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. 102–131

Prolegomena to the study of object relations

 | University of the Basque Country/HiTT
 | University of Extremadura
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.
Keywords: differential object marker, dative, distinctiveness, scales
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
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00031.orm
References (65)
References
Aissen, J. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 17, 673–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity Vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 211, 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alcaraz, A. 2019. Configurations of A-movement. PhD. Thesis, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. & Vinokurova, N. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28:3, 593–64. 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. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. 49–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry, 401, 35–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. & Menetti, C. In press. Topics and passives in Italian-speaking children and adults. Language acquisition.
Bernstein, J., Ordóñez, F. & Roca, F. 2018. dom and DP layers in romance. Talk presented at Differential Object Marking in romance-towards microvariation , Inalco, Paris Nov. 10 2018.
Berro, A. & Fernández, B. 2018. Applicatives without verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, first on line Dec. 2018. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. A. Kibbee (Eds.) New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugè, L. & Brugger, G. 1996. On the accusative a in Spanish. Probus, 8:1, 1–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Poole, K. T. 2008. Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical linguistics, 341, 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danon, G. 2006. Caseless nominals and the projection of DP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 241, 977–1008. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67:3, 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 1986. Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative. Language, 621, 808–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, A. 2015. Direccionales con con y Marcado Diferencial de Objeto. Revue Romane, 50:2, 163–190. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García García, M. 2007. Differential object marking with inanimate objects. In G. A. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages”, 63–84. Arbeitspapier 122. Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Glushan, Zhanna. 2010. Deriving case syncretism in Differential Object marking systems. Ms., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Green, G. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. & Ritter, E. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature geometric analysis. Language, 781, 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2004. Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: a usage-based account. Constructions 2.Google Scholar
2008. Descriptive scales versus comparative scales. In M. Richards & A. L. Malchukov (Eds.), Scales, 39–53. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86, Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
2018. Are we making progress in understanding differential object marking? [URL]
Ingason, A. K. 2016. Applicatives in the noun phrase. Ms. University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Irimia, M. A. 2018. Variation in differential object marking: on some differences between Romanian and Spanish. Ms. University Modena and Reggio Emilia.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. 1999. The pronoun determiner debate: evidence for Sardinian and repercussions for French. In E. Treviño & J. Lema (Eds.), Semantic Issues in Romance Syntax, 121–140. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laca, B. 1995. Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional, 61–91. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19:3, 335–391.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2018. Parametric variation in dom in the dialects of Southern Italy. Talk, International workshop Differential Object Marking in Romance. Towards Microvariation. INALCO, Paris 2018/11/9-10
Leonetti, M. 2008. Specificity in Clitic Doubling and in Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus 201, 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, L. 2012. Indefinite objects. Cambridge, MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In ESCOL ’91: proceedings of the eighth eastern states conference on linguistics, 234–253.Google Scholar
Mendikoetxea, A. 1999. Construcciones con se: Medias, Pasivas e Impersonales. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 1631–1722. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language, 601, 847–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odria, A. 2017. Differential Object Marking and Datives in Basque Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
2018. dom and datives in Basque: not as homogeneous as they look like. Manuscript, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2007. The Object Agreement Constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 251, 315–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a. Object Clitics, Agreement and Dialectal Variation. Probus, 251, 301–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b. Non accusative objects. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 121, 155–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013c. Differential Object Marking, case and agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 21, 221–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Historical Changes in Basque Dative Alternations: Evidence for a P-based (neo)derivational analysis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2:1, 781, 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019a. Deconstructing se constructions. Ms. UPV/EHU & Universidad de Extremadura.Google Scholar
2019b. The formal properties of non paradigmatic se . To appear in Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 81, 55–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pensado, C. 1995. El complemento directo preposicional. Estado de la cuestión y bibliografía comentada. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional, 11–59. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Paul, W. & Whitman, J. 2010. Applicative structure and Mandarin ditransitives. In M. Duguine et al. (Eds.), Argument Structure and syntactic relations from a crosslinguistic perspective, 261–282. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, D. A. 2006. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pineda, A. 2018. Differential object marking in Catalan varieties. Talk, International workshop Differential Object Marking in Romance. Towards Microvariation. INALCO, Paris 2018/11/9-10.
Rappaport-Hovav, M. & Levin, B. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 441, 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rezac, M. 2011. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigau, G. 1988. Strong pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 191, 503–511.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Ordoñez, I. 2016. Differential Object Marking in Basque: Grammaticalization, attitudes and ideological representations. Urbana-Champaign: UIUC PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Ordóñez, I. 2017. Reexamining differential object marking as a linguistic contact-phenomenon in Gernika Basque. Journal of Language Contact, 10:2, 318–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Mondoñedo, M. 2007. The syntax of objects: Agree and differential object marking. Ph Dissertation, U. of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2004. The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 161, 219–251.Google Scholar
2006. The Nominative Puzzle and the Low Nominative Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 371, 289–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. [Reprinted in P. Muysken, & H. van Riemsdijk. 1986. Features and projections, Foris, Dordrecht, 163–232.]Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1996. Warps: some thoughts on categorization. Cuadernos de Lingüística del I.U. Ortega y Gasset, 41, 1–38.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K. & Kaiser, G. A. 2005. The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In K. von Heusinger, G. A. Kaiser & E. Stark (Eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop “Specificity and the Evolution / Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance”, 33–70. Arbeitspapier Nr. 119. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Camacho Ramírez, Rafael
2022. Differential Object Marking and Labeling in Spanish. Languages 7:2 ► pp. 114 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.