgnacioBosque & VioletaDemonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 2, 1779–1805. Madrid: Espasa.Search in Google Scholar

Vaamonde, Gael.2011. La alternancia posesiva con nombres de partes del cuerpo: Un estudio descriptivo del español a partir de datos de corpus. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Vázquez Rozas, Victoria. 1995. El complemento indirecto en español. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Search in Google Scholar

Vázquez Rozas, Victoria. 2006. Gustar-type verbs. In Clancy J.Clements & JiyoungYoon (eds.), Functional approaches to Spanish syntax: Lexical semantics, discourse and transitivity, 80–114. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230522688_4Search in Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus.2008. Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish. Probus20(1). 1–31.10.1515/PROBUS.2008.001Search in Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus & Georg A.Kaiser.2011. Affectedness and differential object marking in Spanish. Morphology21(3–4). 593–617.10.1007/s11525-010-9177-ySearch in Google Scholar

Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2010. Typological variation in grammatical relations. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar