s - Wyższa Szkoła Filologiczna we Wrocławiu

114
Pablo Irizarri van Suchtelen
So, if a Non-Recipient was coded as dative, it always involved a clitic, either
alone, or doubled. Sometimes, the clitic was doubled with a non-dative
encoding, resulting in something I will label “hybrid doubling” [10[. This strategy
was used two times by Lorena (“high input” G2), two times by Inés (G1),
once by Eduardo (G1) and once by a monolingual.
[10] ... le toma su brazo (Inés)
Cl.Dat.3s takes POSS.3sg arm
‘He takes her arm.’
Table 3 represents the rates of “clitic only”, “clitic doubling” or “hybrid
doubling”. In other words, the table investigates differential stability of the only
form of dative encoding found for Recipients as well as Non-Recipients: clitic
indexing. The use of clitics is higher for Recipients than for other roles, in all
groups, except for the “low input” G2, who have low rates of clitic use overall.
Only they have a significant difference with the monolinguals, for all semantic
roles (p < .05).
In the “high input” G2 and the G1, clitic indexing seems quite stable for
Possessors, Human Sources and Interestees, but less so for Experiencers (although
the rate of the monolinguals there is also lower). The difference between
monolinguals and the G1 in encoding Experiencers is significant (p < .01). The
difference between the “high input” G2 and the monolinguals is non-significant
for all roles, even if we remove Fabiano (who has higher dative rates than the
average of the monolinguals).
Table 3. Dative clitics used for encoding all roles: Group scores
Recipients External Human Interestees Experiencers
Possessors Sources
6/25 2/13 4/23 4/25 5/16
Low input G2 24% 15,4% 17,4% 16% 31,3%
26/26 10/14 15/24 18/25 8/17
High input G2 100% 89,5% 62,5% 73,3% 47,1%
25/27 10/15 14/17 19/28 3/13
First generation 92,2% 66,7% 82,4% 67,9% 23,1%
88/94 54/63 58/76 79/106 34/51
Monolinguals 93,6% 87,3% 76,30% 74,50% 66,7%
How is it possible that in Table 1 we found the G1 and the “average” G2 to
use significantly less dative strategies (= clitic indexing) for encoding Non-
Recipient roles compared to the monolinguals, but not in Table 3? Experiencers
seem to contribute most to the overall non-dative rates, because if we remove
them from Table 1, the G1 and the “high input” G2 go up to a level of nonsignificant
difference with the monolinguals.