Introduction published in:
Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?
Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Anna Pineda
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 42:1] 2019
► pp. 1–6

Differential objects and datives

A homogeneous class?

| Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
| Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Published online: 10 July 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00026.iri
References

[ p. 5 ]References

Aissen, J.
2003 Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anand, P. & Nevins, A.
2006 The locus of ergative Case assignment: Evidence from scope. In A. Johns, D. Massam & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 143–171. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, J.
1999 Clitic-doubled arguments. In K. Johnson & I. Roberts (Eds.), Beyond principles and parameters: Essays in memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli, 13–42. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bárány, A.
2018  dom and dative case. Glossa, 3 (1), 97.1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R. & Anagnostopoulou, E.
1996 Object shift and specificity: evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. In L. M. Dobrin, K. Singer & L. McNair (Eds.), Papers from the 32nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 11–22. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Bossong, G.
1991 Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Kibbee & D. Wanner (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 Le marquage différentiel de l’object dans les langues de l’Europe. In J. Feuillet (Ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 193–259. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Butt, M.
1993 Object specificity and agreement in Hindi-Urdu. In C. Beals et al. (Eds.), Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 89–103. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.
1979 Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class. Linguistica Silesiana 3. (Katowice: University of Silesia), 13–21.Google Scholar
1981 Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
1988 Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. Barlow & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in natural language. Approaches, theories, description, 159–180. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
1990 Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fernández, B. & Rezac, M.
2016 Differential object marking in Basque varieties. In B. Fernández, J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), Microparameters in the grammar of Basque, 93–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
1984 Direct objects and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case. In F. Plank (Ed.), Objects. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 151–183. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Glushan, Z.
2010 Deriving Case syncretism in Differential Object marking systems. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/001040
Irimia, M. A.
2018 Differential objects and other structural objects. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 3 (50), 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
To appear. Differential objects and other structural objects. Some remarks on differential object marking in Romanian. Ms. Crossref
Jaeggli, O.
1982 Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Katz, D.
1987 Grammar of the Yiddish language. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Lazard, G.
2001 Le marquage différential de l’objet. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Österreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and linguistic universals. An international handbook, vol 2, 873–885. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
López, L.
2012 Indefinite objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 6 ]
Manzini, M. R. & Franco, L.
2016 Goal and dom datives. Natural language and linguistic theory, 34(1), 197–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, T.
1994 Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A.
1978 On the case marking of objects. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language. Syntax. Volume IV, 249–289. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Odria, A.
2014 Differential object marking and the nature of dative case in Basque varieties. Linguistic variation, 14 (2), 289–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 Differential object marking and datives in Basque syntax. PhD thesis, University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J.
2007 The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25 (2), 315–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 The derivation of dative alternations. In M. Duguine, S. Huidobro & N. Madariaga (Eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from a Crosslinguistic Perspective, 203–232. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Differential Object Marking, Case and Agreement. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2 (2), 221–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raz, S.
1980 Tigre syntax and Semitic Ethiopian. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African studies, 43 (2), 235–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shain, C. A.
2008 Differential object marking in Paraguayan Guaraní. BA thesis. University of Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
de Swart, P.
2007 Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Radbound: University of Nijmegen doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar