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. 82–101

‘Agreement of structural obliques’ parameter

dom and pseudopartitives

| Università di Firenze
| Università di Firenze

We consider two sets of facts. The first is that dom objects may or may not agree with perfect participles in Indo-Aryan. The second is that (pseudo)partitive subjects may agree with the verb in the plural or not. We account for the dom parameter, basing on the assumption that dom corresponds to embedding of a DP under an oblique adposition: if P projects, the dom object is labelled PP and does not agree; if D projects, it is labelled DP, projecting like any other DP. On the contrary, inherent datives, where P/K is lexically selected, must project P/K and are therefore not goals for Agree. We extend this labelling account to (pseudo)partitives, as well as to optionally agreeing oblique clitics in Romance.

Keywords: dom , pseudopartitives, agreement, oblique, labelling
Article outline
  • 1.(Pseudo)partitives
  • 2.Differential Object Marking
  • 3.The agreement of structural obliques parameter
    • 3.1Analysis: Labelling
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00030.man
References
Alexiadou, A.
2001 Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anand, P. & Nevins, A.
2005 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.Google Scholar
Barker, C.
1998 Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 161, 679–717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L.
1996 Su alcuni casi di accordo del participio passato in francese e in italiano. In P. Benincà, G. Cinque, T. De Mauro & N. Vincent (Eds.), Italiano e dialetti nel tempo: saggi di grammatica per Giulio C. Lepschy, 7–22. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Belvin, R., & den Dikken, M.
1997  There, happens, to, be, have . Lingua, 1011, 151–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N.
2011 The biolinguistic program: the current state of its evolution and development. In A. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise, 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., & Sheehan, M.
2014 Complexity in comparative syntax: the view from modern parametric theory. In F. Newmeyer & L. Preston (Eds.), Measuring Linguistic Complexity, 103–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, V.
2000 Concord in Minimalist Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 2: 319–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G.
1998 Partitives, reference to kinds and semantic variation. In A. Lawson (Ed.), Proceedings of Semantics And Linguistic Theory Volume VII, 73–98. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1986 Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
2001 Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Danon, G.
2013 Agreement alternations with quantified nominals in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics, 491, 55–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demonte, V. & Pérez-Jiménez, I.
2015 Construcciones partitivas y pseudopartivas en español. In E. Hernández & P. M. Butragueño (Eds.), Variación y diversidad lingüística, 15–98. Ciudad de México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
1968 The Case for Case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Franco, L., Manzini, M. R. & L. Savoia
2015 Linkers and agreement. The Linguistic Review, 321, 277–332.Google Scholar
Franco, L. & Manzini, M. R.
2017 Instrumental prepositions and case: Contexts of occurrence and alternations with datives. Glossa, 2(1): 81, 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franco, L., Manzini, M. R. & Savoia, L.
To appear. Locative Ps as general relators: Location, direction, DOM in Romance. In V. Acedo Matellan et al. Eds. Linguistic Variation Special Issue
Franks, S.
1994 Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 121, 597–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, P. & Patel-Grosz, P.
2014 Agreement and verb types in Kutchi Gujarati. In P. Chandra & R. Srishti (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface: Perspectives from South Asian languages, 217–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irimia, M. A.
2018 Differential objects and other structural objects. Linguistics Society of America 2018 Proceedings, 3, 50:1–15.Google Scholar
Johns, A.
1992 Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry, 231, 57–87.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.
1984 Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P.
2008 Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations. In J. Good (Ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korn, A.
2008 Marking of Arguments in Balochi Ergative and Mixed Constructions. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian & D. Stilo (Eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics, 249–276. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Laka, I.
2006 Deriving split ergativity in the progressive: the case of Basque. In A. Johns, D. Massam & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 173–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G.
2001 The Structure of DPs: Some Principles, Parameters, and Problems. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 562–603. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorusso, P. & Franco, L.
2017 Patterns of syntactic agreement with embedded NPs, Lingua, 1951, 39–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R.
2019 Parameters and the design of the Language Faculty. Northern Italian partial null subjects. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 11: 24–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R. & L. Franco
2016 Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 341, 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & L. M. Savoia
2005 I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (31 volumes). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R., Savoia, L. & Franco, L.
2015 Ergative Case, Aspect and Person Splits: Two Case Studies. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 621, 297–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., Savoia, L.
2018 The morphosyntax of Albanian and Aromanian varieties. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nash, L.
2017 The structural source of split ergativity and ergative case in Georgian. In J. Coon, D. Massam & L. Travis (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 175–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patel-Grosz, P. & Grosz, P.
2014 Agreement and verb types in Kutchi Gujarati, In P. Chandra & R. Srishti (Eds.), The Lexicon – Syntax Interface: Perspectives from South Asian languages, 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D.
1982 Paths and Categories (PhD dissertation), MIT.Google Scholar
Pineda, A.
2014 (In)transitivity borders. A study of applicatives in Romance languages and Basque (PhD Dissertation), UAB.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M.
2016 Deconstructing Ergativity. Two Types of Ergative Languages and Their Features. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rezac, M., Albizu, P. & Etxepare, R.
2014 The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 321, 1273–1330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, R.
2006 The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax, 91, 67–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E.
1977 Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax, 285–316. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P.
2002 Icelandic case and the structure of events. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 51, 197–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toosarvandani, M. & Nasser, H.
2017 Quantification in Persian. In D. Paperno & E. L. Keenan (Eds.), Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language: Volume II, 665–696. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E.
2009 Variability in the Case Patterns of Causative Formation in Romance and Its Implications. Linguistic Inquiry, 411, 445–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, S.
2013 Alignment and ergativity in new Indo-Aryan languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolford, E.
2006 Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 371, 111–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, R.
2008 Dei ex-machina: a note on plural/mass indefinite determiners, Studia Linguistica, 631, 301–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Hacohen, Aviya, Olga Kagan & Dana Plaut
2021. Differential Object Marking in Modern Hebrew: Definiteness and partitivity. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 DOI logo
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina
2022. Chapter 4. Differential object marking, oblique morphology, and enriched case hierarchies. In Points of Convergence in Romance Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 360], ► pp. 82 ff. DOI logo
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina & Anna Pineda
2022. Differential object marking in Catalan. Linguistic Variation 22:2 ► pp. 325 ff. DOI logo
MANZINI, MARIA RITA
2023. Romance pronominal clitics as pure heads. Journal of Linguistics 59:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 april 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.