Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1571-0718
  • E-ISSN: 1571-0726
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Differential Object Marking (DOM) is a phenomenon widely attested in Spanish. In two experimental studies using production and acceptability judgments we examined the extent to which Mexican Spanish presents some variation among monolingual speakers with respect to expansion of DOM. We tested whether DOM with animate and specific objects is categorical in this variety, and whether DOM is expanding to inanimate definite and indefinite objects as observed by diachronic studies of Mexican and other Latin American varieties. We also tested DOM with other constructions: bare plurals, the verbs like and , small clauses and causative and perception verbs. Our study contributes new data documenting linguistic variation in native speakers and confirms synchronic and diachronic analyses of DOM in Spanish.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aissen, Judith
    2003 “Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21 (3): 435–448. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alfaraz, Gabriela
    2011 “Accusative object marking. A change in progress in Cuban Spanish?” Spanish in Context8 (2): 213–234. 10.1075/sic.8.2.02alf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.8.2.02alf [Google Scholar]
  3. Bader, Markus and Häussler, Jana
    2010 “Toward a model of grammaticality judgments.” Journal of Linguistics46: 273–330. 10.1017/S0022226709990260
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990260 [Google Scholar]
  4. Balasch, Sonia
    2011 “Factors determining Spanish Differential Object Marking within its domain of variation.” InSelected Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Spanish sociolinguisticsed. byJ. Michnowicz and R. Dodsworth, 113–124. Sommerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Belloro, Valeria
    2007 Spanish clitic doubling: A study of the syntax semantics interface. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
  6. Bossong, Georg
    1985Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objecktmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1991 “Differential object marking in Romance and beyond.” InNew Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languagesed. byDieter Wanner and Douglas Kibbee, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brugé, Laura and Brugger, Gerhad
    1996 “On the accusative a in Spanish.” Probus8: 1–51. 10.1515/prbs.1996.8.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1996.8.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Company Company, Concepción
    2001 “Multiple dative marking grammaticalization: Spanish as a special kind of primary object language.” Studies in Language25: 1–47. 10.1075/sl.25.1.02com
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.1.02com [Google Scholar]
  10. 2002 “El avance diacrónico de la marcación prepositiva en objetos directos inanimados.” InPresente y futuro de la lingüística en España, Vol.IIed. byAlberto Bernabé, José Antonio Berenguer, Margarita Cantarero, José Carlos de Torres, 146–154. Madrid: SEL.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, William
    1988 “Agreement vs. Case marking and direct objects.” InAgreement in Natural Languages. Approaches, Theories, descriptionsed. byM. Barlow and C. A. Ferguson, 159–179. Stanford: Center for the Study of language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dumitrescu, Domnita
    1997 “El parámetro discursivo en la expresión del objeto directo lexical: Español madrileño vs. español porteño.” Signo y Seña7: 305–354.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fábregas, Antonio
    2013 “Differential Object Marking in Spanish: State of the Art.” Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics2: 1–80. 10.7557/
    https://doi.org/10.7557/ [Google Scholar]
  14. García García, Marco
    2007 “Differential Object Marking with Inanimate Objects.” InProceedings of the Workshop Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero Romance Languagesed. byG. A. Kaiser & M. Leonetti, 63–84. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft: Universität Konstanz.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hoff, Mark
    2018 “Are Argentines a-blind? Acceptability of a-marked inanimate direct objects.” InContemporary Trends in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics: Selected papers from the Hispanic Linguistic Symposiumed. byJ. MacDonald, 121–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ihll.15.07hof
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.15.07hof [Google Scholar]
  16. Jaeger, Florian
    2008 “Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformational or not) and toward logit mixed models.” Journal of Memory and Language59 (4): 434–446. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jaeggli, Osvaldo
    1982Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kayne, Richard
    1975French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Laca, Brenda
    2002 “Gramaticalización y variabilidad: propiedades inherentes y factores contextuales en la evolución del acusativo preposicional en español.” InSprachgeschichte als Varietätengeschichteed. byAndreas Wesch, Waltraud Weidenbusch, Rolf Kailuweit, Brenda Laca, 195–203. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2006 “El objeto directo: La marcación preposicional”. InSintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Primera parte: La frase verbal, vol.1ed. byConcepción Company Company, 421–475. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica/UNAM.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. 2008 “Specificity in Clitic Doubling and in Differential Object Marking” Probus, 20: 35–69. 10.1515/PROBUS.2008.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  23. López, Luis
    2012Indefinite Objects. Diferential Object Marking, Scrambling and Choice Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lunn, Patricia
    2002 “Tout se tient in Dominican Spanish.” InStructure, Meaning and Acquisition in Spanished. byJames Lee, Kimberly Geelin and Clancy Clements, 65–72. Sommerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Montrul, Silvina
    2004 “Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergenc.” Bilingualism, Language and Cognition7: 125–142. 10.1017/S1366728904001464
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001464 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2013 “Differential Object Marking in Argentine Spanish. An experimental study.” InThe Handbook of Argentine Spanished. byLaura Colantoni and Celeste Rodríguez Louro, 207–228. Frankfurt: Vervuert Iberoamericana.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2014 “Searching for the roots of structural changes in the Spanish of the United States.” Lingua151: 177–196. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  28. Montrul, Silvina and Bowles, Melissa
    2009 “Back to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition12, 363–383. 10.1017/S1366728909990071
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990071 [Google Scholar]
  29. Montrul, Silvina and Sánchez-Walker, Noelia
    2013 “Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers.” Language Acquisition20: 109–132. 10.1080/10489223.2013.766741
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2013.766741 [Google Scholar]
  30. Montrul, Silvina, Bhatt, Rakesh and Girju, Roxana
    2015 “Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages.” Language91 (3): 564–610. 10.1353/lan.2015.0035
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0035 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pensado, Carmen
    1985 “La creación del objeto directo preposicional y la flexión de los pronombres personales en las lenguas románicas” Revue Roumaine de Linguistique30 (2): 123–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1995El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2013R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel
    2007 The syntax of objects. Agree and Differential Object Marking. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.
  35. Sánchez, Liliana
    2003Quechua-Spanish Bilingualism. Interference and Convergence in Functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.35
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.35 [Google Scholar]
  36. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 “Hierarchy of features sand ergativity.” InGrammatical Categories in Australian Languagesed. byRobert M. W. Dixon, 121–171. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Suñer, Margarita
    1988 “The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory6: 391–434. 10.1007/BF00133904
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133904 [Google Scholar]
  38. de Swart, Peter, and Helen de Hoop
    2007 “Semantic Aspects of Differential Object Marking.” InProceedings of SuB11ed. byE. Puig-Waldmüller, 568–581. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ticio, Emma and Avram, Larisa
    2015 “The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish and Romanian: Semantic scales or semantic features?.” Revue Roumane de Linguistique RRL, LX, 4: 383–402.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Tippets, Ian
    2010 Differential Object Marking in Spanish: A Quantitative Variationist Study. Doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University.
  41. Torrego, Esther
    1998The dependency of objects. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Von Heusinger, Klaus and Kaiser, Georg
    2005 “The evolution of Differential Object Marking in Spanish.” InProceedings of the Workshop on Specificity and the Evolution/Emergence of Nominal Determination in Romanceed. byKlaus von Heusinger, Georg Kaiser, Elisabeth Stark, 33–69. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universitaet Konstanz (Arbeitspapier, 119).
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Weissenrieder, Maureen
    1985 “Exceptional uses of the accusative A.” Hispania68: 393–98. 10.2307/342217
    https://doi.org/10.2307/342217 [Google Scholar]
  44. 1990 “Variable uses of the direct-object marker A.” Hispania73: 223–31. 10.2307/343010
    https://doi.org/10.2307/343010 [Google Scholar]
  45. Woolford, Ellen
    1999 “Animacy Hierarchy effects in Object Agreement.” InNew Dimensions in African Linguistics and Languagesed. byPaul Kote. Trends in African Linguistics3: 203–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zagona, Karen
    2002The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Zubizarreta, M. L.
    1998Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]

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