{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03116919098633173, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010505171776874768, 'mean_word_length': 4.9684442607137935, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Obligatory Dative Clitic Doubling in Spanish.

This study investigates the phenomenon of obligatory dative doubling, examining data based upon a critique of two analyses of clitic doubling in Spanish within cdfferent grammatical frameworks. Previous analyses propose that dative clitic doubling is obligatory whenever the Noun Phrase in indirect position is not a semantic Recipient/Addressee (Goal). The data presented demonstrate that obligatory clitic doubling does not depend solely on the thematic role of the dative but that other features must be considered. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews an analysis proposed within Relational Grammar and outlines structural and theory-based problems with the argument; Section 3 summarizes another analysis regarding dative clitic doubling proposed within Government and Binding theory as well as potential theory-based problems and shows the similarities with the earlier theory. Section 4 discusses thematic roles and presents data that cannot adequately be accounted for by either analysis. Section 5 presents implications for further research. (JL)

Various linguists, including Kayne (1975), Rivas (1977), Jaeggli (1982), Bickford (1985), and Suiier (1986), among others, have studied the distribution of the pair, specifically with regard to when doubling is obligatory. That is, in many constructions the clitic has the option of co-occurring with the dative NP but is not obligatory. Under certain conditions, however, omission of the clitic will produce ungrammatical sentences. Compare (2) in which doubling is optional with (3)  This study investigates the phenomenon of obligatory dative doubling, examining data based upon a critique of two analyses of clitic doubling in Spanish within different grammatical frameworks. Previous analyses propose that dative clitic doubling is obligatory whenever the NP in indirect object position is not a semantic · Recipient/Addressee (Goal). J. Albert Bickford's (1985) proposal within Relational Grammar and Osvaldo Jaeggli's (1982) account within Government and Binding are two representative analyses of the phenomenon which argue that conditions for doubling are based upon the thematic role of the superficial indirect object NP. Due to an incomplete corpus of data, however, neither analysis adequately accounts for the phenomenon. The data in this report instead demonstrate that obligatory clitic doubling does not depend solely on the thematic role of the dative but that other features must be considered. I outline data not accounted for by either theory in order 1) to question the validity of relying solely upon analyses based on thematic roles to describe clitic doubling; 2) to present possible (non-syntactic) explanations; and 3) to raise questions beyond the scope of this report for further research. This paper is organized as follows: section 2 reviews Bickford's analysis proposed within Relational Grammar and outlines structural and theory-based problems with his argument. Section 3 summarizes Jaeggli's analysi$ regarding dative clitic doubling proposed within Government and Binding as well as potential theory-based problems. At the end of this section I show similarities between Bickford and Jaeggli's arguments.
Section 4 discusses thematic roles and presents data that cannot adequately be accounted for by Bickford or Jaeggli. Explanations for these data are given. Finally, Section 5 presents implications for further research as well as conclusions.
While this is not an exhaustive nor a quantitative study of dative clitic doubling, I believe the data presented in this report raise some questions for further research and support arguments against relying solely on a syntactico-semantic account, particularly a sentence-based analysis, to describe actual language. Dative clitic doubling is not neatly defined by a single theory. Instead, I maintain that other considerations, particularly pragmatic, play an important role in describing the phenomenon, and these remain for further study.
2 Bickford (1982 and1985) 2.1 Clitic doubling rule J. Albert Bickford, in his 1985 article entitled "Spanish Clitic Doubling and Levels of Grammatical Relations," specifically addresses the phenomenon within Relational Grammar. Expanding a prior paper on initial and non-initial indirect objects in Spanish (Bickford 1982), he formulates a single Clitic Doubling Rule to account for all instances of dative clitic doubling, as stated in (4). In other words, a dative clitic is optional if the nominal that determines it is an initial 3 (semantic Recipient or Addressee). (Relational Grammar admits multilevel analysis. The final level corresponds to superficial realiz.ation; the initial one is in correspondence with semantic roles (see section 3).) It then follows that if there is a final 3 which is not an initial 3, dative clitic doubling must occur.
Using data from the Chilean dialect of Spanish, Bickford delineates fundamental assumptions on obligatory clitics. He first examines common instances of obligatory clitic doubling in which final dative objects (superficial indirect objects) determine clitics on the verb. Dative clitics obligatorily co-occur with indirect objects when the indirect object is a (free) pronoun or is left-dislocated. I
(left-dislocated) 'To her husband, she always gives neckties.' [3] The non-occurrence of these factors is considered a sufficient condition for omission. That is, when the indirect object (IO) is not a pronominal or occurs to the right of the verb, the clitic is optional. Bickford uses a controlled group of data in which the doubled clitic is obligatory even though these sufficient conditions for omission are satisfied. He redefines the term 'obligatory' within the article to mean obligatory even when the above conditions for omission of a clitic are satisfied. Therefore, he examines only nontypical clitic doubling in which indirect objects occur to the right of the verb and are not pronominals.
The condition for optionality in single clauses, he states, is that the Final 3 (superficial direct object) must be a semantic Recipient or Addressee, as shown in (8)

Single clauses
Bickford presents analyses that have appeared in RG literature regarding obligatory dative clitic doubling as bases for postulating his clitic doubling rule, and argues that the rule serves as an additional argument for the analyses taken as a group. In Relational Grammar there is an "uncontroversial assumption" that final J's which are semantically Recipients or Addressees are assumed to head J-arcs at all levels (Bickford 1985:194) Following this premise, he demonstrates how each example of obligatory doubling is non-prototypical (contains non-initial J's) and why the clitic is obligatory. He begins with single clausal types.
Cases of obligatory single clause constructions include Inversion Constructions, as in (10).
(1 Oa) Muchas veces las ideas creativas Many times the ideas creative 'That author often lacks creative ideas.' The stratal diagram for (IOa) would be as follows: a ese autor. to that author.
(I Ob) f al tar ideas autor With Inversion constructions, the final 3 is initially a semantic Agent or Experiencer (initial 1 ). It is not an initial 3 because only initial semantic Recipients or Addressees may be represented by an initial 3. Thus, ese autor in (10) is the initial semantic Agent and later becomes the superficial dative Recipient.
Other Inversion constructions involve so-called psych-verbs, as in (11). Grammatical relations of the dative are indicated in parenthesis.
They painted walls for the owners every summer.' [7] (BEN ~3) Diagram (12b) shows that Bickford analyzes these as final J's which head initial BEN-arcs (BEN represents a Benefactive oblique). Again, the final 3 is not an initial 3 and the clitic is therefore obliptory.  Bickford cites Tuggy's (1980) suggestion that these constructions could be the advancement of some Oblique to 3 or, in the case of Inalienable Possession, an instance of Possessor Raising. The thematic role is ambiguous and therefore labeled here as a variable, X. Regardless of the exact thematic role of Ethical Datives, Bickford considers them to be distinct from Benefactive constructions in which the dative is an initial Benefactive.
Another obligatory single clause construction involves Inalienable Possession, where the final 3 is the possessor of the final 2 (superficial direct object). It is not so important what the final 3 is initially as the fact that it is not an initial 3.

Multi-clausal constructions
Obligatory clitic doubling also occurs in two types of multiclausal structures: causative constructions and Modal Union, as in (15)  RG assumes that causatives are initially biclausal, but that all dependents of the embedded clause are also final dependents of the main clause (Bickford 1985:197). In both constructions, the two clauses are considered to be united into one final clause; thus, the label 'Clause Union'. A distinction is made between Clause Union (Causative Clause Union) and Clause Reduction (which involves clitic climbing).
In Causative Clause Union the initial 1 of the embedded clause becomes the final 2 or 3 of the matrix clause, depending on the transitivity in the embedded clause. What is of interest to Bickford's analysis is that the final 3 does not head any initial arc in the matrix clause, as shown in (17). The crucial issue is that the final 3 is not an initial 3, and therefore the clitic is obligatory.

Franklin
In Clause Reduction, union is optional and occurs if the same nominal heads a I-arc in both clauses, as in control structures involving verbs such as querer, necesitar, and desear, and in raising structures involving verbs such aspoder, acabar de, and soler.
Control and raising structures are illustrated in (18) and (19) (final 3 of matrix clause, but no initial relation to matrix clause) (21b) paquetes According to the analysis, clitic doubling must be optional in (20), since the dative is the initial and final 3 of the embedded clause. In (21), it must be obligatory, since the superficial indirect object is the initial 3 of the embedded clause and not of the matrix clause. That is, the initial 3 bears no initial relation to the matrix clause but becomes the final 3 of the matrix clause.
Bickford maintains that supportive evidence for his analysis is found when Clause Reduction interacts with other constructions, such as passive in the matrix clause applied to an embedded 2. The combination of both passive in the matrix clause and a multiclausal construction makes the clitic obligatory. Sentences (22a) and (22b) contrast passive and active multiclausal constructions. Even though both are multiclausal sentences, clitic doubling is obligatory only in (22a), demonstrating that passive is necessary. 3 (22a) Generalmente, cuando /os premios /es/*@ son terminados de dar a los ganadores. el publico sale rapidamente.
'Generally, when the prizes have finished being given to the winners, the public leaves rapidly.' [16] (X ~3) PASSIVE (22b) (Les) quieren dar premios a /os ganadores hoy a las seis. 'They want to give awards to the winners today at six o'clock.' (3 ~3) ACTIVE Sentences (23a) and (23b) are contrasted to illustrate how a multiclausal construction necessitates obligatory doubling. Both sentences are passive; however, clitic doubling is optional in the single clause but is obligatory in the multiclausal construction.
'As soon as the balls are delivered to the players, they begin their training. [18b] In such cases involving a combination of both a passive and a multiclausal construction, clitic doubling is obligatory. As in Clause Union, the embedded 3 does not head any initial arc in the matrix clause. It does head a 3-arc in the final stratum of the matrix clause, but what is important is that it holds no initial relation to the matrix clause and cannot be analyzed as an initial 3 of the matrix clause.
Bickford points out, however, that his rule does not seem to account for one type of example.
(24) Los duenos (/es) quieren a/qui/ar estas casas a /os estudiantes por 3000 pesos. 'The owners want to rent these houses to the students for 3000 pesos.' [29] It appears that the clitic is optional even though it attaches to the matrix verb, indicating that Clause Reduction has taken place. Bickford calls this an illusion, because when the clitic is omitted there is no overt evidence that Clause Reduction has taken place. He argues that the clitic is just as likely to have been omitted from the lower clause, since Clause Reduction is optional. Therefore, when the clitic is omitted here, it is omitted from the lower clause. Compare the following: (25a) Los duenos quieren alqui/ar fJ estas casas a /os estudiantes por 3000 pesos.
[30b] REDUCTION He considers the sentence in (25b) to be correct, in which case the doubling rule holds.

Theory-based problems
Although Bickford's analysis appears to work with the data given, the analysis has some theory-based problems: for example, he points out that the sentence in (24) is only an apparent counterexample, not an actual one, because the clitic is optional only if reduction has not taken place. Looking at the data from another perspective it could be argued that reduction does indeed occur. Notice the sentence and corresponding diagram in (26), in which the dative clitic is obligatory, since the final 3 is not an initial 3.
(26a) Las casas /esl*fJ son terminados de alqui/ar a /os estudiantes por /os dueflOs. 'The houses were finished being rented to the students by the owners.' (26b) terminar H'we remove one stratum, we will arrive at the following: (27) Los duenos (Jes) terminaron de alquilar las casas a los estudiantes. 'The owners finished renting the houses to the students.' The initial and final relations of the nominal estudiantes remain the same; however, the clitic is obligatory in (26) but not in (27). The question remains as to why the clitic is optional in one sentence and obligatory in the other, even though both hold the same relations and are merely different strata of the same relational network. Estudiantes holds no initial 3 relation to the matrix and is a final 3 regardless of the construction. To analyze (27) without Clause Reduction would mean that the sentence in (26) could not be derived. The only way we know that Modal Union has taken place is by the collocation of the clitic with the matrix verb. The argument seems circular. If the clitic is completely omitted, then how do we know that reduction took place or from which clause the clitic was omitted?
Furthermore, Bickford's rule is dependent on a biclausal analysis and diagram. If Davies and Rosen's more recent (1988) analysis of Clause Union is applied to the data, Bickford's analysis ofmulticlausal constructions does not hold. Davies and Rosen analyze Unions as multipredicate uniclausal constructions in which the inner clause occupies the first stratum. In Causative Unions, the recent analysis still captures the fact that the final 3 is not an initial 3.
'They make the girl eat vegetables.' 3sg. haccr comer For Modal Union, however, the situation is different. The monoclausal analysis contradicts the Clitic Doubling Rule, since final 3 's are also initial 3 's of the same clause. The rule states that if all other necessary conditions for determining a clitic are met, the clitic may only be omitted if it is an initial 3 of a clause. Hence the rule would incorrectly predict that the clitic be optional in (29a).
(29a) Generalmente, cuando /os premios /es!*(? son_ terminados de dar a /os ganadores. el publico sale rapidamente. 'Generally, when the prizes are finished being given to the winners, the public leaves rapidly.' [ 16] Using passive+multiclausal data, (29a) would be represented by Davies  Another problem with Bickford's analysis has to do with conditions for optional doubling in single clauses. He states that in order for the dative clitic to be optional in single clauses, the final 3 must be a semantic Recipient or Addressee. This does not account for the following which may be interpreted in two ways: "They bought the house from Mark" or "They bought the house for Mark." If the hou,e is purchased from Mark, the dative is a semantic Source, and the Doubling Rule would inaccurately predict obligatory clitic doubling.
'They bought the house from/for Mark.' (Source -+ 3) Thus it appears that initial J's may be too narrowly defined as semantic Recipients/ Addressees. One may argue that in the case of (30) the clitic is indeed obligatory, but when the thematic role of Marcos is Recipient/Addressee, the clitic is optional. Such an argument seems arbitrary, however, since optionality in this example appears to be possible with both interpretations of the sentence (although speakers do not agree on this point).
The theory-based problems with Bickford's analysis, then, primarily have to do with his interpretation of multi-clausal constructions, particularly involving clause reduction. If certain constructions are reanalyzed as monoclausal constructions, following Davies and Rosen, the Doubling Rule will make incorrect predictions. Furthermore, defining inital J's as semantic Recipients/Addressees does not account for the possibility of clitic omission in (30). Other problems with basing a doubling rule on the thematic roles of datives will be discussed in further detail in Section 4. Working within Government and Binding, Jaeggli (1982) proposes a similar analysis of dative clitic doubling. Like Bickford, he notes that clitic doubling is optional in constructions involving non-pronominal datives that carry the thematic role of Goal (hereafter considered to be the same as Recipient/ Addressee, based upon a comparison of both Bickford's and Jaeggli's data).4 Doubling is obligatory with free pronouns and Inalienable Possession constructions, as shown in (31) and (32) Jaeggli accounts for the data by considering Goal constructions to be the unmarked case and other datives to be the marked case for dative clitic doubling. He therefore formulates the following theta-role transmission rule to account for all marked constructions (Jaeggli 1982:36).
Jaeggli accounts for the data by presenting Inalienable Possession as an example of marked cases involving dative clitic doubling. He maintains that dative clitic doubling is obligatory in such constructions. That is, verbs that allow an Inalienable Possession construction are listed in the lexicon as assigning a special theta role, 0p, to dative clitics attached to them. This then triggers the 0-role assignment to the NP via the transmission rule.
The rule supplies 0-roles to object NP's which are doubled. Therefore, if a clitic is not present, 0-role absorption will not occur, and the assignment is to the NP instead.
That is, if the clitic is not there, the a NP object (preceded by a preposition) simply receives the role generally associated with dative NP's, that of Goal (0g).

(34) {!J Dieron cinco do/ares a mi hiio.
[ 0g] 'They gave my son five dollars.' Franklin On the other hand, if the construction is inalienable, the verbs which allow this construction do not select a Goal object, and the clitic bears a special 0-role, 0p.
When the clitic is absent, Jaeggli maintains that 0-role absorption does not occur, and the construction is not inalienable possession but an "ordinary goal indirect object" (1982:33). Thus, he argues, omission of the clitic in (36b) gives the sentence the nonsensical meaning of "They examined the teeth to the horse." The presence of the clitic is required to fix appropriately the thematic presence of the "aphrase" and imply 0p (inalienable possession construction theme role).
Jaeggli describes Benefactive Datives or Ethical Datives as constructions in which both the direct and indirect object positions are filled. Again, he considers these to be marked constructions which therefore require clitic doubling.
' 3.2 Theory.;.based problems Like Bickford7 Jaeggli defines optional dative clitics. as being Goal. Again, this does not account for the following optionality in which one interpretation may involve Source.
'They bought the house from/for Mark.' Furthermore, although Jaeggli includes some dative causative constructions involving hacer in his data, he does not provide an analysis of these or other multiclausal constructions involving Spanish datives.
Jaeggli's treatment of dative clitic doubling is not comprehensive, in that he does not discuss other obligatory constructions such as Inversion (where the dative is the semantic Experiencer). Assuming that the analysis would assign a 0-role, 0e, denoting the role ofExperiencer, would there be a difference between 0-role assignment for (40) versus ( 41 ) Jaeggli's analysis assumes that inhere is no clitic the NP carries the thematic role of Goal assigned by the preposition, 'a 1 • How does this account for the sentence in ( 41) since the generic group todos does not seem to be a clear Goal of gustar?
Finally, Borer (1983 :35) rejects Jaeggli's analysis, questioning whether the clitic is in an argument position and falls under binding conditions. She states that if the clitic occupies an argument position, all clitic doubling configurations would be problematic because under the Projection Principle, the verb would select two argument positions and assign the same 0-role to both. She maintains that in Jaeggli's system the clitic crucially does not govern or c-command the governed element. She also argues that no · transmission rule is necessary. Instead, "the clitic, as a morphological affix of sorts, simply affects the nature of the 0-role assigned to the indirect object" (1983:194). She maintains that the interaction between morphol9gy and the argument structure is merely a morphological process.

Similarities
Bickford and Jaeggli's analyses of obligatory dative clitic doubling have several similarities. Although the formalisms are different, both stem from the semantic roles of the dative;·speeifically, if the lexical NP is a semantic Goal (Recipient/Addressee), clitic doubling is considered to be optional. In all other cases where the NP is non-pronominal and occurs to the right of the verb, the clitic is required. For Bickford the decision whether or not to double the clitic is based on whether or not the superficial indirect object was initially a Recipient/ Addressee; for Jaeggli, thematic assignment to the NP in indirect object position is triggered by the dative clitic if the clitic is not a semantic Goal.
Both analyses include example sentences involving verbs with inherent thematic roles, such as Goal, and can account for verbs which imply a dative Experiencer. Table 3.30 compares and contrasts the two theories, including an outline of verbs used in each analysis. Clearly, in such cases the verbs do not imply just one inherent thematic role, therefore interpretation of the dative cannot be determined solely by the verb.

Mi espasa /es/ •e hace comida a muchas familias pobres.
'My wife prepares food for many poor families.' (8) Bickford and Jaeggli's analyses are similar in that they account for optional versus obligatory possibilities (without mention of the scope of preference for the clitic).6 Moreover, the rules are semantically motivated and rely on a limited set of verbs and verbal categories.

Thematic roles
Since neither analysis explicitly defines thematic roles such as Goal, Recipient, Experiencer, etc., I will attempt to briefly outline prototypical definitions of semantic roles related to datives in Spanish and list verbs related to each category before discussing the data in Section 4.2.7 A Recipient may be considered to be that entity which acquires possession of the patient as a result of the specified action; that is, the entity may assume control over the Theme (the entity towards which an action is directed; not a Patient). An Addressee is that entity to which a communication is directed. A Goal would include both of the above definitions for Recipient and Addressee. Jackendoff(1972:66) notes that with verbs of motion, the Goal is the destination of the motion. He states that this is different from Location, since with verbs of motion, Location should not be generated in a construction with the verb itself in the prelexical base. He also delineates the Source-Goal pattern as a change in position of the direct object, extending from one NP to another NP. For this paper, I use his definition in which Goal may imply the transfer of an entity toward the dative; that is, the Goal dative somehow (whether literally or metaphorically) receives the entity. Source is therefore interpreted as that entity from which a communication or possession is directed. Based on Jackendoff(1972:78), this paper will consider Source to be the complement of Goal.
The Experiencer is the thinking being which experiences the thought or perception specified by certain verbs. In Spanish, the Experiencer commonly occurs in subject position; however, in Inversion constructions it occurs in what is typically the indirect object position. The agent and dative exchange roles in such constructions, thus the label 'Inversion'.
Benefactives may be interpreted as the entity for whose benefit an action is done; that is, it is the entity that is directly affected by the action but does not necessarily become the possessor of the Theme/Patient (Patient= an entity that undergoes a change of state or location or is otherwise affected directly as a result of the action specified by the verb.) In Spanish Ethical Datives are often quite similar to ·Benefactives, although they may imply some sort of a negative benefit.
The Possessor is that entity to which the Theme/Patient belongs. Jackendoff (1972:56) notes that in English we may have a possessor goal. In Spanish this is complicated by Inalienable Constructions in which the accusative object is inherently a part or possession of the dative complement.
Before moving to problematic data, the following is a partial list of Spanish verbs and the thematic roles they may impart to datives, primarily based on Bickford and Jaeggli's analyses. Those in parentheses may be ambiguous or occur in more than one category, depending on the context of the verb, and will be discussed in the following section.

Problematic data
Although Bickford and Jaeggli's analyses seem to account for the majority of constructions involving dative arguments, some problems remain for consideration. First, for many speakers there are examples where clitic doubling may be omitted even though the Doubling Rule would predict obligatory doubling. Such examples are especially evident in cases involving the Inversion construction with quantifiers (with the thematic role of Experiencer) but may also occur with dative arguments assuming thematic arguments such as Source, Benefactives, and Possessor. Moreover, the thematic role of the indirect object is not always simple to determine and depends upon the context of the verb. In many instances, the Doubling Rule would predict that the clitic is obligatory, sometimes erroneously.
For dative arguments that assume the thematic role of Recipient/ Addressee, it may be that there are cases where clitic doubling is strongly preferred or perhaps semiobligatory. The Clitic Doubling Rule does not account for such instances, since it predicts only two outcomes: obligatory or optional. This binary prediction fails to account for the scope of preference and context of usage. In certain instances omission of the clitic may actually be preferable even in cases where the analyses in question would simply predict optionality. This is particularly true when a specific meaning is intended. That is, if a shift in emphasis is intended, implying a focus on a particular action or a series of actions rather than on the dative complement, or if a non-partitive/generic reading is intended, omission of the clitic may be preferable.
I will outline problematic examples that do not appear to conform to Bickford or Jaeggli's analyses. Rather than proposing an alternative analysis, I will provide a descriptive discussion of data pertaining to the analyses in question.

E:1.periencen
Interviews with native Spanish speakers yielded some interesting results with regard to clitic doubling which demonstrate the inadequacy of relying solely on syntactic rules to account for the phenomenon. 8 I will first discuss instances where clitic doubling should be obligatory, according to Bickford and Jaeggli, but the data reveal otherwise.
Recall that obligatory doubling must occur when the dative object is not an initial 3, i.e., Recipient/Addressee (Bickford), or if the thematic role of the dative NP is not assigned the 0-role, 0g, where g=Goal (Jaeggli). Thus, the clitic should be obligatory in constructions involving datives that are semantic Experiencers, since these datives are not initial 3's. Jaeggli similarly maintains that such datives are the marked case, and therefore his transmission rule would assign a 0-role other than 0g. For our purposes, we will consider any non-goal thematic role to be of the class whose role is 0x. Specifically, datives assuming the semantic role of Experiencer will have the role 0e, specified in the lexicon, as in (43).
'John does not like French music.' (1 -+3; 0e) Although (43) conforms to the analyses in question, Bickford and Jaeggli do not account for the grammaticality with omission of the clitic in (44), which has the same verb as (43). According to both analyses, the following sentence should be ungrammatical.
( 44) La musica norteamericana no fiJ gusta a 1111die. 'No one likes North American music.'(1 -+3; 0e) The data revealed almost unanimous acceptance of clitic omission, in Inversion constructions (where the dative argument is the semantic Experiencer) that contain psychverbs (Belletti and Rizzi 1988) and a dative argument comprised of a quantifier expression or a generic expression. These are represented in (45) and (46), respectively.

Franklin
The dative clitic may be omitted even when word order is altered and the generic subject occurs after the verb, as in (47).
( 47) No 0 agrada a nadie el humo de tabaco. 'Tobacco smoke doesn't please anyone.' The dative argument can have either a specific or nonspecific reference in Inversion constructions involving psych-verbs and a generic superficial subject. Compare (45) and (46) which have a nonspecific reference with the following sentences in which the dative is specific. Speakers noted a shift in emphasis when the clitic was omitted, although they had difficulty defining it. In constructions such as those above, clitic omission made the sentence awkward only with the verb gustar and a specific dative, as in (51).
(51) ?La musica francesa no 0 gusta a Juan. 'John doesn't like French music.' It is interesting to note that for many speakers, clitic omission changes the emphasis slightly from the partitive interpretation of individuals within a group in (S2a) to the nonpartitive interpretation of the group as a generic class in (52b).
'Good food doesn't satisfy anyone (individual).' (52b) El buen comer no 0 comp/ace a nadie. 'Good food doesn't satisfy anyone (in general).' Thus, in constructions involving Inversion, psych-verbs and generic subjects, clitic omission may actually be preferable if the speaker's intention is that the dative be non-referentiaVnon-specific. To avoid any partitive construction or individualization of a dative group, the clitic is omitted. Compare the following: (53a) El buen comer 0 comp/ace a todos.
'Good food satisfies everyone (individually)' It is interesting that doubling with a plural clitic was considered awkward in (54a) unless the dative were changed.
'Good food satisfies all of them.' (54c) El buen comer le comp/ace a todos.
'Good food satisfies everyone.' For certain constructions and certain speakers, inclusion of the clitic actually made the sentence awkward, as in (55).
Note that Inversion verbs that do not denote psychological states, such as/altar and quedar, behave differently from psych-verbs. Instead, obligatory doubling is required, as in (56).
Nevertheless, neither Bickford's nor Jaeggli's analysis predicts or accounts for clitic omission involving psych-verbs, nor does either analysis account for dative Experiencers that occur to the right of the verb.

Possessors
Constructions categorized as Inalienable Possession also yield interesting results, in that with certain sentences and for many speakers, the absence of a dative clitic is acceptable. The Bickford and Jaeggli analyses predict otherwise. For omission to occur, the sentence must appear as one of a series of actions, as shown in the following: Bickford and Jaeggli's analyses also do not account for certain constructions involving verbs that may take a dative carrying the semantic role of either Possessor/Source. Both theories would predict obligatory doubling for (59), a single action from which clitic omission is acceptable.
'I don't take out molars from anyone anymore.' In cases such as these, humanness does not appear to increase the need for clitic doubling.
' Nevertheless, if the dative is animate, the preference for clitic doubling seems to increase, at least for verbs that imply a dative Possessor/Source. Compare the sentences in (62).

4.S Benefactives
Verbs involving datives that are semantic Benefactives (but not necessarily Recipients/ Addressees) do not present a clear pattern. Doubling must occur with these, following Bickford. Jaeggli does not specifically discuss such datives, but based on his 0role transmission rule, doubling would also be required. Note, however, the following counterexamples in which omission of the dative is acceptable.
(64a) Le prepare comida a mi hija para la fiesta. As with Inalienable Possession, for some speakers, omission of the clitic in ( 66b) is more acceptable if the action is one of a series, as in (67).
'They entered the house and later killed the dogs for Pablo.'

Other thematic roles
Some verbs may allow more than one semantic value for the dative argument. Often the semantic function is ambiguous, as in (68), in which the indirect object may be interpreted either as the Source or Benefactive. That is, for many speakers (68a) may be interpreted two ways: "Martha, buy the house from George" or "Martha, buy the house for George." In either case the clitic appears to be optional for most speakers. Again, both Bickford and Jaeggli would maintain that obligatory doubling occurs with such constructions since the dative cannot be interpreted only as a Goal. Neither Bickford nor Jaeggli's analysis explains how their rules apply to cases such as (70). Native speakers accept these utterances even though the datives are not clear semantic Goals; the role of these datives is rather semantic Possessor or possibly Experiencer. In either case, however, if the dative is not Goal, the clitic doubling rule would therefore inaccurately predict obligatory doubling. (70c) Las riquezas naturales {iJ pertenecen a todo el mundo. 'Natural resources belong to everyone.' Furthermore, for sentences involving Clause Union, Bickford maintains that the clitic is obligatory since the dative argument of the embedded clause is not an initial 3. This does not explain the acceptance by many speakers of the following constructions, both with and without clitic doubling. The superficial dative is the initial 1 of the embedded clause. Also, how would the analyses in question deal with the following, where the NP in indirect object position has a thematic role that is not a clear Goal? Spanish speakers tend to prefer (73a). Nevertheless most also accept (73b) without reservation, despite clitic omission.
'They always demand a lot of money from the bosses.' (73b) Siempre (tJ exigen mucho dinero a los jefes. Since both analyses in question are syntactico-semantic, neither analysis in question takes into account the difference in emphasis (scope of focus) brought about by clitic omission and the possibility that omission or inclusion of the clitic may be a matter of preference. This is true even with Goal datives, as in (74)  Compare the following in which the salient feature in (76a) is completion of the action, whereas (76b) focuses more on the people being invited.
(76b) Le enviamos invitaciones a todos. 'We sent invitations to evel)'one.' We have seen various data problematic to Bickford and Jaeggli's analyses. Sentences containing a wide range of non-Goal datives present counterexamples/problems not accounted for. These include constructions involving Experiencers, Possessors, and Benefactives, among other thematic roles. Furthermore, the issue of speaker preference regarding clitic doubling is not considered in either analysis.

Implications and consequences
In the case of each construction mentioned, the representative Relational Grammar and Government and Binding analyses do not entirely account for the data. The object of this report is not to negate the importance of these syntactic and dialect-specific accounts, but rather to reiterate that a single analysis or rule is not adequate to account for all instances of obligatory/optional dative clitic doubling in Spanish. To rely on such an analysis may be to overgeneralize what is occurring in the language. The formal syntactic analyses in question (based on thematic roles) may account for the majority of the data; however, pragmatic variables must also be taken into account. To clarify problematic issues, a larger corpus of data than that of either analysis is needed.
My findings imply that it is also important to look beyond the sentence level to discourse grammar and to examine the role of clitic doubling within larger texts in order to find more examples of clitic omission and to understand the role of context, since in many cases the clitic serves to clarify or reinforce the role of the dative nominal. It may be that a discursive analysis of texts would reveal more examples that do not conform to Bickford's or Jaeggli's analyses and would reveal possible reasons. Unfortunately, such is beyond the scope of this report.
The type of verb and verbal constraints must be considered since some verbs allow more than one semantic role for the dative argument; for example, the verbs comprar and a/quilar. Furthermore, there may be a spectrum of preference regarding doubling; that is, usage may not be merely a case of optionality versus obligatory clitic doubling. A larger quantitative analysis of Goal dative constructions may reveal this more clearly.
It appears possible that some dialects always require doubling or strongly prefer clitic doubling. Thus, to generalize a clitic doubling rule for all dialects is oversimplifying the phenomenon. In contrast to Bickford's and Jaeggli's analyses, which are based primarily upon data from one dialect, the data in this study were taken from a variety of dialects. This provided evidence contrary to Bickford's and Jaeggli's claims that their generalizations hold for Spanish in general. In addition to dialect differences, clitic doubling may also depend upon register, the level of education of the speaker, and other idiolectal features, although investigating such factors is beyond the scope of this paper.
In light of the many questions that remain regarding dative clitic doubling, it is clear that a larger corpus of data and more exhaustive treatment remain for further study. I do not attempt to explain the phenomena thoroughly, only to critique two syntactic explanations by providing some counterexamples and possible influencing factors as well as questions for further study. Syntactic rules and explanations have yielded a wealth of interesting research, but dative clitic doubling in Spanish continues to be an elusive phenomenon, particularly in spoken Spanish across dialects. In the end, it remains difficult to account for all instances of clitic doubling in the spoken language adequately ( and perhaps other phenomena across languages) without taking into account pragmatic features.

NOTES
I Here, free refers to a non:-clitic pronoun. A clitic may be defined as being phonologically bound but syntactically free (Bickford 1989). See Zwicky (1977) for a detailed definition. Final 3 nominals are underlined.
2 Clitic climbing means that the final 3 of the embedded clause determines a dative clitic on the matrix verb and cannot determine a clitic on the verb of which it is a semantic dependent.
3 Bickford notes that the part of the sentence which is not underlined shows habitual aspect. Including habitual information rules out other possible reasons for obligatory doubling, since some speakers require the clitic with non-habitual aspect.
S Since a pronominal is always [+animate], Jaeggli notes that pronominal complements must be obligatorily clitic doubled in all cases and in all dialects. Furthermore, he says that pronouns are allowed in object position only when the cliticized version is not allowed. Thus two animate complements only occur together if both are third person (Perlmutter 1971): e.g., *Me le recomendaron. 6 Jaeggli (1982: 14) does note that River Plate Spanish prefers the dative clitic even with Goal. 7 Many of these definitions are taken from class lectures from Bickford (1989). 8 To determine whether or not the clitic doubling rule and Jaeggli's similar analyses indeed accounted for the aforementioned thematic arguments, I conducted an informal survey among native speakers of Spanish and later constructed a formal questionnaire involving 100 constructions both with and without clitic doubling. All of the constructions contained non-pronominal dative arguments to the right of the verb in order to maintain Bickford's conditions for optionality. This second questionnaire was used to conduct interviews with eight more native speakers from six different areas of the Spanishspeaking world (Spain, Ecuador, Panama, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, and Mexico.) Three of the particjpants were completely bilingual in English and Spanish; four had some proficiency in English although they preferred to speak Spanish; and one knew no English at all. All of the participants return regularly to their home country and all but one (who went home four years ago) had returned within the past year. One participant was visiting relatives for a month but has never lived in the United States.
In each interview, the participant was asked to listen to each construction andimmediately tell whether the sentence sounded good to him/her. If the sentence seemed unacceptable, the participant was asked whether s/he would hear such a sentence in their home area or not, and ifso in what context. If the sentence was considered completely unacceptable, they were asked what sounded "bad" or how they would say it in normal speech. The terms "ungrammatical" and "correct" were avoided in order to obtain data that reflect the language as it is indeed spoken, rather than Spanish as it ought to be. The participants were encouraged to react to the constructions from their own intuition rather than according to the way they were taught in school.