Cover not available
Part of
Differential Object Marking in Romance: Towards microvariation
Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Alexandru Mardale
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 280] 2023
► pp. 56–84

Differential object marking in French

Myth or reality?

| University of Zurich
| University of Zurich
This study is dedicated to the question whether French possesses (optional) DOM, i.e. direct object marking, which it answers in a negative way. French is traditionally considered to lack a differential marker for the direct object (cf. e.g. Körner, 1987). However, Fagard and Mardale (2014) claim in their large corpus study (12–13 billion tokens) that differential object marking (DOM) is an optional phenomenon in some non-standard varieties of French. Our data, stemming from an acceptability study plus a corpus analysis, do not confirm these findings, as native speakers show a wide range of negative responses in the acceptability tests. As for potential non-standard French varieties more prone to DOM, our data hint to a (very) weak regional effect (South-Western France).
Keywords: French, differential object marking, acceptability test, corpus study, regional variation, semantic properties, verbal semantics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.DOM in French: State of the art
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Corpus search
    • 3.2Acceptability judgment task
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Corpus analysis
    • 4.2Acceptability task
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Corpora
  • Appendix
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.280.03bin
References (42)
References
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (1997). Approches de la langue parlée en français. Ophrys.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Narr. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. A. Kibbee (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Urbana-Champaign, April 7–9, 1988 (pp. 143–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlier, A. (2007). From preposition to article. The grammaticalization of the French partitive. Studies in Language, 31(1), 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlier, A., & Lamiroy, B. (2014). The grammaticalization of the prepositional partitive in Romance. In S. Luraghi & T. Huomo (Eds.), The grammaticalization of the prepositional partitive in Romance (pp. 477–519). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dagnac, A., & Thuilier, J. (2020). Français du Sud-Ouest et marquage différentiel de l’objet: Une approche expérimentale. L’information Grammaticale, 166, 29–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, A. (2013). Differential object marking in Spanish: State of the art. Borrealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2(2), 1–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fagard, B., & Mardale, A. (2014). ‘Non, mais tu l’as vu à lui ?’ Analyse(s) du marquage différentiel de l’objet en français. Verbum (Presses Universitaires de Nancy), 36(1), 145–170. [URL]
Featherstone, S. (2008). Thermometer judgements as linguistic evidence. In C. M. Riehl & A. Rothe (Eds.), Was ist linguistische Evidenz? (pp. 69–90). Shaker Verlag. [URL]
Haspelmath, M. (2019). Differential place marking and differential object marking. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 72(3), 313–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, K. von. (2008). Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish. Probus, 20(1), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, K. von, & Kaiser, G. A. (2005). The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In K. von Heusinger, G. Kaiser, & E. Stark (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Specificity and the Evolution / Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance (pp. 33–69). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
(2011). Affectedness and differential object marking in Spanish. Morphology, 21(3), 593–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, K. von, & Onea Gáspár, E. (2008). Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian. Probus, 20(1), 67–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, G. (2010). Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language, 34(2), 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Are dislocated direct objects clause-external? Evidence from differential object marking. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 38, 190–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax. The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klein, U., & de Swart, P. (2011). Case and referential properties. Lingua, 121, 3–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Körner, K.-H. (1987). Korrelative Sprachtypologie. Die zwei Typen romanischer Syntax. Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2008). Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus, 20(1), 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Basic constituent orders. In A. Dufter & E. Stark (Eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax (pp. 887–932). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, B. (1971). Das morphemmarkierte Satzobjekt der romanischen Sprachen (Der sogenannte präpositionale Akkusativ). Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 87, 477–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Å. (2004). What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua, 114, 1186–1212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neuburger, K. A., & Stark, E. (2014). Differential object marking in Corsican: Regularities and triggering factors. Linguistics, 52(2), 365–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niculescu, A. (1959). Sur l’objet direct prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. In I. Coteanu (Ed.), Recueil d’études romanes publié à l’occasion du IXe congrès international de linguistique romane à Lisbonne du 31 mars au 3 avril (1959) (pp. 167–185). Académie de la République populaire Roumaine.Google Scholar
Paciaroni, T. (2020). Spatial distribution and properties of differential object marking in Gascon. Paper presented at 53rd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, August 26th- September 1st 2021.
(2019–2021). A morphosyntactic atlas of Gascony (MAGY). Post-Doc project.Google Scholar
Pensado, C. (1985). La creación del objeto directo preposicional y la flexión de los pronombres personales en las lenguas románicas. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (pp. 179–233). Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T., & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgement data. In R. J. Podesva & Devyani Sharma (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 27–50). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Séguy, J. (1973). L’accusatif prépositionnel en gascon et dans le français du sud-ouest. Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature, 11(1), 429–433.Google Scholar
Stark, E. (2008). Typological correlations in nominal determination in Romance. In H. H. Müller & A. Klinge (Eds.), Essays on nominal determination. From morphology to discourse management (pp. 45–63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). La morphosyntaxe dans les SMS suisses francophones: Le marquage de l’accord sujet–verbe conjugué. Linguistik Online, 48(4), 35–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). ‘De l’oral dans l’écrit’? – Le profil variationnel des SMS (textos) et leur valeur pour la recherche linguistique. In K. J. Kragh, & J. Lindschouw (Eds.), Les variations diasystématiques et leurs interdépendances dans les langues romanes. Actes du Colloque DIA II à Copenhague, 19–21 Nov. 2012 (pp. 395–405). Editions de Linguistique et de Philologie. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Nominal morphology and semantics – Where’s gender (and ‘partitive articles’) in Gallo-Romance? In S. Fischer & M. Navarro (Eds.), Proceedings of the VII Nereus International Workshop ‘Clitic Doubling and other issues of the syntax/semantic interface in Romance DPs’ (pp. 131–149). University of Konstanz. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ueberwasser, S., & Stark, E. (2017). What’s up, Switzerland? A corpus-based research project in a multilingual country. Linguistik Online, 84(5), 105–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, N. (2017). Determination and quantification. In A. Dufter & E. Stark (Eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax (pp. 725–770). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpora
Avanzi, M., Béguelin, M.-J., & Diémoz, F. (2012–2017). Présentation du corpus OFROM – Corpus oral de Français de Suisse Romande. University of Neuchâtel. [URL]
Branca-Rosoff, S., Fleury, S., Lefeuvre, F., & Pires, M. (2012). Discours sur la ville. Présentation du Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien des années 2000 (CFPP2000). [URL]
Stark, E., Ueberwasser, S., & Göhring, A. (2014–2020). Corpus “What‘s up, Switzerland?”. University of Zurich. [URL]