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. 56–81

dom as a syntax-pragmatics interface marker

Evidence from Catalan

| Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona – Centre de Lingüística Teòrica
Building on the display of dom in Catalan and focusing on the Balearic variety, this paper explores this phenomenon arguing for a discourse-driven marking, showing that the assumption that semantic hierarchies as crucial triggers for dom cannot be assumed anymore. We aim to present some ideas to address the correlation between prepositional markings and peripheral positions and to provide arguments for a syntax-pragmatics approach to dom in Clitic Dislocation. Our data shed light on the link between information structure – in particular, anaphoricity- and marked objects. This analysis would also account for other markers (i.e. de) available as a mechanism for signalling the same [+anaphoric] feature.
Keywords: differential object marking, clitic dislocation, Catalan, information structure, accusative case
Article outline
  • 1.Goals
  • 2.Introduction: Differential object marking as a multidimensional phenomenon
    • 2.1DO+dom and IO: Identical nature?
  • 3.The case of Balearic Catalan: Some facts and data
  • 4. dom in Clitic Left Dislocation and Clitic Right Dislocation
  • 5.Towards a tentative proposal
  • 6.What can diachrony tell us?
  • 7.A possible extension: De as a marker
  • 8.Conclusions and further research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 10 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00029.kho
References (77)
References
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bárány, A. 2016. dom and dative: morphology or syntax? Invited talk at SyntaxLab, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
2018. dom and dative case. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. 2005. Extended Doubling and the VP Periphery. Probus, 17(1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Structures and Strategies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2018. On a-Marking Topics in the Italian Left Periphery. In R. Petrosino, P. C. Cerrone & H. van der Hulst (Eds.), From sounds to structures. Beyond the veil of Maya, 445–466. Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. 1988. Psych verbs and Th-Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 61, 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. 1986. Il lato sinistro della frase italiana. ATI Journal, 471.Google Scholar
1988. L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le construzioni marcate. In L. Renzi (Ed.), Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione, 11, 115–225. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Benincà, P., & Poletto, C. 2004. Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, 52–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berretta, M. 1989. Sulla presenza dell’accusativo preposizionale nell’italiano settentrionale: note tipologiche. Vox Romanica, 481, 13–37.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2018. On the core significance of the periphery: an Afrikaans case study. Talk at UiL-OTS. Utrecht University.
Borer, H. 1984. Parametric Syntax. Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. 1982. Historische Sprachwissenschaft und empirische Universalienforschung. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 331. 17–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985. Differenzielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1991. Differential Object Marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Kibbee & D. Wanner (Eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2002. Against optional and null clitics. Right dislocations vs. Marginalization. Studia Linguistica, 561, 29–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., & Giusti, G. 1990. Partitive ne and the QP-Hypothesis. A Case Study. Ms. Università di Venezia.Google Scholar
Casalicchio, J., Ciconte, F. M., & D’Alessandro, R. 2018. On phasal domains and the difference between subject and object clitics. Poster at GLOW 41 , Budapest.
Cecchetto, C. 1999. A Comparative Analysis of Left and Right Dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica, 53(1), 40–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A’- dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2012. Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford Comparative Studies in Syntax. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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), 501. 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. 2007. Acusatiu preposicional i dislocació amb clitic. Caplletra, 421, 185–218.Google Scholar
2009. Differential object marking and topicality. The case of Balearic Catalan. Studies in Language, 331, 832–885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, A. 2013. Differential object marking in spanish: state of the art. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 21. 1–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, M., & Hinterhölzl, R. 2007. Types of Topics in German and Italian. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, 87–116. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guardiano, C. 2010. L’oggeto diretto preposizionale in siciliano. Una breve rassegna e qualche domanda. In J. Garzonio (Ed.), Quaderni di lavoro ASIt 2010. Studi sui dialetti della Sicilia, 95–115. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1991. Introduction to Government and Binding theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, G. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language, 34(2), 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, O. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. 1995. The prepositional accusative in Sardinian: its distribution and syntactic repercussions. In J. C. Smith & M. Maiden (Eds.), Linguistic Theory and the Romance Languages, 37–75. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khouja, M. 2015. La dislocació en català i espanyol: els acusatius preposicionals. Master Thesis. UAB.Google Scholar
Laca, B. 1987. El objeto directo preposicional en español. Romanitisches Jahrbuch, XXXVIII1, 290–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional. In C. Company Company (Ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Primera parte: La frase verbal, Vol. 11, Tomo 11, 421–475. Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2000. A Comparative Syntax of the Dialects of Southern Italy: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2009a. Grammatica diacronica del napoletan. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b. Aspetti della sintassi della periferia sinistra del cosentino. In D. Pescarini (Ed.), Studi sui dialetti della Calabria, 3–24. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. 2004. Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 31, 75–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, L. 2009. A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Indefinite objects: Scrambling, Choice Functions, and Differential Object Marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. (In)definiteness, specificity and differential object marking in Romance. In S. Fischer & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance, 241–265. Berlin: De Gruter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, R. & Franco, L. 2016. Goal and dom datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 341, 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, R. & Savoia, L. M. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. 31 vols. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Martí-Girbau, N. 1994. Anàlisi de la construcció de + SA en Català. Master Thesis. UAB.Google Scholar
Meier, H. 1947. O problema do acusativo preposicional no catalao. Boletim de Filologia, 81, 237–260.Google Scholar
1948. Sobre as origens do acusativo preposicional nas línguas románicas. In Ensaios de Filologia Românica, Lisboa.Google Scholar
Melis, C. 1995. El objeto directo personal en El Cantar de Mio Cid. Estudio sintáctico- pragmático. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El Complemento directo preposicional, 133–163. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Moll, F. de B. 1968. Gramàtica catalana referida especialment a les Illes Balears. Palma: Ed. Moll.Google Scholar
Neuburger, K. & Stark, E. 2014. Differential Object Marking in Corsican. Regularities and triggering factors. Linguistics, 52(2), 365–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2013. Agreement restrictions revisited. Too many beggars, too few hosts. Unpublished Ms., University of the Basque Country /University of Extremadura.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. & Roca, F. In press. Differential Object Marking (dom) and clitic subspecification in Catalonian Spanish. In Á. Gallego (Ed.), The Syntactic Variation of Spanish Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logo
Pererea, J. 1986. Contribució a l’estudi de les preposicions en el Tirant lo Blanc (primera part). Llengua & Literatura, 11, 31–49. Barcelona.Google Scholar
Pineda, A. 2013. Double object constructions and dative / accusative alternations in Spanish and Catalan: a unified account. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2 (1), 57–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
In press a. The development of dom in the diachrony of Catalan: (dis)similarities with respect to Spanish. In J. Kabatek, P. Obrist, & A. Wall (Eds.), New reflections on dom in Spanish, Catalan and beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter.
In press b. El marcatge diferencial d’objecte en català (i Fabra). In M. Ángel Pradilla (Ed.), La lingüística de Pompeu Fabra. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
In press c. From Dative to Accusative. An Ongoing Syntactic Change in Romance. Probus.
Pineda, A. & Royo, C. 2017. Differential indirect object marking in Romance (and how to get rid of it). Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LXII, 4 (Special issue: Differential Object Marking in Romance: some more pieces of the puzzle), 445–462.Google Scholar
Pineda, A. & Irimia, M. 2018. On the setting of Scales in the diachrony of dom in Catalan and Romanian. Seminari del Centre de Lingüística Teòrica. UAB.Google Scholar
Richards, N. 2006. Beyond strength and weakness. Ms. MIT.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. 2007. The syntax of objects: Agree and differential object marking. Doctoral Dissertations. AAI3276641. [URL]
Rohlfs, G. 1969. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
1971. Autour de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 351, 312–334.Google Scholar
Rosselló, J. 2002. El SV, I: Verb i arguments verbals. In J. Solà et al. (Eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, 1853–1949. Barcelona, Empúries.Google Scholar
Sancho Cremades, P. 2002. La preposició i el sintagma preposicional. In Solà, J. et al. (Eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, 1698–1796. Barcelona, Empúries.Google Scholar
Seržant, A. 2017. Differential object markers and datives. Talk at 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. Universitat Zurich.
Shaer, B. & Frey, W. 2004. “Integrated” and “non-integrated” left-peripheral elements in German and English. In B. Shaer, W. Frey, & C. Maienborn (Eds.), Proceedings of the dislocated elements workshop, 465–502. Berlin: Zentrum fur allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. 1993[1988]. El papel de la concordancia en las construcciones de reduplicación de clíticos. In O. Fernández Soriano (Ed.), Los pronombres átonos, 174–204. Madrid: Taurus.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. 1998. The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Variability in the Case Patterns of Causative Formation in Romance and Its Implications. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(3), 445–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, E. 2002. L’oració com a unitat informativa. In J. Solà et al. (Eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 21, 1221–1279. Barcelona: Empúries.Google Scholar
Villalba, X. 1998. Right dislocation is not right dislocation. In F. Roca, & O. Fullana (Eds.), Studies on the syntax of central Romance languages: 227–241.Google Scholar
2000. The syntax of sentence periphery. Doctoral Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
2003. An exceptional exclamative sentence type in Romance. Lingua, 1131, 713–745. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Heusinger, K. 2002. Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics, 19 (3), 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Cyrino, Sonia M. L. & Monica Alexandrina Irimia
2023. Differential object marking in Brazilian Portuguese. In Differential Object Marking in Romance [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 280], ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina & Anna Pineda
2022. Differential object marking in Catalan. Linguistic Variation 22:2 ► pp. 325 ff. DOI logo
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina
2020. Variation in differential object marking: On some differences between Spanish and Romanian. Open Linguistics 6:1 ► pp. 424 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.