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. 135–159

Differential object marking in Brazilian Portuguese

 | University of Campinas
 | University of Modena and Regio Emilia
This paper addresses two important aspects related to the problem of differential object marking in Brazilian Portuguese. On the one hand, it demonstrates that this phenomenon is not completely absent from the language, contrary to traditional assumptions. Among the contexts in which differential object marking is still obligatory or possible are types of equatives, animates under coordination, or animate relative pronouns. On the other hand, it shows that these contexts can be unified as involving configurations resulting from sentential ellipsis. More specifically, the relevant structures contain two constituents with clausal nature, out of which the second is subject to a process of deletion. Differential object marking on the nominal signals the presence of a raising operation to the high left periphery in the second clause, which allows the argument to escape the deletion operation at the TP level. Differential object marking based on raising to the high left periphery unites Brazilian Portuguese to (Romance) languages where differential object marking is dependent on topicalization to the left periphery.
Keywords: differential object marking, Brazilian Portuguese, animacy, sentential ellipsis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.DOM in Brazilian Portuguese
  • 3.Differential object marking in European Portuguese
  • 4.Towards an analysis
  • 5.BP and Topic heads
  • 6.Evidence for sentential ellipsis
  • 7.Differential object marking and dative morphology
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • The abbreviations are as follows
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.280.06cyr
References (50)
References
D’Alessandro, R. (2017). When you have too many features: Auxiliaries, agreement and clitics in Italian varieties. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 50, 1–36.Google Scholar
Bárany, A. (2018). DOM and dative case. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 97, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. (2004). Aspects of the low IP area. In L. Rizzi (ed.) The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures (pp. 16–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2018). On a-marking of object topics in the Italian left periphery. In R. Petrosino, P. Cerrone, & H. van der Hulst (Eds.) From sounds to structure: Beyond the veil of Maya (pp. 445–466). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlinck, R. S. (1997). Sobre a realização do objeto indireto no português do Brasil. Anais do II Encontro do Círculo de Estudos Linguísticos do Sul. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. (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
Calindro, A. (2015). Introduzindo argumentos: Uma proposta para as sentenças ditransitivas do português brasileiro (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of São Paulo.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, A. (2000). On the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 2(1), 91–110.Google Scholar
Cunha, C., & Cintra, L. (2016). Nova gramática do português contemporâneo. Lexikon Editora Digital.Google Scholar
Cyrino, S., & Irimia, M.-A. (2019). Differential object marking in Brazilian Portuguese. Revista Letras UFPR, 99, 177–201.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1994). The syntax of Romanian. Comparative studies in Romance. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Döhla, H.-J. (2014). Diachronic convergence and divergence in differential object marking between Spanish and Portuguese. In K. Braunmüller, S. Höder, & K. Kühl (Eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact: Factors and mechanisms (pp. 265–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (2009). Differential object marking and topicality: The case of Balearic Catalan. Studies in Language 33(4), 832–885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galves, C., Andrade, A., & Faria, P. (2017). Tycho Brahe Parsed Corpus of Historical Portuguese. Retrieved on 22 February 2023 from [URL]
Gibrail, A. (2003). O acusativo preposicionado do português clássico: Uma abordagem diacrônica e teórica (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Campinas.
Iemmolo, G. (2010). Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34(2), 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irimia, M. A. (2016). When differential (object) marking is obligatory: (Equality) comparatives. Handout from presentation at RALFE Paris, 4 November 2016.
(2018). When differential object marking is obligatory. Some remarks on the role of Case in ellipsis and comparatives. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 24(I, 13), 105–114.Google Scholar
(2020). Types of structural objects. Some remarks on differential object marking in Romanian. In A. Bárány & L. Kalin (Eds.), Case, agreement and their interactions. New perspectives on differential argument marking (pp. 77–126). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Oblique differential object marking and types of nominals. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 66(4), 486 – 518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(to appear). Asymmetric coordination in Romanian: a diagnostic for DOM position? To appear in Linguistic Inquiry.
Irimia, M. A., & Cyrino, S. (2017). Manifestations of differential object marking: From Brazilian Portuguese to prepositional accusatives. Revue Romaine de Linguistique, LXII(4), 411–426.Google Scholar
Keine, S. (2010). Case and agreement from fringe to core: A minimalist approach. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keine, S., & Müller, G. (2008). Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In M. Richards & A. Maulchukov (Eds.), Scales (pp. 83–136). Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Khouja, M. (2019). DOM as a syntax-pragmatics interface marker. In M. A. Irimia & A. Pineda (Eds.), Differential objects and datives – A homogeneous class? Special issue of Lingvisticae Investigationes, 42(1), 56–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1969). On pronominalization and the chain of command. In D. A. Reibel & S. A. Schane (Eds.), Modern studies in English (pp. 160–186). Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2008). Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus, 20(1), 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, A. (1995). Ellipsis. Functional heads, licensing and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, L. (2012). Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luft, C. (2010). Dicionário prático de regência verbal. Ática.Google Scholar
Manzini, R., & Franco, L. (2016). Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martins, A.-M. (2015). Variação sintática no português quinhentista: A colocação dos pronomes clíticos. Estudos de Lingüística Galega, 7, 83–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateus, M.-H. et al. (2003). Gramática da língua portuguesa. Caminho.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. (2001). The syntax of silence. Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2010). Why Agree? Why Move? Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2017). Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, M. (2004). A perda da preposição A e a recategorização de LHE. Estudos Lingüísticos, 34, 292–297.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J., & Romero, J. (2007). The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25(2), 315–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013a). Differential object marking, case and agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2(2), 221–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). Object clitics: Agreement and dialectal variation. Probus, 20, 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pires, A. (2017). A marcação diferencial do objeto no português: Um estudo sintático-diacrônico (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Campinas.
Ramos, J. (1992). Marcação de caso e mudança sintática no português do Brasil: uma abordagem gerativa e variacionista (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Campinas. DOI logo
Ross, J.-R. (1969). Guess who? In R. Binnick, A. Davison, G. Green, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 2523–2586). CLS.Google Scholar
Saab, A., & Zdrojewski, P. (2021). On the non-existence of asymmetric DOM in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 52(4), 852–866. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina. (2011). Syntax and interpretation of the direct object in Romance and Germanic languages. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din București.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1998). The dependency of objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres Morais, M. A., & Salles, H. (2010). Parametric change in the grammatical encoding of indirect objects in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus, 22, 181–209.Google Scholar
Torres Morais, M. A., & Berlinck, R. (2018). O objeto indireto: Argumentos aplicados e preposicionado. In S. Cyrino & M. A. Torres Morais (Eds.), Mudança sintática do português brasileiro: Perspectiva gerativista (pp. 252–307). Contexto.Google Scholar