1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Volume 22, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper we provide a comprehensive picture of differential object marking in Catalan, focusing on both the empirical facts and their theoretical contribution. We support some important conclusions. First, Catalan differential object marking is quite a robust and widespread phenomenon, contrary to what prescriptive grammars assume. Second, we show that, from a formal perspective, Catalan differential object marking cannot be completely subsumed under hierarchical generalizations known as . The contribution of narrow syntax mechanisms and nominal structure is fundamental, supporting recent views by López (2012) or Ormazabal and Romero (200720102013ab), a.o. Building on these works as well as on observations initially made by Cornilescu (2000) and Rodríguez-Mondoñedo (2007), a.o., we adopt an analysis under which canonical, animacy-based differential marking results from the presence of an additional (PERSON) feature, beyond Case. This structural make-up is not only at the core of differences marked objects exhibit from unmarked objects with a Case feature, but also derives the prominence of differential marking on (animates) under information-structure processes, in the high left (and right) periphery, in contexts of the type discussed by Escandell-Vidal (2007ab2009).

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.20009.iri
2021-08-02
2024-12-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.20009.iri
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adger, David and Daniel Harbour
    2007 The syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax, 10, 2–37. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2007.00095.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00095.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Aissen, Judith L.
    2003 Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  3. Albareda, Cristina
    2009 Les variants al·lomòrfiques de la preposició ‘a’ en algunes varietats del català: descripció i anàlisi. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona – Universitat de Barcelona master thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    2003 The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Arkdiev, Peter M. and Yakov G. Testelets
    2019 Differential nominal marking in Circassian. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”, 43(3), 715–751. 10.1075/sl.18063.ark
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18063.ark [Google Scholar]
  6. Avram, Larisa and Rodica Zafiu
    2017 Semantic hierarchies in the evolution of differential object marking in Romanian. InAdina Dragomirescu (eds.), Sintaxa ca mod de a fi. Omagiu Gabrielei Pană-Dindelegan, la aniversare, 29–42. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker, Mark
    1996 The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2015 Case. Its principles and parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107295186
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107295186 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bárány, András
    2018 DOM and dative case. Glossa, 3(1): 97, 1–40. 10.5334/gjgl.639
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.639 [Google Scholar]
  10. Béjar, Susana and Milan Rezac
    2003 Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(1), 35–73. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  11. Belletti, Adriana
    2005 Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus, 17(1), 1–35. 10.1515/prbs.2005.17.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2005.17.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2017 (Past) participle agreement. InMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 1–45. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom081
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom081 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2018 On a-marking topics in the Italian left periphery. InR. Petrosino, P. C. Cerrone and H. van der Hulst (eds.), From sounds to structures, 445–466. Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501506734‑016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501506734-016 [Google Scholar]
  14. Benito, Rut
    2017 Differential Object Marking in Catalan: Contexts of Appearance and Analysis. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Master thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Berretta, Monica
    1989 Sulla presenza dell’accusativo preposizionale in italiano: note tipologiche. Vox Romanica48. 13–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bhatt, Rajesh and Elena Anagnostopoulou
    1996 Object shift and specificity: evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. InLisa M. Dobrin, Kora Singer and Lisa McNair (eds.), Papers from the 32nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 11–22. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bonet, Eulàlia
    1991 Morphology after syntax. Pronominal clitics in Romance. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 1994 The Person-Case Constraint: A morphological approach. InThe Morphology-Syntax Connection, number 22 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 33–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Bossong, Georg
    1991 Differential object marking in Romance and Beyond. InDieter Wanner and Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.69.14bos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.69.14bos [Google Scholar]
  20. 1998 Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. InJack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et Valence dans les langues d’Europe, 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804485.193
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804485.193 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chomsky, Noam
    2001 Derivation by phase. InMichael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale. A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Company, Concepción
    2002 Grammaticalization and category weakness. InIlse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 201–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.14com
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.14com [Google Scholar]
  23. Comrie, Bernard
    1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Cornilescu, Alexandra
    2000 Notes on the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 91–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cuervo, María Cristina
    2003 Datives at Large. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. D’Alessandro, Roberta and Ian Roberts
    2010 Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: split-auxiliary selection and the null subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory28(1), 41–72. 10.1007/s11049‑009‑9085‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9085-1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Darlymple, Mary and Irina Nikolaeva
    2011 Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Daskalaki, Evangelia
    2008 (Mis)Matching Patterns in Greek Free Relatives. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 2011 (Mis)matches in Greek free relatives. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference for Greek Linguistics, University of Chicago, 139–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Demonte, Violeta
    1995 Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus7, 5–30. 10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  31. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen
    1994 The syntax of Romanian: comparative studies in Romance. Berlin/New York. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110886597
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886597 [Google Scholar]
  32. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria
    2007a Topics from Ibiza: Differential object marking and clitic dis- location. InGeorg Kaiser and Manuel Leonetti (eds.), Definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance languages, 23–43. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2007b Acusatiu preposicional i dislocació amb clitic. Caplletra42, 185–218.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 2009 Differential object marking and topicality. The case of Balearic Catalan. Studies in Language33(4), 832–885. 10.1075/sl.33.4.02esc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.4.02esc [Google Scholar]
  35. Fabra, Pompeu
    1918/1933 Gramàtica catalana. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Fiorentino, Giuliana
    (ed.) 2003 Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110919837
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110919837 [Google Scholar]
  37. García García, Marco
    2007 Differential object marking with inanimate objects. InProceedings of the workshop “Definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance languages”, 63–84. Universität Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft (Arbetispapier 122).
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2018 Nominal and verbal parameters in the diachrony of differential object marking in Spanish. InIlja A. Seržant and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (ed.), The diachronic typology of differential argument marking, 207–239. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. GIEC
    GIEC (2016) = Institut d’Estudis Catalans (2016). Gramàtica de la llengua catalana. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Harley, Heidi and Eizabeth Ritter
    2002 Person and number in pronouns: a feature-geometric approach. Language78(3), 482–526. 10.1353/lan.2002.0158
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158 [Google Scholar]
  41. Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer
    1998 Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Hualde, José Ignacio
    1992 Catalan. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Iemmolo, Giorgio
    2010 Topicality and differential object marking: evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language, 34(2), 239–272. 10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem [Google Scholar]
  44. Irimia, Monica Alexandrina
    2020 Oblique DOM and co-occurrence restrictions. How many types. Ms.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Irimia, Monica Alexandrina and Anna Pineda
    2019 On the setting of DOM Scales. Insights from diachrony. InPatrick Farrell (ed.), Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 4, 57: 1–15.   10.3765/plsa.v4i1.4561
     https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v4i1.4561 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2021 On the setting of scales in the diachrony of Differential Object Marking. Journal of Historical Syntax, 5: article 8, 1–41.   10.18148/hs/2021.v5i1‑13.38
     https://doi.org/10.18148/hs/2021.v5i1-13.38 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jaeggli, Osvaldo
    1982 Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 1986 Three issues in the theory of clitics. InHagit Borer (ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, pp.15–42. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Jones, Michael Allan
    1993 Sardinian syntax. London/New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kalin, Laura and Philip Weisser
    2019 Asymmetric DOM in co-ordination. A problem for movement-based approaches. Linguistic Inquiry. 50(3), 662–676. 10.1162/ling_a_00298
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00298 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kayne, Richard S.
    1989 Facets of Romance Past Participle Agreement. InPaola Benincà (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, 85–104. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110869255‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869255-005 [Google Scholar]
  52. Khouja, Marta
    2019 DOM as a syntax-pragmatics interface marker. Lingvisticae Investigationes. Special issue on Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?, ed. byMonica Alexandrina Irimia and Anna Pineda, 42(1), 56–81. 10.1075/li.00029.kho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00029.kho [Google Scholar]
  53. Laca, Brenda
    2006 El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional. InConcepción Company (dir.), Sintaxis historica del español. Primera parte: La frase verbal, vol.1, 423–475. Mexico: Fondo de cultura económica/Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Leonetti, Manuel
    2004 Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics3, 75–114. 10.5565/rev/catjl.106
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.106 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2008 Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus20, 33–66. 10.1515/PROBUS.2008.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  56. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    2008 Reference to individuals, Person, and the variety of mapping parameters. InAlex Klinge and Henrik Høeg Müller (eds.), Essays on nominal determination, 189–211. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.99.11lon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.99.11lon [Google Scholar]
  57. López, Luis
    2012 Indefinite objects: scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA /London, England: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Manzini, M. Rita and Ludovico Franco
    2016 Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory34, 197–240. 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9303‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9303-y [Google Scholar]
  59. 2019 ‘Agreement of structural obliques’ parameter. Lingvisticae Investigationes, Special issue on Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?, ed. byMonica Alexandrina Irimia and Anna Pineda, 42(1), 82–101. 10.1075/li.00030.man
     https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00030.man [Google Scholar]
  60. Massam, Diane
    2001 Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory19: 153–197. 10.1023/A:1006465130442
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006465130442 [Google Scholar]
  61. McCloskey, James
    1985 Case, movement and raising in modern Irish. InProceedings of WCCFL 4, Goldberg, Jeffrey, Susannah MacKaye, and Michael T. Wescoat (eds.), 190–205. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. McCreight, Katherine
    1988 Multiple Case assignment. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge. MA: MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Moll, Francesc de B.
    1975 Gramàtica catalana referida especialment a les Illes Balears. Palma: Moll.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Nevins, Andrew
    2007 The representation of third person and its consequences for the person-case constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory25–2, 27–313.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Odria, Ane
    2017 Differential Object Marking and datives in Basque syntax. PhD dissertation, UPV/EHU.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero
    2007 The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory25(2), 315–347. 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9010‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9010-9 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2010 The derivation of dative alternations. InDuguine Maia, Susana Guidobro and Nerea Madariaga (eds.), Argument structure and syntactic relations. A cross-linguistic perspective, 203–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.158.13orm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.158.13orm [Google Scholar]
  68. 2013a Differential object marking, case and agreement. Borealis: an International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics2, 221–239. 10.7557/1.2.2.2808
     https://doi.org/10.7557/1.2.2.2808 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2013b Non accusative Objects. Catalan Journal of Linguistics12, 155–173. 10.5565/rev/catjl.65
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.65 [Google Scholar]
  70. Pancheva, Roumyana and María Luisa Zubizarreta
    2018 The Person Case Constraint. The syntactic encoding of perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory36(4): 1291–1337. 10.1007/s11049‑017‑9395‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9395-7 [Google Scholar]
  71. Pensado, Carmen
    1995 El complement directo preposicional: estado de la cuestion y bibliografía comentada. InCarmen Pensado (ed.), El complemento directo preposicional, 11–59. Madrid, Visos Libros.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Pineda, Anna
    2016 Les fronteres de la (in)transitivitat. Estudi dels aplicatius en llengües romàniques i basc [published and revised version of the PhD dissertation]. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Món Juïc. Col·lecció Cum Laude, 6.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 2018 Acostament al marcatge diferencial d’objecte als inicis del català modern, eHumanista/IVITRA 14 (Special issueGramàtica del Català Modern (1601–1833)), 570–596.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 2019 Aspectes de la transivititat en els inicis del català modern, Caplletra. Revista Internacional de Filologia, 66, 207–236. 10.7203/caplletra.66.13510
     https://doi.org/10.7203/caplletra.66.13510 [Google Scholar]
  75. 2020 Double object constructions in Romance: the common denominator. Syntax, 23(3), 203–240.   10.1111/synt.12193
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12193 [Google Scholar]
  76. 2021 El marcatge diferencial d’objecte en català (i Fabra). InM. Àngel Pradilla (ed.), De llengua i societat: De la proposta fabriana a la reforma normativa de l’IEC. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans, p.211–222.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. . In press a. The development of DOM in the diachrony of Catalan: (dis)similarities with respect to Spanish. InJohannes Kabatek, Philipp Obrist and Albert Wall ed.: Differential Object Marking in Romance – The third wave. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110716207‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110716207-009 [Google Scholar]
  78. . In press b. El complement directe (I). El marcatge diferencial d’objecte. InJosep Martines, Manuel Pérez-Saldanya and Gemma Rigau ed. Gramàtica del català antic. Barcelona: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Preminger, Omer
    2011 Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s SCOPA. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory29(4), 917–937.   10.1007/s11049‑011‑9155‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9155-z [Google Scholar]
  80. 2017 What the PCC tells us about ‘abstract agreement’, head movement and locality. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 4(1): 13, 1–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Pylkkänen, Lina
    2002 Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Ribera, Josep
    . In press. Els pronoms personals febles (I): Les funcions dels pronoms. InJosep Martines, Manuel Pérez-Saldanya and Gemma Rigau ed. Gramàtica del català antic. Barcelona: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Richards, Marc
    2008 Defective agree: Case Alternations, and the prominence of Person. InMarc Richards and Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Linguistische Arbeits Berichte (volume on Scales), vol.86, 137–161. Universität Leipzig.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Richards, Norvin
    2016 Contiguity Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Rigau, Gemma
    1978 Hi, datiu inanimat. Els Marges12, 99–102.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 1982 Inanimate Indirect Object in Catalan. Linguistic Inquiry13, 146–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel
    2007 The syntax of objects. Agree and differential object marking, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Rohlfs, Gerard
    1971 Autour de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. Revue de Linguistique Romaine35, 312–327.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 1973 Panorama de l’accusatif prépositionnel en Italie. Studii și Cercetari Lingvistice24, 617–621.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Rosselló, Joana
    2002 El SV, I: Verb i arguments verbals. InJoan Solà, Maria-Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró and Manuel Pérez Saldanya (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol.2, 1853–1949. Barcelona: Empúries.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Saab, Andrés and Pablo Zdrojewski
    . To appear. On the non-existence of asymmetric DOM in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry. 10.1162/ling_a_00389
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00389 [Google Scholar]
  92. Sancho Cremades, Pelegrí
    2002 La preposició i el sintagma preposicional. InJoan Solà, Maria-Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró and Manuel Pérez Saldanya (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol.2, 1749–1768. Barcelona: Empúries.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Schütze, Carson
    2002 On the nature of default case. Syntax. 4(3): 205–238. 10.1111/1467‑9612.00044
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00044 [Google Scholar]
  94. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. InRobert. M. W. Dixon (ed.), categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Sitaridou, Ioanna
    2017 Objects. InDufter, Andreas and Elizabeth Stark (eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax, 89–153. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110377088‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377088-003 [Google Scholar]
  96. Solà, Joan
    1994 Sintaxi normativa: estat de la qüestió. Barcelona: Empúries.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Sornicola, Rosanna
    1997 L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in napoletano antico. Italienische Studien18, 66–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Spyropoulos, Vassilios
    2007 Case Conflict in Greek Free Relatives. InStudies in the Morpho-Syntax of Greek, ed. byA. Alexiadou, 251–293. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Torrego, Esther
    1998 The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/2337.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2337.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  100. Uriagereka, Juan
    1995 Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 26 (1): 79–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 1996 Determiner clitic placement. InFreidin, Robert (ed.), Current issues in comparative grammar, 257–296. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑0135‑3_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0135-3_13 [Google Scholar]
  102. von Heusinger, Klaus and Georg Kaiser
    2005 The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. InKlaus von Heusinger, Georg Kaiser and Elisabeth and Stark (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop “Specificity and the evolution /emergence of nominal determination systems in Romance”, 33–69. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Williams, Edwin S.
    1983 Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry14(2), 287–308.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Wiltschko, Martina
    2014 The universal structure of categories. Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139833899
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139833899 [Google Scholar]
  105. Zamparelli, Roberto
    2000 Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.20009.iri
Loading
Differential object marking in Catalan
Linguistic Variation 22, 325 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.20009.iri
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.20009.iri
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.20009.iri
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Catalan; clitic (doubling); dative; differential object marking; indirect objects; licensing of differential object marking; locatives; person

Most Cited

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