Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 171–192

Differential object marking

What type of licensing?

| University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

Under many recent formal accounts, differential object marking has been taken to signal nominals that must undergo licensing in the clausal syntax, as they bear an [uC] feature (Ormazabal & Romero 2013a; Alcaraz 2018; Bárány 2018; Kalin 2018, among others). While this implementation can capture (standard) Spanish data, the empirical facts from Romanian and Neapolitan I address in this contribution support a view where the differential marker must rather be associated with an additional licensing operation beyond [uC]. More generally, this split appears to be an important locus of parametrization in Romance differential object marking, also confirming similar findings in Ledgeway et al. (2019) for other Romance languages.

Keywords: differential object marking, DP, licensing, animacy, referentiality
Article outline
  • 1.Differential object marking and licensing
  • 2.Differential object marking in Spanish
    • 2.1Differential object marking as licensing
  • 3.Differential object marking in Romanian: Additional licensing
    • 3.1Types of D0 in Romanian
    • 3.2Differentially marked objects in Romanian
  • 4.Differential object marking in Neapolitan: More evidence for additional licensing
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.09iri
References

References

Aissen, Judith L.
2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alcaraz, Alejo
2018 Deep and surface clitics in northern Castilian Spanish. Paper presented at GLOW 2018, Budapest, April 10–14.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2003 The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2006 Clitic Doubling. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdjik (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (1st edn.), Volume 1, 519–581. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bárány, András
2017 Person, case and agreement: The morphosyntax of inverse agreement and global case splits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2018 DOM and dative case. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac
2003 Person licensing and the derivation of the PCC effects. In Ana Theresa Pérez-Leroux & Yves Roberge (eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1991 Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Le marquage différentiel de l’object dans les langues de l’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 193–259. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra
2000 Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 2(1). 91–106.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra & Alina Tigău
. 2017. On the competition between differentially marked objects and indirect objects in Romanian. Paper presented at Going Romance 2017 University of Bucharest 2017.
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Ian Roberts
2010 Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split-auxiliary selection and the null subject parameter. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(1). 41–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Henry
2018 ‘Nominalization’ as predicativization in Lillooet and the nominal mapping parameter. Paper presented at GLOW 2018, Budapest, April 10–14.
Espinal, Maria Teresa & Sonia Cyrino
2017 The definite article in Romance expletives and long weak definites. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1). 23. 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana
1993 La sintassi dei determinanti. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter
2002 Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric approach. Language 78(3). 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalin, Laura
2018 Licensing and differential object marking. The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax 21(2). 112–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam
2000 A comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam, Norma Schifano & Giuseppina Silvestri
2019 Differential object marking and the properties of D in the dialects of extreme south of Italy. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1). 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Theodore
2015 Licensing without case. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe
2008 Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters. In Henrik Høeg Müller & Alex Klinge (eds.), Essays on nominal determination. From morphology to discourse management, 189–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe & Cristina Guardiano
2009 Evidence for syntax as a signal of language relatedness. Lingua 119(11). 1679–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, Luis
2012 Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele
1998 Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
2010 The logic of past participle agreement. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy, 225–243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Ludovico Franco
2016 Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(1). 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
2010 Why agree? Why move? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2017 Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moulton, Keir
2013 Raising from the dead. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1). 157–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew
2007 The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2). 273–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero
2013a Differential object marking: Case and agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2(2). 221–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b Non accusative objects. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 12. 155–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc
2008 Defective agree: Case alternations, and the prominence of person. In Marc Richards & Andrej L. Machukov (eds.), Scales, Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86, 137–161. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel
2007 The syntax of objects. Agree and differential object marking. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita
1988 The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(3). 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina
2011 Syntax and interpretation of the direct object in Romance and Germanic languages with an emphasis on Romanian, German, Dutch and English. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther
1998 The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1983 Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 5(2). 225–243.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina
2014 The universal structure of categories: Towards a functional typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto
2000 Layers in the determiner phrase. New York: Garland Publishing (Routledge).Google Scholar