1 Variable constraints on Spanish clitics: A cross-dialectal overview Mark Hoff & Scott A. Schwenter Abstract Linguistic research on Spanish clitic pronouns has analyzed the expression, placement, and gender or number marking of direct (DO) and indirect objects (IO). We first provide a brief overview of the literature concerned with this variable clitic use, then offer a variationist perspective of three specific phenomena, with a focus on their linguistic conditioning: use of se los for se lo in ditransitive constructions (Schwenter & Hoff 2020); use of le for les with plural dative referents (Gustafson 2017); and DO (and IO) clitic position or “clitic climbing” (Davies 1995, Torres Cacoullos 1999, Schwenter & Torres Cacoullos 2014). Using both new and existing data and pairing qualitative and quantitative methods, we demonstrate that while these three phenomena are distinct and vary across Spanish dialects, they are united by important cross-dialectal and cross-constructional patterns. Specifically, all three phenomena showcase the interrelated nature of DOs and IOs and the effects of animacy and referent accessibility on the expression of both DOs and IOs. 1. Introduction Spanish clitic pronouns exhibit a tremendous amount of variation, which has been the subject of an impressive body of linguistic literature. The variable phenomena analyzed in the field thus far can be categorized conceptually as pertaining to clitic expression/presence, case, number, or position. Although an exhaustive overview of the linguistic research dedicated to clitic variation is outside the scope of this chapter, to begin, we will briefly discuss a sampling of the best-known phenomena related to clitic expression and case and cite selected sources for each. 1 Clitic expression Clitic expression--that is, the variable presence or absence of an anaphoric direct object (DO) or indirect object (IO) pronoun--has been analyzed both in monolingual Spanish and in contact varieties. While Spanish is typically considered a non-null object language-- unlike Portuguese (Cyrino 1997; Raposo 1986; Schwenter 2014)--all dialects allow for null objects with non-specific, generic referents, e.g. Fui a comprar pan pero no Ø tenían ‘I went to buy bread but they didn’t have [any]’ (Campos 1986), and some contact dialects, in particular, allow null objects with definite and specific referents (e.g. -Donde encontraste esa blusa? ‘Where did you find that blouse?’ - Ø Compré en el mall ‘I bought [it] at the mall,’ Morgan 2004). Schwenter (2006) compares Paraguayan and Quiteño Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and identifies striking parallelisms among these varieties in terms of both null versus overt object expression and differential object marking (DOM). This similar conditioning is seen in factors inherent to the DO (e.g. animacy, specificity), as well as in the role of discourse factors (e.g. topicality). In a quantitative study, Sainzmaza-Lecanda and Schwenter (2017) also compare several varieties of Spanish and Portuguese, including those with extensive bilingualism due to language contact (e.g. Basque Spanish) and largely monolingual varieties (e.g. Castilian Spanish, Brazilian and European Portuguese). They find 1 Also outside the scope of this chapter, the focus of which is synchronic in nature, is the diachronic development of the clitic system, for which we recommend Company (2002, 2003, 2006).