Subject: review : torrego , the dependencies of objects .

torrego , esther , ( 1998 ) , the dependencies of objects . linguistic inquiry monograph 34 . cambridge , massachusetts : the mit press . 197 pages . reviewed by alex alsina , universitat pompeu fabra ( barcelona ) . this book is a study of overtly case-marked objects in spanish that pays attention to similar phenomena in other languages , particularly other romance languages . it is well-known that direct objects , or accusative objects , in spanish , when expressed as full nps , or dps ( to use the author 's term ) , alternate between two forms depending on various semantic and syntactic properties : dps withouth any overt case morphology , and overtly case-marked dps . the overt case marker in question is the preposition " a " , which also marks dative objects . the study adopts the minimalist program , outlined by chomsky ( 1992 , 1994 , 1995 ) , as a framework for developing an analysis for the various phenomena under investigation . synopsis chapter 1 outlines the theoretical framework of the book and sketches the content of the subsequent chapters . chapter 2 presents the various generalizations that characterize spanish accusative objects marked by the dative preposition . among these generalizations are correlations between overt case-marking and specificity , between overt case-marking and telicity , between overt case-marking and an interpretation of the subject as an agent or a cause , etc . the common element in the explanation of all of these generalizations is the idea that the marked accusative object raises overtly to a position outside vp , to the specifier position of the functional category v , which takes the vp as its complement . for example , the two following facts are observed : marked accusative requires ( or may require ) a telic interpretation of the event which is absent with unmarked accusative objects , and an affected interpretation of the ( animate ) object requires overt case-marking on the object . it is suggested that objects moved outside the vp have a delimiting role for their predicates and , at the same time , the position to which objects moved , the spec of vp , is the locus of affectedness . thus , two different properties of overt case-marking would be made to follow from the idea that overtly case-marked objects in spanish undergo overt movement to spec of vp . likewise , the observation that overt case-marking on the object requires the subject to be interpreted as an agent or as a cause is linked to the idea that an overtly case-marked object is in spec-v p and to the hypothesis that the causative or agent role is assigned to the v - vp configuration . torrego proposes that there are two types of marked accusatives , one with structural case and the other with inherent case . marked accusative is inherent with causative and agentive verbs and those with affected objects , and is structural with other verbs . this theoretical difference is appealed to in order to account for an asymmetry with respect to extraction out of marked accusative objects : such extractions are ill-formed with the former class of verbs , but not with the latter . the presence of the extra structure created by the inherent case marker is a crucial element in the explanation of this contrast . chapter 3 examines variation in causative structures in spanish and argues that this variation is largely conditioned by case assignment . much of the discussion is based on a causative structure in which the causee appears between the causative verb " hacer " ' make ' and the infinitive . one of the goals of the chapter is to explain the restrictions on the " faire-par " causative in several spanish dialects . in these dialects , the " faire-par " causative is only fully acceptable in the following situations : ( 1 ) when an object clitic is present , or ( 2 ) when a reflexive clitic is present , and that , otherwise they are best with verbs identified as " constructive accomplishments " such as ' build ' or with case-marked objects . chapter 4 analyzes constructions with dative objects , both with ditransitive verbs and with unaccusatives . restrictions regarding constructions with two objects with identical case-marking are examined . the chapter also deals with contrasts between the presence and absence of doubling clitics . a comparison is made with the double object constructions in english . an analysis is presented of the contrast in raising constructions with 's eem ' between those without the dative argument ( acceptable ) and those with it ( unacceptable ) . conclusions are briefly summarized at the end . critical discussion this book is a mine of linguistic puzzles concerning objects , causative constructions , clitics , and related phenomena in spanish . it is of interest to anyone concerned with these matters , regardless of what analysis and what theoretical framework one may wish to adopt . this book is also of interest to linguists who want to find out how the minimalist program can be applied to a particular empirical domain . the author has done a great job of synthesizing the data and presenting generalizations that need to be explained . despite these positive aspects of the book , i experienced serious frustrations while reading it having to do with the data and with the analysis . data the problem with the data , which is a minor one compared to the other one , has to do with the fact that many of the data presented are alien to the varieties of spanish that i speak or am familiar with . naturally , i cannot claim to know all varieties of spanish , so i should not be surprised to discover data that do not belong to the spanish that i know . some examples follow . torrego presents a contrast in pp . 58-59 between " a quienes ( les ) vieron ? " and " a quienes ( * los ) vieron ? " , but both forms are equally ill-formed for me when the clitic ( the form in parentheses ) is included . the example " la guerra los hizo subir " in page 101 is claimed to allow only an animate reading for the clitic " los " , although for me it also allows an inanimate reading , but then this fact is claimed to hold only in spanish dialects where the pre-infinitival causee with " hacer " and an intransitive verb is attested , and i find this causative structure highly marginal ( examples such as " la maestra hizo a los alumnos subir " ) . and the construction exemplified by sentences such as " me hizo pedir yo , " which is analyzed in this book , is also alien to me . the main problem with these numerous discrepancies about the data is that it makes it hard to evaluate when a difference in the interpretation of the data is due to a difference in the data ( that may not be obvious ) or to a possible misanalysis of what actually is the same data . to illustrate this , consider the argument given in support of the claim that the structure embedded under " hacer " in a sentence like " la guerra hizo subir los precios " is a single unit ( p . 102 ) . torrego claims that standard constituency tests indicate that the sequence " subir los precios " in this sentence is a constituent and provides examples such as the following in support of this claim : ( 38 ) a . lo que la guerra hizo es subir los precios . what the war caused is to rise the prices d . que ha hecho la guerra sino subir los precios ? what has the war caused except rising the prices ? for me the translation of these sentences is not as indicated in the glosses , but rather as " what the war did is to raise the prices . " and " what has the war done but raise the prices ? " for ( 38a ) and ( 38d ) respectively . i would tend to believe that torrego is playing on the polysemy of " hacer " and " subir " . " hacer " can be either the causative verb meaning ' cause ' or ' make ' or the generic transitive verb translatable as 'd o ' , and " subir " can be either intransitive , equivalent to ' rise ' , or transitive , equivalent to ' raise ' . for the examples in ( 38 ) to be relevant to torrego 's claim , " hacer " must be causative and " subir " intransitive . what makes these exemples acceptable ( even though not perfect ) for me is that " subir " can be taken to be a transtive verb , whose unexpressed subject is coreferential with " la guerra " . but , under this interpretation , " hacer " would not be functioning as the causative verb , but as the counterpart of 'd o ' . what shows conclusively that , in my variety of spanish , this interpretation is right is that , if , instead of " subir " , we use a verb that only has an intransitive use , we get an unacceptable result . " caer " ' fall ' is such a verb : even though the sequence " caer los precios " can appear following the causative verb " hacer " , as in " la guerra hizo caer los precios , " it cannot appear as a focused or topicalized constituent of this verb , as we see in ( i ) . ( i ) a . * lo que la guerra hizo es caer los precios . what the war did / caused is to fall the prices b . * que ha hecho la guerra sino caer los precios ? what has the war done / caused except falling the prices ? > from this i would conclude that torrego 's data in ( 38 ) do not provide any evidence for the claim that a sequence such as " subir los precios " in a causative construction is a constituent , because those examples do not include the causative verb " hacer " . of course , i can only reach this conclusion for the variety of spanish that i am familiar with , where ( i ) is ungrammatical . but , for all i know , the examples in ( i ) could be grammatical in the variety of spanish analyzed by torrego , in which case my conclusion would not apply and the examples in ( 38 ) would constitute relevant evidence for the claim under investigation . analysis my second difficulty with this book is in the analysis ( or analyses ) provided . i have trouble understanding many of the analyses given : in many cases , i fail to derive the predictions that should follow from the analysis , i cannot tell what would constitute a counterexample to the analysis , i cannot figure out what role a given assumption plays in the analysis , etc . this could well be due to a deficiency on my part , but other readers might experience the same difficulties . next , i will point out some problem cases . 1 . chapter 2 of the book starts out with a list of six generalizations about marked accusative ( pp . 14-16 ) : ( 1 ) marked accusative can cooccur with doubling clitics in some dialects ( it is a necessary condition for clitic doubling ) , ( 2 ) marked accusative objects are interpreted as specific , ( 3 ) telicity requires marked accusative ( with animate objects ) , ( 4 ) the subject in a clause with a marked accusative object is an agent or a cause , ( 5 ) marked accusative is restricted to animates , and ( 6 ) affected animate objects require marked accusative . the indications given all along are that these generalizations will follow from a unified analysis . the main idea underlying this analysis is that an object with marked accusative raises to the specifier position of the functional category v , which takes a vp as its complement . ideally , an overt movement operation of this kind should have some testable effects on word order and all of the properties of the construction should follow straightforwardly from this operation . however , as torrego notes , there is no visible effect of object raising on word order , so that the motivation for the analysis rests entirely on how well it explains the generalizations listed above . and these generalizations are explained by attributing the various properties that correlate with overt case-marking to the spec of v - vp position on a one-by - one basis . for example , it is proposed that the spec of v - vp has a specific interpretation , that the presence of an object in spec of v - vp may shift the aspect of the predicate to a telic situation , that the presence of an object in spec of v - vp gives an agentive interpretation to the subject , etc . one wonders why this analysis should be preferable to one that attributes all of these properties directly to overt case-marking : in both cases , a one-by - one stipulation of those properties is required . it is not clear what the advantage is in attributing these properties to a special phrase structure position for which very weak evidence is given . 2 . in pp . 23 ff , torrego claims that there are two types of marked accusative : marked accusative of non-affected objects is structural case , whereas marked acusative of affected objects is inherent case . however , this claim is faced with a major problem that torrego notes , but then simply disregards . inherent ( or quirky ) case has the generally accepted property that it is preserved under passivization : an argument with inherent case does n't lose or change its case marking when its clause is passivized . genitive and dative case in icelandic are a good example of this , and dative case in spanish is also a good example of case marking that does not change from active to passive . however , the marked accusative case of affected objects in spanish is not preserved ( see relevant examples in p . 28 ) . torrego notes that , in contrast with spanish , some hindi dialects preserve the accusative " - ko " marking in passives , citing mohanan 1990 . torrego then goes on to say ( p . 29 ) : " if the marked accusative of " affected " objects were inherent , overt marking in passivization could be preserved ( just as the marking of datives and genitives is preserved in icelandic passives ) . it remains to be seen whether relevant data from the dialects of hindi confirm this expectation . " but the relevant data from the dialects of hindi does confirm this expectation , as the examples from mohanan 1990 ( also mohanan 1994 ) show . if we agree that we identify inherent case because its case marking is preserved under passivization , then we must conclude that marked accusative case is inherent in some dialects of hindi , because its case marking does not change under passivization , but is structural in the other dialects of hindi , where it does change under passivization . and we are forced to conclude that it is structural in spanish because it is not preserved under passivization . to ignore this evidence and still conclude that marked accusative case can be inherent case in spanish is to devoid the distinction between structural case and inherent case of the conceptual and empirical substance that it is standardly asociated with . and torrego does not explicitly reject this association . 3 . the agentivity effect of clauses with marked accusative is explained as follows : following a suggestion of chomsky 's ( 1995 ) , the causative or the agent role can be understood as the interpretation assigned to the v - vp configuration ; since marked accusative is assigned to objects that raise to spec of vp , the presence of marked accusative implies the existence of the v - vp configuration . therefore , whenever there is marked accusative , there must be an agentive or causative interpretation . but what happens with verbs that allow an alternation between marked and unmarked accusative on the object ? this should mean that such verbs should alternate between a v - vp configuration and some other configuration , but this second option is not spelled out . also , we have no way of knowing what consequences the presence or absence of the v - vp configuration has other than on overt case marking and on the corelation between overt case marking and other properties such as agentivity . 4 . in pp . 34 ff . , torrego tries to relate the idea that marked accusative on affected objects is lexical quirky case to grimshaw 's ( 1990 ) theory of quirky case - marking . in grimshaw 's theory , arguments at argument structure are ranked by prominence in two tiers : the aspectual tier and the thematic tier . adopting this theory , torrego proposes ( p . 36 ) that " an argument ( subject or object ) can be lexically or quirky marked when it has thematic or aspectual prominence relative to the other argument . " it is unclear how one is to interpret this proposal . prominence is a comparative property : a is more or less prominent than b . to say that a has prominence relative to b is either meaningless or would be true of any pair of arguments in an argument structure : it is necessarily true of any pair of arguments a and b of an argument structure that a is in a prominence relation to b . torrego goes on to state : " the two arguments of an agentive telic transitive verb are both aspectually prominent . " but this should be true of all transitive verbs . torrego goes on to conclude : " this approach covers the fact that the object of only agentive and caustive verbs can or must be lexically or quirky case - marked , and also covers the fact that the overall phenomenon of marked accusative case happens with verbs that have agentive subjects . " i fail to see how these predictions are derived . 5 . regarding the animacy restriction on overtly case - marked objects , torrego proposes that the term " actor " is more appropriate to characterize the class of nominals that appear in marked accusative than the term " animate " . the motivation for this terminological change is found in the existence of some expressions denoting inanimate entities that can take overt case - marking , as in the following example ( p . 55 ) : ( 45 ) el acido afecta ( a ) los metales . ' acid affects metals . ' ( i suspect that the presence of marked accusative in this example has more to do with the verb than with the semantics of the object . ) torrego does not propose a definition of " actor " , but refers the reader to jackendoff 's ( 1983 ) characterization of " actor " as the character in an action-type event that performs the action . given this characterization , it is hard to see how " los metales " ' the metals ' in example ( 45 ) can be interpreted as the argument that performs the action of the event ; what would " el acido " ' the acid ' be , then ? torrego goes on to say : " the distinction between " animates " ( or " actor " - like nominals ) and " inanimates " does not appear to be semantic in nature . " this is an odd claim to make , given that the notion of " actor , " which is proposed to replace " animate , " is given a semantic characterization . the motivation for this claim , however , is found in the fact that certain expressions , specifically proper names of humans , can be used to refer to anything , from a boat to a magazine to a can of beer , and always require overt case morphology , as in the following example : ( 46 ) esconde * ( a ) barbara . ' hide barbara . ' it is suggested that a purely morphological property underlies overt case - marking , although no indication is given as to what this morphological property might be . possibly the most robust generalization about overt case - marking of objects in spanish is that it is restricted to " animates " , even though there are problem cases such as example ( 45 ) and " personified " expressions such as ( 46 ) . because of these problems , torrego gives no explanation for the correlation between case - marking and animate interpretation and between absence of case - marking and inanimate interpretation that we see in pairs such as ( ii ) and ( iii ) : ( ii ) a . esconde a este . ( ' hide this one ( male animate entity ) . ' ) b . esconde este . ( ' hide this one ( inanimate entity ) . ' ) ( iii ) a . veremos a otra . ( ' we shall see another one ( female animate entity ) . ' ) a . veremos otra . ( ' we shall see another one ( inanimate entity ) . ' ) general remarks torrego often appeals to intuition in the exposition of the analysis and does not work out the details of the analysis . the following remark , very reminiscent of chomsky 's style , illustrates this point ( p . 139 , end of 3rd par . ) : " whatever the details of this intuitive account are , the general approach seems quite plausible . " if one does not work out the details of an account , it is not possible to derive predictions from it , and therefore the theory is unfalsifiable . this work by torrego is part of a move towards deriving explanations from very general and simple principles that interact in complex ways with each other . this move is a welcome one , but we should be careful that it does not land us in vagueness and imprecision . there is a style of explanation in which appeal is made to principles , often unstated or imprecisely stated principles , from which predictions are claimed to follow , but in which the derivation of predictions ( the logical steps from which predictions follow ) is not worked out and it is not possible to know what a prediction of the theory really is and what a counterexample to the theory might be . there is a danger that a reader of torrego 's " the dependencies of objects " might have the impression that the explanations in this book are of this style . to prevent this impression , torrego should have made a greater effort in terms of exposition ( even if it means leading the reader by the hand ) to show how the various predictions are derived . for that , it is necessary to state the crucial principles explicitly , as numbered items so the reader can refer to them easily , to make the assumptions about representations also explicit , and to give step-by - step derivations of the various predictions . references chomsky , noam . 1992 . a minimalist program for linguistic theory . mit working papers in linguistics , no . 1 . chomsky , noam . 1994 . bare phrase structure . mit occasional papers in linguistics , no . 5 . chomsky , noam . 1995 . the minimalist program . mit press . grimshaw , jane . 1990 . argument structure . mit press . jackendoff , ray . 1983 . semantics and cognition . mit press . mohanan , tara . 1990 . arguments in hindi . ph . d . dissertation , stanford university . mohanan , tara . 1994 . argument structure in hindi . stanford : csli publications . reviewer : alex alsina , professor titular d ' universitat , faculty of translation and interpretation , universitat pompeu fabra , barcelona , spain . ph . d . , stanford university , 1993 . research interests include syntax , morphology , morphosyntax , argument structure , linguistic theory . reviewer 's address : alex alsina facultat de traduccio i interpretacio universitat pompeu fabra la rambla , 30-32 08002 barcelona spain alex . alsina @ trad . upf . es
