Paper short abstract:

The ambiguity of a in Portuguese is one of the reasons for the changes that are occurring in non-European varieties and also in Portuguese based creoles in the expression of dative / indirect objects; being a defective and ambiguous preposition, there is a tendency for its absence / replacement.

Paper long abstract:

In EP there is diversity of expression of the Indirect Object / dative (IO) constructions. The preposition a is able to express not only the IO but also the DO and it may appear in clitic accusative doubling (Gonçalves 2002). In EP there is also a homophone full preposition a, an oblique case assigner to locative nouns, which is used with motion verbs. The preposition a is then a case maker and an ambiguous/defective preposition (Gonçalves 2004). In MP the main feature of this variety is the use of the Double Object Construction, which Gonçalves explains as the reflex of the incorporation of a null preposition in the verb, which gives rise to a double objective case assignment. For Gonçalves (2002: 336) "(...) the input triggers the possibility of preposition incorporation by the verbs, where P is invisible because it is incorporated (...)". Although this explanation is in the right direction for MP, it does not explain either the fact that in Creoles, in particular the CVC, the DOC is also present or the direction that AP is taking. In AP it is common the preposition em introducing the IO, the same preposition that introduces the complement of motion verbs. In Medieval Portuguese a already expressed both locative goal and beneficiary en, em meant a locative or goal /direction and para / pera goal (Mattos e Silva 1989). The ambiguity of a in Portuguese is then one of the reasons for the changes that are occurring in non-European varieties and also in Portuguese based creoles.