Cover not available
Article published In:
Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?
Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Anna Pineda
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 42:1] 2019
► pp. 7–30

dom and datives in Basque

Not as homogeneous as they might seem

| University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)
This paper analyzes the syntax of dom and causee, experiencer, goal and possessor datives in Basque. It presents novel criteria distinguishing their categorical status: the possibility (i) to license Depictive Secondary Predication (DSP) and (ii) to appear as non-agreeing in contexts affected by the Person Case Constraint (PCC). It argues that, contrary to the rest of the datives, goals are generated as PPs, since they are unable to license DSP, but able to occur as non-agreeing in PCC-affected contexts. Besides, despite exhibiting the same categorical status as causee, experiencer and possessor datives, it claims that dom objects are syntactically identical to canonical absolutives, as they show the same configurational as well as Case licensing pattern, which is based on v-Agree.
Keywords: Basque, syntax, Differential Object Marking (dom), datives
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.DSP and the original syntactic category of dative arguments
    • 2.1The restriction on the controller
    • 2.2The categorical origin of dative arguments
  • 3.The PCC and the syntax of the arguments implicated in it
    • 3.1Preliminaries
    • 3.2The dative markers in the finite verbal form
    • 3.3 dom objects and the PCC
    • 3.4The PP repair strategy
      • 3.4.1With PP-like datives
      • 3.4.2With DP datives
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00027.odr
References (94)
References
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 211, 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albizu, P. 1997a. The Syntax of Person Agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
1997b. Generalized person-case constraint: a case for a syntax-driven inflectional morphology. ASJU, 401, 1–33.Google Scholar
2001. Datibo sintagmaren izaera sintaktikoaren inguruan: eztabaidarako oinarrizko zenbait datu. In B. Fernández, & P. Albizu (Eds.), Kasu eta komunztaduraren gainean. On Case and Agreement, 49–69. Bilbo: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
2009. Construcciones inacusativas con dativos posesivos y dativos de interés en vasco: un análisis derivacionalista. Seminario de Lingüística Teórica, CSIC, Madrid, May 11.Google Scholar
Albizu, P. & Fernández, B. 2002. Datives’ intervention effect on Ergativity in Basque. XII Colloquium of Generative Grammar, Universidad Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, April 15–17.Google Scholar
Albizu, P., & Fernández, B. 2006. Licit and illicit ERG-DAT pairings. In B. Fernández, & I. Laka (Eds.), Andolin gogoan. Essays in honour of Professor Eguskitza, 69–96. Bilbo: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. Evidence from clitics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Arregi, E. 2003. On Dative Alternations in Basque. Manuscript, UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
Arregi, E., & Ormazabal, J. 2003. Aditz ditrantsitiboen barne-egitura. In J. M. Makazaga, & B. Oyharçabal (Eds.), Euskal gramatikari buruzko eta literaturari buruzko ikerketak XXI. mendearen atarian. Gramatika gaiak, 119–156. Bilbo: Euskaltzaindia.Google Scholar
Arregi, K. & Nevins, A. 2008. A principled order to postsyntactic operations. Manuscript, Univesity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign & Harvard University.Google Scholar
2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Artiagoitia, X. 2000. Hatsarreak eta parametroak lantzen. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU & Arabako Foru Aldundia.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1997. Thematic Roles and Syntacctic Structure. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of Grammar, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bárany, A. 2018. dom and dative case. Glossa: a journal or general linguistics, 3 (1): 971, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjar, S., & Rezac, M. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux, & Y. Roberge (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, 49–62. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berro, A. & Fernández, B. 2018. Applicatives without verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1994. The Person-Case constraint: A morphological approach. In H. Harley & C. Phillips (Eds.), MIT Workinng Papers in Linguistics 22: The morphology-syntax connection. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objekt Markierung in der neuiranischen Sphrachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1991. Differential Object Marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner, & D. A. Kibee (Eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugè, L. & Brugger, G. 1996. On the Accusative a in Spanish. Probus, 8 (1), 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 89–155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001. Derivation by Phase. M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cuervo, M. C. 2003. Datives at Large. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Demonte, V. 1987. C-command, Preposition and Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 181, 147–157.Google Scholar
1988. Remarks on secondary predicates. C-command, extraction and reanalysis. The Linguistic Review, 6 (1), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Dative Alternation in Spanish. Probus, 71, 5–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demonte, V., & P. Masullo. 1999. La predicación. Los complementos predicativos. In I. Bosque, & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 2461–2524. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, RAE.Google Scholar
Deustuko Hizkuntzalaritza Mintegia. 1989. Inkorporazioa perpaus kausatiboetan. In P. Salaburu (Ed.), Sintaxi teoria eta euskara. VII. Udako Ikastaroak, 87–119. Donostia: UPVEHU.Google Scholar
Etxepare, R. 2006. Number long distance agreement in (substandard) Basque. In J. A. Lakarra, & J. I. Hualde (Eds.), Studies in Basque and historical linguistics in memory of R. L. Trask. ASJU, 401, 303–350. Bilbo: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
2014. Contact and Change in a restrictive theory of parameters. In C. Picallo (Ed.), Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, 108–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etxepare, R. & Oyharçabal, B. 2009. Bi datibo egitura ipar-ekialdeko zenbait hizkeratan. Lapurdum, 131, 145–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Datives and adpositions in northeastern Basque. In B. Fernández & R. Etxepare (Eds.), Variation in datives: a micro-comparative perspective, 50–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fernández, B. & Landa, J. 2009. Datibo komunztadura beti zaindu, inoiz zaindu ez eta batzuetan baino zaintzen ez demean. Hiru ahoko aldagaia, datu iturri bi, eta erreminta bat: Corsintax. Lapurdum, 131, 159–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández, B., Ortiz de Urbina, J., & Landa, J. 2009. Komunztadurarik gabeko datiboen gakoez. In R. Etxepare, R. Gómez, & J. A. Lakarra (Eds.), Beñat Oihartzabali gorazarre. ASJU, 431, 352–380.Google Scholar
Fernández, B., & Rezac, M. 2010. Datibo osagarri bitxiak eta Datiboaren Lekualdatzea: ari nai diyot eta kanta egin nazu bidegurutzean. In B. Fernández, P. Albizu, & R. Etxepare (Eds.), Euskara eta euskarak: aldakortasun sintaktikoa aztergai. ASJU, 521, 113–149. Bilbo: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
2016. Differential Object Marking in Basque varieties. In B. Fernández, & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), Microparameters in the grammar of Basque, 93–139. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández, B. & Sarasola, I. 2010. Marinelei abisua: izen ondoko datibo sintagmak izenburuen sintaxian. Lapurdum, 141, 55–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Soriano, O. 1999. Two types of impersonal sentences in Spanish: locative and dative subjects. Syntax, 2 (2), 101–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harizanov, B. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 321, 1033–1088. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernanz, Mª Ll. 1988. En torno a la sintaxis y la semántica de los complementos predicativos en español. Estudis de Sintaxis, Estudi General, 81, 7–29.Google Scholar
Kalin, L. 2018. Licensing and Differential Object Marking: The View from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax, 21 (2), 112–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keine, S., & Müller, G. 2008. Differential argument encoding by impoverishmen. In M. Richards, & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Scales, Linguistiche Arbeits Berichte, 861, 83–136. Universitat Leipzig.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M. 1994. Secondary predicates. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 31, 25–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: the view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 321, 593–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laka, I. 1993. The structure of inflection: A case study in Xº syntax. In J. I. Hualde, & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), Generative studies in Basque linguistics, 21–70. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M. 2004. Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 31, 75–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, T. 2019. On the nature of differential object marking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 37 (1), 167–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masullo, P. J. 1992. Incorporation and case theory in Spanish. A crosslinguistic perspective. Doctoral disseration, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2006. On head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 371, 69–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFadden, T. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: a study on the syntax-morphology interface. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Mounole, C. 2012. Evolution of the transitive verbs in Basque and apparition of datively marked patients. In G. Authier, & K. Haude (Eds.), Ergativity, Transitivity, and Voice, 335–379. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 291, 939–971. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odria, A. 2014. Differential Object Marking and the nature of dative case in Basque varieties. Linguistic Variation, 14 (2), 289–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Euskarazko bigarren mailako predikazioaren murriztapen sintaktikoez. In B. Fernández, & P. Salaburu (Eds.), Ibon Sarasola gorazarre. Homenatge. Homenaje, 449–515. Bilbo: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
2017. Differential Object Marking and datives in Basque syntax. Doctoral dissertation, UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
2019. DIfferntial Object Marking in Basque and Spanish dialects. In A. Berro, B. Fernández, & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), Basque and Romance: Aligning grammars. 243–275. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J. 2000. A conspiracy theory of case and agreement. In R. Martin et al. (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. 235–260. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 1998. On the syntactic nature of the Me-lui and the Person Case Constraint. ASJU, 32 (2), 415–433.Google Scholar
2001. A brief description of some agreement restrictions. In B. Fernández & P. Albizu (Eds.), Kasu eta komunztaduraren gainean. On case and agreement, 215–241. Bilbo: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
2007. Object agreement restrictions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 251, 315–347.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J., & Romero, J. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2013a. Differential Object Marking, Case and Agreement. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2 (2), 221–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b. Non Accusative Objects. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 121, 155–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013c. Object clitics, agreement and dialectal variation. Probus, 251, 301–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Historical Changes in Basque Dative Alternations: evidence for a P-based (neo)derivational analysis. Glossa, 2 (1), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, J. 1995. Datibo komunztaduraren gainean. In R. Gómez, & J. A. Lakarra (Eds.), Euskal Dialektologiako Kongresua. ASJU, 281, 579–588. Donostia: Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia.Google Scholar
2003a. Causatives. In J. I. Hualde, & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), A grammar of Basque, 592–607. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003b. Semiauxiliary verbs. In J. I. Hualde, & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), A grammar of Basque, 300–312. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Oyharçabal, B., & Etxepare, R. 2012. The absence of Person/Case constraints in Early Lapurdian Basque. In J. Lakarra, J. Gorrotxategi, & B. Urgell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Luis Michelena Chair, 149–169. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
Oyharçabal, B. 2010. Basque ditransitives. In M. Duguine, S. Huidobro, & N. Madariaga (Eds.), Argument structure and syntactic relations: A cross-linguistic perspective, 233–260. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1971. Deep and surface constraints in syntax. New York: Rinehart & Winston Inc.Google Scholar
Preminger, O. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry, 401, 619–666. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rezac, M. 2006. Agreement displacement in Basque: Derivational principles and lexical parameters. Manuscript, UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
2007. Escaping the Person Case Constraint: referential computation in the phi system. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 61, 97–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a. Phi-Agree and theta-related Case. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Béjar (Eds.), Phi-teory: phi-features across interfaces and modules, 83–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008b. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and Absolutive Displacement in Basque. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 261, 61–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009a. Person restrictions in Basque intransitives. Lapurdum, 131, 305–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b. On the unifiability of repairs of the Person Case Constraint: French, Basque, Georgian, and Chinook. In R. Etxepare, R. Gómez, & J. A. Lakarra (Eds.), Beñat Oihartzabali gorazarre. ASJU, 43 (1–2), 769–790.Google Scholar
2011. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. London/New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rezac, M., Albizu, P., & Etxepare, R. 2014. The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32 (4), 1273–1330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, N. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Rijk, R. P. 2008. Standard Basque. A Progressive Grammar. Cambridge/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. 2007. The Syntax of Objects: Agree and Differential Object Marking. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Ordoñez, I. 2016. dom in Basque: grammaticalization, attitudes and ideological representations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Romero, J. 1997. Construcciones de doble objeto y gramática universal. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. 1983. The syntactic forms of predication. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In H. Haider, S. Olsen, & S. Vikner (Eds), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, 207–237. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. 2010. Variability in the case pattern of causative formation in Romance and its implications. Linguistic Inquiry, 411, 445–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. S. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 111, 203–237.Google Scholar
Zabala, I. 1993. Predikazioaren teoriak Gramatika Sortzailean (Euskararen kasua). Doctoral dissertation, UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
2003. Nominal Predication: copulative sentences and secondary predication. In J. I. Hualde, & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), A Grammar of Basque, 426–446. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Odria, Ane, Ane Berro & Beatriz Fernández
2022. Pertsona murriztapenak ditu egitura inpertsonalak: euskararen kasua. Fontes Linguae Vasconum :133 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Bárány, András
2021. Partially ordered case hierarchies. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 DOI logo
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina
2021. Oblique differential object marking and types of nominals. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 66:4 ► pp. 486 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 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.