1887
Volume 42, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper argues that there is nothing “differential” in the licensing conditions of Differential Object Marking and outlines an analysis that unifies with dative object marking and with a broader set of “derived object”-marking configurations. We show that neither morphological nor syntactic distinctiveness can be the driving force for : accounts of as a morphological distinctiveness device are inadequate diachronically and very unefficient functionally. Syntactic analyses that postulate DP-internal differences or construction-specific double-licensing conditions fail to capture the basic fact that is a relation between the objects and the predicates selecting them. Precisely, the burden of our unified explanation falls on the checking requirements imposed to the DP complements by the structural heads selecting them.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/li.00031.orm
2019-07-10
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aissen, J.
    1999 Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 17, 673–711. doi:  10.1023/A:1006335629372
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006335629372 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aissen, J.
    2003 Differential Object Marking: Iconicity Vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alcaraz, A.
    2019 Configurations of A-movement. PhD. Thesis, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).
  4. Baker, M. C.
    1988Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1996The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, M. C. & Vinokurova, N.
    2010 Two modalities of case assignment: case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28:3, 593–64. 10.1007/s11049‑010‑9105‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9105-1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Béjar, S. & Rezac, M.
    2003 Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge (Eds.), Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. 49–62. 10.1075/cilt.244.07bej
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.244.07bej [Google Scholar]
  8. 2009 Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 35–73. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  9. Belletti, A. & Menetti, C.
    In press. Topics and passives in Italian-speaking children and adults. Language acquisition.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bernstein, J. , Ordóñez, F. & Roca, F.
    2018 dom and DP layers in romance. Talk presented at Differential Object Marking in romance-towards microvariation , Inalco, ParisNov. 10 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Berro, A. & Fernández, B.
    2018 Applicatives without verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, first on lineDec 2018 doi:  10.1007/s11049‑018‑09437‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-09437-4 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bossong, G.
    1991 Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. InD. Wanner & D. A. Kibbee (Eds.) New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/cilt.69
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.69 [Google Scholar]
  13. Brugè, L. & Brugger, G.
    1996 On the accusative a in Spanish. Probus, 8:1, 1–52. 10.1515/prbs.1996.8.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1996.8.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Comrie, B.
    1981Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Croft, W.
    1990Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Croft, W. & Poole, K. T.
    2008 Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical linguistics, 34, 1–37. 10.1515/THLI.2008.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Danon, G.
    2006 Caseless nominals and the projection of DP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 24, 977–1008. 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9005‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9005-6 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dowty, D.
    1991 Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67:3, 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dryer, M. S.
    1986 Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative. Language, 62, 808–845. 10.2307/415173
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415173 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fábregas, A.
    2015 Direccionales con con y Marcado Diferencial de Objeto. Revue Romane, 50:2, 163–190. 10.1075/rro.50.2.01fab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.50.2.01fab [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. García García, M.
    2007 Differential object marking with inanimate objects. In G. A. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages”, 63–84. Arbeitspapier 122. Universität Konstanz.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Glushan, Zhanna
    2010Deriving case syncretism in Differential Object marking systems. Ms., University of Connecticut.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Green, G.
    1974Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Harley, H. & Ritter, E.
    2002 Person and number in pronouns: A feature geometric analysis. Language, 78, 482–526. 10.1353/lan.2002.0158
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158 [Google Scholar]
  26. Haspelmath, M.
    2004 Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: a usage-based account. Constructions 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2008 Descriptive scales versus comparative scales. In M. Richards & A. L. Malchukov (Eds.), Scales, 39–53. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86, Universität Leipzig.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2018 Are we making progress in understanding differential object marking?https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1119
  29. Ingason, A. K.
    2016Applicatives in the noun phrase. Ms. University of Iceland.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Irimia, M. A.
    2018Variation in differential object marking: on some differences between Romanian and Spanish. Ms. University Modena and Reggio Emilia.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jaeggli, O.
    1982Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jones, M. A.
    1999 The pronoun determiner debate: evidence for Sardinian and repercussions for French. In E. Treviño & J. Lema (Eds.), Semantic Issues in Romance Syntax, 121–140. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.173.09jon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.173.09jon [Google Scholar]
  33. Laca, B.
    1995 Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional, 61–91. Madrid: Visor.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Larson, R. K.
    1988 On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19:3, 335–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ledgeway, A.
    2012From Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2018 Parametric variation in dom in the dialects of Southern Italy. Talk, International workshop Differential Object Marking in Romance. Towards Microvariation. INALCO, Paris2018/11/9-10
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Leonetti, M.
    2008 Specificity in Clitic Doubling and in Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus20, 33–66. 10.1515/PROBUS.2008.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. López, L.
    2012Indefinite objects. Cambridge, MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Marantz, A.
    1991 Case and licensing. InESCOL ’91: proceedings of the eighth eastern states conference on linguistics, 234–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Mendikoetxea, A.
    1999 Construcciones con se: Medias, Pasivas e Impersonales. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 1631–1722. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Mithun, M.
    1984 The evolution of noun incorporation. Language, 60, 847–94. 10.1353/lan.1984.0038
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0038 [Google Scholar]
  42. Odria, A.
    2017 Differential Object Marking and Datives in Basque Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country.
  43. 2018 dom and datives in Basque: not as homogeneous as they look like. Manuscript, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).
  44. Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J.
    2007 The Object Agreement Constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 315–347. 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9010‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9010-9 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2013a Object Clitics, Agreement and Dialectal Variation. Probus, 25, 301–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2013b Non accusative objects. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 12, 155–173. 10.5565/rev/catjl.65
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.65 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2013c Differential Object Marking, case and agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2, 221–239. 10.7557/1.2.2.2808
    https://doi.org/10.7557/1.2.2.2808 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2017 Historical Changes in Basque Dative Alternations: Evidence for a P-based (neo)derivational analysis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2:1, 78, 1–39. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.103
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.103 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2019aDeconstructing se constructions. Ms. UPV/EHU & Universidad de Extremadura.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2019b The formal properties of non paradigmatic se. To appear inBorealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 8, 55–84. doi:  10.7557/1.8.1.4704
    https://doi.org/10.7557/1.8.1.4704 [Google Scholar]
  51. Pensado, C.
    1995 El complemento directo preposicional. Estado de la cuestión y bibliografía comentada. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional, 11–59. Madrid: Visor.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Paul, W. & Whitman, J.
    2010 Applicative structure and Mandarin ditransitives. In M. Duguine (Eds.), Argument Structure and syntactic relations from a crosslinguistic perspective, 261–282. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.158.15pau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.158.15pau [Google Scholar]
  53. Peterson, D. A.
    2006Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Pineda, A.
    2018 Differential object marking in Catalan varieties. Talk, International workshop Differential Object Marking in Romance. Towards Microvariation. INALCO, Paris2018/11/9-10.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Rappaport-Hovav, M. & Levin, B.
    2008 The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44, 129–167. doi:  10.1017/S0022226707004975
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004975 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rezac, M.
    2011Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9698‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2 [Google Scholar]
  57. Rigau, G.
    1988 Strong pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 503–511.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Rodríguez-Ordoñez, I.
    2016Differential Object Marking in Basque: Grammaticalization, attitudes and ideological representations. Urbana-Champaign: UIUC PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Rodríguez-Ordóñez, I.
    2017 Reexamining differential object marking as a linguistic contact-phenomenon in Gernika Basque. Journal of Language Contact, 10:2, 318–352. 10.1163/19552629‑01002004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-01002004 [Google Scholar]
  60. Rodríguez Mondoñedo, M.
    2007 The syntax of objects: Agree and differential object marking. Ph Dissertation, U. of Connecticut.
  61. Sigurðsson, H. Á.
    2004 The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 16, 219–251.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2006 The Nominative Puzzle and the Low Nominative Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 289–308. 10.1162/ling.2006.37.2.289
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.2.289 [Google Scholar]
  63. Silverstein, M.
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. [Reprinted in P. Muysken , & H. van Riemsdijk 1986 Features and projections, Foris, Dordrecht, 163–232.]
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Uriagereka, J.
    1996 Warps: some thoughts on categorization. Cuadernos de Lingüística del I.U. Ortega y Gasset, 4, 1–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. von Heusinger, K. & Kaiser, G. A.
    2005 The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In K. von Heusinger , G. A. Kaiser & E. Stark (Eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop “Specificity and the Evolution / Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance”, 33–70. Arbeitspapier Nr. 119. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/li.00031.orm
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/li.00031.orm
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): dative , differential object marker , distinctiveness and scales
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