Chapter published in:
Points of Convergence in Romance Linguistics: Papers selected from the 48th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL 48), Toronto, 25-28 April 2018
Edited by Gabriela Alboiu and Ruth King
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 360] 2022
► pp. 81–96

Chapter 4
Differential object marking, oblique morphology, and enriched case hierarchies

| University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
The puzzle of oblique morphology on differentially marked objects (dom) has received renewed attention in the recent formal literature, under two main theoretical lines: (i) oblique syntax for dom (Manzini & Franco 2016, 2019, inter alii; (ii) oblique marking on dom as morphological syncretism (Keine & Müller 2008; Keine 2010; Bárány 2018, inter alii). This paper evaluates the predictions made by these accounts against a limited set of Romance dom varieties, crucially including both dom as dative (Western Romance) and dom as a non-dative adposition (Romanian). A specific syntactic implementation for oblique dom is proposed, building on the idea of additional licensing in certain types of accusatives, combined with enriched case hierarchies (Starke 2017). This not only preserves the advantages of the above-mentioned accounts, but also opens up the path to addressing several less-studied or recalcitrant (micro)variation points.
Keywords: differential object marking, oblique morphology, syncretism, enriched case hierarchies
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Differential objects as syntactic obliques
  • 2.Oblique morphology as morphological syncretism
  • 3.Oblique dom in enriched case hierarchies
    • 3.1Nominal structure in enriched case hierarchies
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 10 March 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.360.04iri
References
Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2007 Clitic doubling. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdjik (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 519–581. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Bárány, András
2018  dom and datives. Glossa. 3(1). 97.1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2005 Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17 (1): 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 (Past) participle agreement. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2009 The nanosyntax of case. Tromsø, Norway: University of Tromsø dissertation. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/000956
Cornilescu, Alexandra
2000 Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 1(2). 91–106.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Ian Roberts
2010 Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split-auxiliary selection and the null subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28(1). 41–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen
1994 The syntax of Romanian. Comparative studies in Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29 (3). 399–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harðarson, Gísli Rúnar
2016 A case for a Weak Case contiguity hypothesis: A reply to Caha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34. 1329–1343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio
2011 Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Pavia, Italy: University of Pavia dissertation.
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina
2020 Types of structural objects. Some remarks on differential object marking in Romanian. In András Bárány & Laura Kalin (eds.), Case, agreement, and their interactions: New perspectives on Differential Object Marking. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina & Anna Pineda
2019 Differential objects and datives: A homogeneous class? In Monica Alexandrina Irimia & Anna Pineda (eds.), Lingvisticae Investigationes – Special issues on Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class? 42 (1), 1–6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo
1982 Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael Allan
1993 Sardinian syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura
2018 Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax 21(2). 112–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keine, Stefan
2010 Case and agreement from fringe to core: A minimalist approach. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keine, Stefan & Gereon Müller
2008 Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Scales 83–136. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86. Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo & Etsuko Kaburaki
1977 Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4). 627–672. https://​www​.jstor​.org​/stable​/4178011​?seq​=1#page​_scan​_tab​_contents
Ledgway, Adam
2000 A comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
López, Luis
2012 Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele
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 and Linguistic Theory 34(1). 197–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 ‘Agreement of structural obliques’ parameter. In Monica Alexandrina Irimia & Anna Pineda (eds.), Lingvisticae Investigationes, Special issues on Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class 42(1), 82–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia
2005 I dialetti italiani e romanci: Morfosintassi generativa. 3 volumes. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Mardale, Alexandru
2008 Microvariation within Differential Object Marking. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 53(4). 448–467.Google Scholar
Martín, Juan
2005 Aspectual quantization and [±] accusative case checking in Romance. In Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003, 177–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero
2013 Differential object marking: case and agreement. Borealis: an International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2.2:221–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana & María Luisa Zubizarreta
2018 The Person Case Constraint. The syntactic encoding of perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(4). 1291–1337. https://​link​.springer​.com​/article​/10​.1007%2Fs11049​-017​-9395​-7
Rodrîguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel
2007 The syntax of objects. Agree and differential object marking. Mansfield, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Săvescu Ciucivara, Oana
2009 A syntactic analysis of pronominal clitic clusters in Romance: The view from Romanian. New York City, NY: New York University dissertation.
Starke, Michal
2017 Resolving dat=acc (≠ gen). Glossa 2(1). 104. 1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina M.
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 Bucureşti.Google Scholar