Volume 42, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aissen, J.
    2003 Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anand, P. & Nevins, A.
    2006 The locus of ergative Case assignment: Evidence from scope. In A. Johns , D. Massam & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 143–171. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/1‑4020‑4188‑8_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aoun, J.
    1999 Clitic-doubled arguments. In K. Johnson & I. Roberts (Eds.), Beyond principles and parameters: Essays in memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli, 13–42. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑4822‑1_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4822-1_2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bárány, A.
    2018  dom and dative case. Glossa, 3 (1), 97.1–40. 10.5334/gjgl.639
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.639 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhatt, R. & Anagnostopoulou, E.
    1996 Object shift and specificity: evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. In L. M. Dobrin , K. Singer & L. McNair (Eds.), Papers from the 32nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 11–22. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bossong, G.
    1991 Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Kibbee & D. Wanner (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.69.14bos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.69.14bos [Google Scholar]
  7. 1998 Le marquage différentiel de l’object dans les langues de l’Europe. In J. Feuillet (Ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 193–259. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Butt, M.
    1993 Object specificity and agreement in Hindi-Urdu. In C. Beals (Eds.), Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 89–103. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Comrie, B.
    1979 Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class. Linguistica Silesiana3. (Katowice: University of Silesia), 13–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 1981Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, W.
    1988 Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. Barlow & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in natural language. Approaches, theories, description, 159–180. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1990Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fernández, B. & Rezac, M.
    2016 Differential object marking in Basque varieties. In B. Fernández , J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), Microparameters in the grammar of Basque, 93–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lfab.13.05fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.13.05fer [Google Scholar]
  14. Givón, T.
    1984 Direct objects and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case. In F. Plank (Ed.), Objects. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 151–183. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Glushan, Z.
    2010 Deriving Case syncretism in Differential Object marking systems. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001040
  16. Irimia, M. A.
    2018 Differential objects and other structural objects. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 3 (50), 1–15. 10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4345
    https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4345 [Google Scholar]
  17. To appear. Differential objects and other structural objects. Some remarks on differential object marking in Romanian. Ms. 10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4345
    https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4345 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jaeggli, O.
    1982Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Katz, D.
    1987Grammar of the Yiddish language. London: Duckworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lazard, G.
    2001 Le marquage différential de l’objet. In M. Haspelmath , E. König , W. Österreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and linguistic universals. An international handbook, vol2, 873–885. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. López, L.
    2012Indefinite objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Manzini, M. R. & Franco, L.
    2016 Goal and dom datives. Natural language and linguistic theory, 34(1), 197–240. 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9303‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9303-y [Google Scholar]
  23. Mohanan, T.
    1994Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Moravcsik, E. A.
    1978 On the case marking of objects. In J. H. Greenberg , C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language. Syntax. VolumeIV, 249–289. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Odria, A.
    2014 Differential object marking and the nature of dative case in Basque varieties. Linguistic variation, 14 (2), 289–314. 10.1075/lv.14.2.03odr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.14.2.03odr [Google Scholar]
  26. 2017 Differential object marking and datives in Basque syntax. PhD thesis, University of the Basque Country.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J.
    2007 The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25 (2), 315–347. 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9010‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9010-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2010 The derivation of dative alternations. In M. Duguine , S. Huidobro & N. Madariaga (Eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from a Crosslinguistic Perspective, 203–232. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.158.13orm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.158.13orm [Google Scholar]
  29. 2013 Differential Object Marking, Case and Agreement. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2 (2), 221–239. 10.7557/
    https://doi.org/10.7557/ [Google Scholar]
  30. Raz, S.
    1980 Tigre syntax and Semitic Ethiopian. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African studies, 43 (2), 235–250. 10.1017/S0041977X00115617
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00115617 [Google Scholar]
  31. Shain, C. A.
    2008 Differential object marking in Paraguayan Guaraní. BA thesis. University of Columbus, Ohio.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. de Swart, P.
    2007 Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Radbound: University of Nijmegen doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Introduction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error