1887
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2950-189X
  • E-ISSN: 2950-1881

Abstract

Abstract

Usage of as a marker of direct objects in Spanish has been a popular topic of research, but there is no clarity on how different factors interact. The current investigation looks at the historical change in usage of , focussing on animacy, definiteness, and topicality. We analyzed the extent to which historical texts follow state-of-the-art theories, by combining automatic and manual annotation. The results indicate that the investigated texts to a large extent confirm existing theories, with some aspects worth noting. First of all, inanimate definite objects sometimes carry , which is impossible according to prescriptive grammars. Second, we found an increase in the usage of with definite human referents through time, which was predicted by Aissen (2003), although the limited amount of available data prevents us from drawing definitive conclusions. Furthermore, there is tentative evidence that topicality plays a role.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00018.wes
2025-01-24
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nb.00018.wes.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00018.wes&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aissen, Judith
    2003 Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory21(3). 435–483. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  2. Batchelor, R. E. & Miguel Angel San José
    2010A reference grammar of Spanish. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511845604
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845604 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bloem, Jelke & Gosse Bouma
    2013 Automatic animacy classification for Dutch. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal31. 82–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bosque, Ignacio & Violeta Demonte
    (eds.) 1999Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (Colección Nebrija y Bello). Madrid: Espasa.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Butt, John, Carmen Benjamin & Antonia Moreira Rodríguez
    2019A new reference grammar of modern Spanish (Routledge Reference Grammars). 6th edition. London ; New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fábregas, Antonio
    2013 Differential Object Marking in Spanish: state of the art. Borealis — An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics2(2). 1–80. 10.7557/1.2.2.2603
    https://doi.org/10.7557/1.2.2.2603 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ferreira, Victor S.
    2008 Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. InBrian H. Ross (ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Advances in Research and Theory), vol.491, 209–246. Academic Press. 10.1016/S0079‑7421(08)00006‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00006-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. García García, Marco
    2007 Differential Object Marking with inanimate objects. InGeorg A. Kaiser & Manuel Leonetti (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop „Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages”. Konstanz, Germany: Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Haspelmath, Martin
    2008 Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. InJeff Good (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Change, 185–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  10. Heusinger, Klaus von
    2008Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish. De Gruyter Mouton20(1). 1–31. 10.1515/PROBUS.2008.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2008.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Heusinger, Klaus von & Georg A. Kaiser
    2005 The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. InProceedings of the Workshop “Specificity and the Evolution / Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance,”33–69. Konstanz, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    1994 Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry25(4). 609–665.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Melis, Chantal
    1995 El objeto directo personal en el Cantar de Mio Cid: Estudio sintáctico-pragmático. InCarmen Pensado (ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (Gramática Del Español), 133–163. Madrid: Viso Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Penny, Ralph J.
    2002A history of the Spanish language. 2nd ed.Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511992827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511992827 [Google Scholar]
  15. Sánchez-Martínez, Felipe, Isabel Martínez-Sempere, Xavier Ivars-Ribes & Rafael Carrasco
    2013 An open diachronic corpus of historical Spanish. Language Resources and Evaluation471. 10.1007/s10579‑013‑9239‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-013-9239-y [Google Scholar]
  16. Swart, Peter de
    2007 Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Tippets, Ian
    2011 Differential Object Marking: Quantitative evidence for underlying hierarchical constraints across Spanish dialects. InSelected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 107–117. Somerville, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00018.wes
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00018.wes
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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