On Expletive mismo
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think tis is a good paper that makes a relevant contribution to the analysis of appositive relative clauses with mismo. Some comments and suggestions follow.
1) One of the claims of the proposal is that there is a restrictive relative clause (and not an appositive one) and some evidence for it is given (page 13). I think that further evidence may come from the occurrence of resumptive pronouns. These pronouns are not admitted with restrictive relatives (1a), but they can appear in appositive relatives (1b):
(1) a. Nos habló del vecino a quien todo el mundo (*lo) conocía.
b. Nos trajo esos libros que nadie (*lo) había leído.
(2) a. Nos habló del vecino, a quien todo el mundo (lo) conocía.
b. Nos trajo esos libros, que nadie (los) había leído
The contrast holds in dialectal varieties without DO clitic doubling (as it is the case of mine dialect of Spanish). This might be difficult to be detected in corpora, but grammatical judgments could confirm it.
2)The use of the form mismo is linked to the existence of an anaphoric relation and to the reinforcement of such a relation. It might be worthwhile mentioning the etymological origin of mismo, which involves the emphatic Latin pronoun IPSE (this pronoun developed an anaphoric reading in Romance that led it to evolve towards a definite article and/or to a demonstrative in several languages).
3) Why is the adjective mismo an expletive? What kind of expletive would this adjective be?
I’m aware that this label comes from its treatment in RAE-ASALE, as indicated at the beginning of the paper (pages 1-2, note 2), but the paper, and especially the analysis provided, is theoretically oriented (towards generative grammar, I think). Within this framework, expletives lack semantic content and they appear only to fulfill some grammatical requirement. Then, it is hard to consider that an element that acts as an anaphoric reinforcer is expletive (its presence clearly correlates with some semantic content). The idea that it is expletive because it can be omitted doesn’t fits well with the expletive status (based on grammatical requirements), neither.
I think that something should be explicitly said concerning this “expletive status”.
Author Response
1) One of the claims of the proposal is that there is a restrictive relative clause (and not an appositive one) and some evidence for it is given (page 13). I think that further evidence may come from the occurrence of resumptive pronouns. These pronouns are not admitted with restrictive relatives (1a), but they can appear in appositive relatives (1b):
(1) a. Nos habló del vecino a quien todo el mundo (*lo) conocía.
b.Nos trajo esos libros que nadie (*lo) había leído.
(2) a. Nos habló del vecino, a quien todo el mundo (lo) conocía.
b.Nos trajo esos libros, que nadie (los) había leído
The contrast holds in dialectal varieties without DO clitic doubling (as it is the case of mine dialect of Spanish). This might be difficult to be detected in corpora, but grammatical judgments could confirm it.
ANSWER: Resumptive pronouns are certainly more frequent in appositive relative clauses, but they can also occur in restrictive relatives (see recently Jorge Agulló, 2023, El pronombre reasuntivo en la sintaxis del español, doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, and the references therein). They can thus not be used as a reliable test to determine the status of the sentences analysed in the paper.
2)The use of the form mismo is linked to the existence of an anaphoric relation and to the reinforcement of such a relation. It might be worthwhile mentioning the etymological origin of mismo, which involves the emphatic Latin pronoun IPSE (this pronoun developed an anaphoric reading in Romance that led it to evolve towards a definite article and/or to a demonstrative in several languages).
ANSWER: The etymology of the adjective has been addressed in note 3 in the revised version
3) Why is the adjective mismo an expletive? What kind of expletive would this adjective be? I’m aware that this label comes from its treatment in RAE-ASALE, as indicated at the beginning of the paper (pages 1-2, note 2), but the paper, and especially the analysis provided, is theoretically oriented (towards generative grammar, I think). Within this framework, expletives lack semantic content and they appear only to fulfill some grammatical requirement. Then, it is hard to consider that an element that acts as an anaphoric reinforcer is expletive (its presence clearly correlates with some semantic content). The idea that it is expletive because it can be omitted doesn’t fits well with the expletive status (based on grammatical requirements), neither. I think that something should be explicitly said concerning this “expletive status”.
ANSWER: The issue of the “expletive status” of mismo has been explained in note 2 in the revised version.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper uses corpus data to examine the ‘expletive’ mismo as found in some Central and Latin American dialects of Spanish. The authors argue that this expletive only has an anaphoric function and reinforces the anaphoric relation between an appositive relative clause and its antecedent in the preceding sentence. Based on this function, they analyze this appositive construction as headed by a null definite article and including an empty nominal and a restrictive relative clause modifying the said empty noun.
The paper is valuable in offering a rich set of corpus data. The analysis seems reasonable, and it is helpful that the paper also considers alternative analyses. Of course, in a paper relying on naturally-occurring data, it is hard to have negative evidence, but it would be helpful to see configurations where mismo cannot occur.
In principle I am convinced by the paper and by the new proposal. I have some questions to specific parts of the paper where things could be made clearer. In my opinion, these questions should be easy to resolve, and hopefully that would move the paper forward.
Lines 223-225, in relation to ex (8):
In this example, here second mismo may be simply deleted, in which case the argument will not go through
Also, is it possible to have no mismo in the first clause and a mismo in the second clause?
Lines 245-249: I don’t see how this is a problem for the analysis reviewed here. Pied-piping should be OK here.
Line 416 and further, with respect to (15) and related structures: is the claim here that the determiner is null because it is incorporated into mismo? The strongest argument for that incorporation would come from the use of mismo in subject positions, since Spanish subjects generally do not appear bare. If this is the analysis, it should be made more explicit.
Nothing to report
Author Response
This paper uses corpus data to examine the ‘expletive’ mismo as found in some Central and Latin American dialects of Spanish. The authors argue that this expletive only has an anaphoric function and reinforces the anaphoric relation between an appositive relative clause and its antecedent in the preceding sentence. Based on this function, they analyze this appositive construction as headed by a null definite article and including an empty nominal and a restrictive relative clause modifying the said empty noun.
The paper is valuable in offering a rich set of corpus data. The analysis seems reasonable, and it is helpful that the paper also considers alternative analyses. Of course, in a paper relying on naturally-occurring data, it is hard to have negative evidence, but it would be helpful to see configurations where mismo cannot occur.
In principle I am convinced by the paper and by the new proposal. I have some questions to specific parts of the paper where things could be made clearer. In my opinion, these questions should be easy to resolve, and hopefully that would move the paper forward.
Lines 223-225, in relation to ex (8). In this example, here second mismo may be simply deleted, in which case the argument will not go through.
ANSWER: We are considering that in examples like (8) mismo modifies two coordinated relative clauses. It is true that it could alternatively be considered that two relative clauses introduced by mismo are coordinated and that mismo is elided in the second one. However, the very possibility of eliding the second mismo would be an argument against the analysis that considers mismo que as a lexical unit, since parts of lexical units cannot not be omitted.
Also, is it possible to have no mismo in the first clause and a mismo in the second clause?
ANSWER: This issue has been addressed in note 21, where the only example we have found in CORPES of the case proposed by the reviewer is given.
Lines 245-249: I don’t see how this is a problem for the analysis reviewed here. Pied-piping should be OK here.
ANSWER: In lines 322-332, it is explained why the examples in (9) to (11) are a problem for the analysis that considers mismo que as a complex relative, that is, a lexical unit. The idea is, in a nutshell, that other combinations of expletive mismo cannot be analyzed as complex relatives.
Line 416 and further, with respect to (15) and related structures: is the claim here that the determiner is null because it is incorporated into mismo? The strongest argument for that incorporation would come from the use of mismo in subject positions, since Spanish subjects generally do not appear bare. If this is the analysis, it should be made more explicit.
ANSWER: The analysis in (15) clearly shows that, in our view, mismo is not incorporated into D, although an alternative analysis is mentioned in note 20.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article investigates a little explored phenomenon and offers an alternative formal analysis for the mismo sequence as in non-comparative constructions. It provides arguments in favor of two proposals: on the one hand, that the constituent mismo que is not a complex relative, since it does not function as a block; on the other hand, that the construction it heads is not an appositive relative clause, but a restrictive one, as shown by the fact that the relative el cual and quien do not appear. The author also briefly points out the geographical distribution of the construction and its diaphasic consideration. It is an article that deals with a novel topic, well organized and with an alternative analysis to that which has been offered in the very few studies that have studied the construction.
There are, however, some questions that could be clarified or deepened. In the first place, on page 2, the distinction between I-mismo and E-mismo could be made more precise. Perhaps because the difference is not sufficiently developed, the following statement is not understood: "As illustrated in (3), in the internal interpretation (I- mismo) requires a plural antecedent in the same sentence". The example referred to is (3a): Juan y Pedro han leído el mismo libro, but I do not see where the plural antecedent of mismo is in this sentence, it does not seem to me that it can be the subject Juan y Pedro. Secondly, one could also nuance how the judgments about the register variation of mismo have been obtained, so one could add relevant information about this issue on page 3 or in footnote 6.
There are two issues on which some depth is lacking: on the one hand, the ability of mismo to legitimize the nominal empty category; on the other hand, the justification of the analysis of relative clauses. On the first issue, there are several points that are not made explicit in the analysis. The definite article seems capable of legitimating nominal empty categories when there are restrictive complements in Spanish (el interesante; el de Juan; el que quiere Juan), but this does not seem to be the behavior of mismo in standard Spanish (*mismo interesante; *mismo de Juan; *mismo que quiere Juan). Which is the element that is legitimizing the tacit noun in the construction studied in this article? If it is mismo, why does this element not legitimize tacit nouns in other contexts in which there is no determiner? In addition to those mentioned above, this other example can be added: *María tiene un coche y Juan tiene mismo. This question would also tie in with the categorial status of mismo, which is not sufficiently discussed.
With respect to the structure of the relative, an adjunction construction with external antecedent is assumed, but other possibilities of analysis, such as Kayne's with internal antecedent, are not considered. It is not investigated, for example, whether we could obtain the same results if the analysis of the restrictive were different. In this sense, I believe that there is a lack of basic bibliography on relative clauses in the article. Although it is true that there is little bibliography on the construction mismo que, it would have been advisable to have more bibliography on mismo and on relative clauses, for example, the relevant articles of the Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española.
Finally, the analysis advocated in the article is similar to that of the pseudo-appositive relative clauses, which have a restrictive value. It might be interesting to compare them with this construction: los niños, los que estaban cansados, se durmieron (Brucart 1999: 7.1.5).
Author Response
The article investigates a little explored phenomenon and offers an alternative formal analysis for the mismo sequence as in non-comparative constructions. It provides arguments in favor of two proposals: on the one hand, that the constituent mismo que is not a complex relative, since it does not function as a block; on the other hand, that the construction it heads is not an appositive relative clause, but a restrictive one, as shown by the fact that the relative el cual and quien do not appear. The author also briefly points out the geographical distribution of the construction and its diaphasic consideration. It is an article that deals with a novel topic, well organized and with an alternative analysis to that which has been offered in the very few studies that have studied the construction.
There are, however, some questions that could be clarified or deepened. In the first place, on page 2, the distinction between I-mismo and E-mismo could be made more precise. Perhaps because the difference is not sufficiently developed, the following statement is not understood: "As illustrated in (3), in the internal interpretation (I- mismo) requires a plural antecedent in the same sentence". The example referred to is (3a): Juan y Pedro han leído el mismo libro, but I do not see where the plural antecedent of mismo is in this sentence, it does not seem to me that it can be the subject Juan y Pedro.
ANSWER: Coordinated noun phrases are plural, as can be seen by their agreement with the verb if they are the subject of the sentence (Juan y Pedro cantan; Tú y yo discutimos) or by their pronominalisation if they are a direct/indirect object (A Juan y Pedro los admiro; A ti y a mi nos gusta el cine).
Secondly, one could also nuance how the judgments about the register variation of mismo have been obtained, so one could add relevant information about this issue on page 3 or in footnote 6.
ANSWER: The source of data and judgments about register variation are made explicit in p. 4 (lines 137-141) and in note 6.
There are two issues on which some depth is lacking: on the one hand, the ability of mismo to legitimize the nominal empty category; on the other hand, the justification of the analysis of relative clauses. On the first issue, there are several points that are not made explicit in the analysis. The definite article seems capable of legitimating nominal empty categories when there are restrictive complements in Spanish (el interesante; el de Juan; el que quiere Juan), but this does not seem to be the behavior of mismo in standard Spanish (*mismo interesante; *mismo de Juan; *mismo que quiere Juan). Which is the element that is legitimizing the tacit noun in the construction studied in this article? If it is mismo, why does this element not legitimize tacit nouns in other contexts in which there is no determiner? In addition to those mentioned above, this other example can be added: *María tiene un coche y Juan tiene mismo. This question would also tie in with the categorial status of mismo, which is not sufficiently discussed.
ANSWER: The issue of the categorial status of mismo as an adjective (and not a determiner) has been addressed in note 3 in the revised version. Briefly, mismo is not a determiner because it cannot legitimate a NP as a prenominal subject (*Mismo chico canta lit. ‘Same boy sings’; cf. {Este/el} chico canta ‘This/the boy sings’), nor does it allow a singular count noun to be a direct object (*Los chicos leen mismo libro ‘lit. ‘The boys read same book’, cf. Los chicos leen {este/el} libro). Determiners, but not adjectives, can license an empty noun in Spanish. The ungrammaticality of *María tiene un coche y Juan tiene mismo is due to the same reason that *María tiene un coche rojo y Juan azul: there is not any determiner which license an empty nominal in the second nominal phrase. Both examples become grammatical if a determiner is added which legitimates the empty noun: María tiene un coche y Juan tiene el mismo, María tiene un coche rojo y Juan uno azul. The fact that mismo combines with an empty noun in the construction under discussion might then be taken to be an argument in favor of the analysis in note 20, as indicated in the revised version
With respect to the structure of the relative, an adjunction construction with external antecedent is assumed, but other possibilities of analysis, such as Kayne's with internal antecedent, are not considered. It is not investigated, for example, whether we could obtain the same results if the analysis of the restrictive were different. In this sense, I believe that there is a lack of basic bibliography on relative clauses in the article. Although it is true that there is little bibliography on the construction mismo que, it would have been advisable to have more bibliography on mismo and on relative clauses, for example, the relevant articles of the Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española.
ANSWER: The issue of the structure of the relative clause has been addressed in note 16 in the revised version, where Kayne (1994)’s raising analysis of restrictive relatives has also been mentioned.
Finally, the analysis advocated in the article is similar to that of the pseudo-appositive relative clauses, which have a restrictive value. It might be interesting to compare them with this construction: los niños, los que estaban cansados, se durmieron (Brucart 1999: 7.1.5).
ANSWER: In our view, pseudo-appositive relative clauses are different from the construction discussed in the paper: they directly modify the antecedent, whereas the construction under analysis is an appositive nominal expression that contains a restrictive relative clause modifying an empty noun. However, we will keep the reviewer’s suggestion in mind for future work.
