Cover not available
Part of
Portuguese-Spanish Interfaces: Diachrony, synchrony, and contact
Edited by Patrícia Amaral and Ana Maria Carvalho
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 1] 2014
► pp. 237–260

Two kinds of differential object marking in Portuguese and Spanish

| The Ohio State University
Portuguese is typically not considered a differential object marking (DOM) language, while Spanish, with its accusative a, is one of the most well-known DOM languages. This chapter uses quantitative multivariate analysis to argue that Portuguese – both Brazilian (BP) and European (EP) – displays a clear-cut DOM system. Unlike Spanish, however, the Portuguese DOM system is limited to strictly anaphoric direct object referents. Both BP and EP oppose null objects with overt pronominal marking of anaphoric DOs, even though the pronouns employed differ in each variety. In both Spanish and Portuguese, animacy, definiteness and specificity constrain the encoding of direct object referents in similar ways; most notably, the hierarchical ordering of these constraints is the same across the two languages.
Published online: 30 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.1.12sch
References (58)
References
Abbott, B. (2004). Definiteness and indefiniteness. In L.R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 122–149). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Almeida, G.S. (2009). Quem te viu quem lhe vê: A expressão do objeto acusativo de referência à segunda pessoa na fala de Salvador. Unpublished MA thesis, Instituto de Letras, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.Google Scholar
. (2011). Prescrição gramatical e uso: O caso do pronome lhe no português brasileiro. Cadernos do Congresso Nacional de Linguística e Filologia, 15(5), tomo 3.2398–2408.Google Scholar
de Andrade, A.L. (2010). The application of clitic climbing in European Portuguese and the role of register. In C. Borgonovo et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 97–108). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bagno, M. (2000). Português ou brasileiro? Um convite à pesquisa. São Paulo: Parábola.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische Universsalienforschung: differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Brugè, L., & Brugger, G. (1996). On the accusative a in Spanish. Probus, 8, 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camara, J.M. (1955). Ele comme un accusatif dans le portugais du Brasil. In D. Catalán (Ed.) Miscelánea homenaje a Andre Martinet (Vol. 1; pp. 39–46). La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna.Google Scholar
. (1972). The Portuguese language (Anthony J. Naro, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Choi, J.K. (2000). [–Person] direct object drop: The genetic cause of a syntactic feature in Paraguayan Spanish. Hispania, 83, 531–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Company Company, C. (2002). Grammaticalization and category weakness. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 201–215). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G.C. (2000). Number. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunha, C., & Cintra, L. (2002). Nova gramática do português contemporâneo. Lisbon: Edições João Sá de Costa.Google Scholar
Cyrino, S. (1997). O objeto nulo no português do Brasil. Londrina: Editora da UEL.Google Scholar
. (2001). O objeto nulo no português do Brasil e no português de Portugal. Boletim da ABRALIN, 25, 173–181.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (2008). Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua, 118, 141–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duarte, M.E.L. (1989). Clítico acusativo, pronome lexical e categoria vazia no português do Brasil. In F. Tarallo (Ed.), Fotografias sociolingüísticas (pp. 19–34). Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP.Google Scholar
Dumitrescu, D. (1997). El parámetro discursivo en la expresión del objeto directo lexical: español madrileño vs. español porteño. Signo y Seña, 7, 305–354.Google Scholar
Fernández-Ordóñez, I. (2012). Dialect areas and linguistic change: Pronominal paradigms in Ibero-Romance dialects from a cross-linguistic and social typology perspective. In G.D. Vogelaer & G. Seiler (Eds.), The dialect laboratory: Dialects as a testing ground for theories of language change (pp. 73–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flores, M., & Melis, C. (2007). El leísmo desde la perspectiva del “marcado diferencial del objeto". Revista de historia de la lengua española, 2, 83–107.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse (pp. 5–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, K.V., & Kaiser, G. (2003). The Interaction of animacy, definiteness and specificity in Spanish. In K.V. Heusinger & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages (pp. 41–65). Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
. (2011). Affectedness and differential object marking in Spanish. Morphology, 21, 593–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, G. (2011). Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pavia.Google Scholar
Iggesen, O. (2009). Asymmetry in case marking. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 246–257). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kato, M.A. (2001). Null objects and VP ellipsis in European and Brazilian Portuguese. In J. Quer et al. (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001 (pp. 131–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kato, M.A., & Raposo, E. (2001). O objecto nulo definido no português europeu e no português brasileiro: Convergências e divergências. Actas do XVI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística (pp. 673–85). Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística.Google Scholar
Kliffer, M. (1984). Personal a, kinesis and individuation. In P. Baldi (Ed.) Papers from the XII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (pp. 195–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laca, B. (2002). Gramaticalización y variabilidad: Propiedades inherentes y factors contextuales en la evolución del acusativo preposicional en español. In A. Wesch, W. Weidenbusch, R. Kailuweit, & B. Laca (Eds.) Sprachgeschichte als Varietätengeschichte/Historia de las variedades lingüísticas (pp. 195–203). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. (2006). El objeto directo: La marcación preposicional. In C. Company Company (Ed.) Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española (Vol. 1; pp. 421–475). Distrito Federal: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2004). Specificity and object marking: The case of Spanish a. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114.Google Scholar
. (2008). Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus, 20, 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naro, A.J., & Pereira Scherre, M.M. (2000). Variable concord in Portuguese: the situation in Brazil and Portugal. In J. McWhorter (Ed.), Language change and language contact in pidgins and creoles (pp. 235–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nascentes, A. (1960). Lheísmo no português do Brasil. Revista Letras, 11, 108–113.Google Scholar
Pensado, C. (Ed.). (1995). El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., & Tagliamonte, S. (2001). African American English in the diaspora. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ramos, J. (1989). O emprego das preposições no portugês do Brasil. In F. Tarallo (Ed.), Fotografias sociolinguísticas (pp. 83–93). Campinas: Editorial Pontes.Google Scholar
Raposo, E. (1986). On the null object in European Portuguese. In O. Jaeggli & C. Silva-Corvalán (Eds.) Studies in Romance linguistics (pp. 373–390). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Reig Alamillo, A. (2009). Cross-dialectal variation in propositional anaphora: Null objects and propositional lo in Mexican and Peninsular Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 21, 381–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, S.A. (2006). Null objects across South America. In T.L. Face & C.L. Klee (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 23–36). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S.A., & Silva, G. (2003). Anaphoric direct objects in spoken Brazilian Portuguese: Semantics and pragmatics. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 2, 109–133.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2002). Comparative sociolinguistics. In P. Trudgill, J. Chambers, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 729–763). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tarallo, F. (1996). Turning different at the turn of the century: 19th century Brazilian Portuguese. In G.R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, & J. Baugh (Eds.), Towards a social science of language: papers in honor of William Labov (Vol. 1; pp. 199, 220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S., & Smith, E. (2005). Goldvarb X. Computer program. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Canada. [URL]Google Scholar
Tarallo, F. (1996). Turning different at the turn of the century: 19th century Brazilian Portuguese. In G. Guy et al. (Eds.), Towards a social science of language, Vol. 1 (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, E.W. (1969). The syntax of spoken Brazilian Portuguese . Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
Tippets, Ian, & Scott Schwenter. (2007). Relative animacy and differential object marking in Spanish. Paper presented at NWAV 36, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Tippets, I. (2010). Differential object marking in Spanish: A quantitative variationist study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Torrego Salcedo, E. (1999). El complemento directo preposicional. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 2: Las construcciones sintácticas fundamentales. Relaciones temporales, aspectuales y modales (pp. 1779–1805). Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Washington, H.B. (2012). Shifting tendencies: Variable object clitic placement in European Portuguese. Paper presented at NWAV 41,Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Weissenrieder, M. (1985). Exceptional uses of the accusative A. Hispania, 68, 393–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1990.) Variable uses of the direct-object marker A. Hispania, 73, 223–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1991). A functional approach to the accusative A. Hispania, 74, 146–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yépez, M.V. (1986). Direct object clitics in Quiteño Spanish. Unpublished M. A. Dissertation. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Barbosa, Pilar
2024. Null objects, null nominal anaphora and antilogophoricity. Probus 36:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Cabrelli, Jennifer & Michael Iverson
2024. Why do learners overcome non-facilitative transfer faster from an L2 than an L1? The cumulative input threshold hypothesis. International Journal of Multilingualism 21:3 ► pp. 1594 ff. DOI logo
di Salvo, Margherita & Naomi Nagy
2022. Chapter 12. Differential object marking in heritage and homeland Italian. In Variation in Second and Heritage Languages [Studies in Language Variation, 28], ► pp. 311 ff. DOI logo
Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro
2020. Language acquisition and linguistic theory: When linguistic theory meets empirical data . Applied Linguistics Review 11:3 ► pp. 369 ff. DOI logo
Nkollo, Mikolaj
2020. Cumbersome paths to indefiniteness. Evidence from an Old Occitan customary. Verba: Anuario Galego de Filoloxía 47 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Nediger, Will, Acrisio Pires & Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes
2019. Integrating Linguistic Theory and Experimentation in L2 Acquisition: Learning of Spanish Differential Object Marking by Portuguese and English speakers . Applied Linguistics Review 10:2 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Rinke, Esther, Cristina Flores & Pilar Barbosa
2018. Null objects in the spontaneous speech of monolingual and bilingual speakers of European Portuguese. Probus 30:1 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Silva, Gláucia
2015. Features of Portuguese as a heritage language: Morphosyntax and beyond. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 8:2 ► pp. 415 ff. DOI logo
Schwenter, Scott A. & Rena Torres Cacoullos
2014. Competing constraints on the variable placement of direct object clitics in Mexico City Spanish. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 27:2 ► pp. 514 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.