Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Anna Pineda
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 42:1] 2019
► pp. 102–131
Prolegomena to the study of object relations
This paper argues that there is nothing “differential” in the licensing conditions of Differential Object Marking and outlines an analysis that unifies dom with dative object marking and with a broader set of “derived object”-marking configurations. We show that neither morphological nor syntactic distinctiveness can be the driving force for dom: accounts of dom as a morphological distinctiveness device are inadequate diachronically and very unefficient functionally. Syntactic analyses that postulate DP-internal differences or construction-specific double-licensing conditions fail to capture the basic fact that dom is a relation between the objects and the predicates selecting them. Precisely, the burden of our unified explanation falls on the checking requirements imposed to the DP complements by the structural heads selecting them.
Article outline
- 1.Scales and other theoretical artifacts
- 1.1Ambiguity
- 1.2Scales
- 2.Syntactic accounts
- 2.1Differential licensing
- 2.2The locus of parametric variation
- 3.The importance of being an object
- 3.1Direct objects
- 3.1.1The house of dom
- 3.1.2A note on specificity
- 3.1.3 dom and agreement are not two sides of the same coin
- 3.1.4Putting everything together. The derivation of Object dom
- 3.2Derived objects
- 3.1Direct objects
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00031.orm
References
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 january 2023. 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.