Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Variation
Vol. 22:2 (2022) ► pp.325–385

Differential object marking in Catalan

Descriptive and theoretical aspects

| University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
ORCID logo | Sorbonne Université | Universität zu Köln
In this paper we provide a comprehensive picture of differential object marking in Catalan, focusing on both the empirical facts and their theoretical contribution. We support some important conclusions. First, Catalan differential object marking is quite a robust and widespread phenomenon, contrary to what prescriptive grammars assume. Second, we show that, from a formal perspective, Catalan differential object marking cannot be completely subsumed under hierarchical generalizations known as scales. The contribution of narrow syntax mechanisms and nominal structure is fundamental, supporting recent views by López (2012) or Ormazabal and Romero (2007, 2010, 2013a, b), a.o. Building on these works as well as on observations initially made by Cornilescu (2000) and Rodríguez-Mondoñedo (2007), a.o., we adopt an analysis under which canonical, animacy-based differential marking results from the presence of an additional (PERSON) feature, beyond Case. This structural make-up is not only at the core of differences marked objects exhibit from unmarked objects with a Case feature, but also derives the prominence of differential marking on (animates) under information-structure processes, in the high left (and right) periphery, in contexts of the type discussed by Escandell-Vidal (2007a, b, 2009).
Keywords: Catalan, differential object marking, indirect objects, locatives, person, dative, licensing of differential object marking, clitic (doubling)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Differential object marking in Catalan
    • 2.1A matter of controversy
    • 2.2Some observations on the diachrony
  • 3.Morphologically dative, but syntactically accusative
    • 3.1Against an oblique syntax of DOM
    • 3.2More than one case in the chain
    • 3.3Passivization and agreement
  • 4.Formal approaches to differential object marking
    • 4.1Accounts in terms of Scales
  • 5.Differential object marking in syntax
    • 5.1Differential objects and [uC] licensing
    • 5.2Differential object marking and PERSON
    • 5.3Case and D0 incorporation
    • 5.4DOM and specificity
    • 5.5 López (2012) – differentially marked objects are tied to a specific position
  • 6.Other aspects of oblique DOM in Catalan
    • 6.1Co-occurrence restrictions
      • 6.1.1Other co-occurrence restrictions involving DOM
    • 6.2Datives and licensing
    • 6.3[person] licensing and ‘PCC-like’ effects
    • 6.4Catalan DOM and topicality
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.20009.iri
References (105)
References
Adger, David and Daniel Harbour. 2007. The syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax, 101, 2–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith L. 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 211, 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albareda, Cristina. 2009. Les variants al·lomòrfiques de la preposició ‘a’ en algunes varietats del català: descripció i anàlisi. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona – Universitat de Barcelona master thesis.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Arkdiev, Peter M. and Yakov G. Testelets. 2019. Differential nominal marking in Circassian. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”, 43(3), 715–751. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avram, Larisa and Rodica Zafiu. 2017. Semantic hierarchies in the evolution of differential object marking in Romanian. In Adina Dragomirescu et al. (eds.), Sintaxa ca mod de a fi. Omagiu Gabrielei Pană-Dindelegan, la aniversare, 29–42. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. Case. Its principles and parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bárány, András. 2018. DOM and dative case. Glossa, 3(1): 971, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana and Milan Rezac. 2003. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(1), 35–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus, 17(1), 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. (Past) participle agreement. In Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 1–45. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. On a-marking topics in the Italian left periphery. In R. Petrosino, P. C. Cerrone and H. van der Hulst (eds.), From sounds to structures, 445–466. Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benito, Rut. 2017. Differential Object Marking in Catalan: Contexts of Appearance and Analysis. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Master thesis.Google Scholar
Berretta, Monica. 1989. Sulla presenza dell’accusativo preposizionale in italiano: note tipologiche. Vox Romanica 481. 13–37.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1996. Object shift and specificity: evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. In Lisa M. Dobrin, Kora Singer and Lisa McNair (eds.), Papers from the 32nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 11–22. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax. Pronominal clitics in Romance. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1994. The Person-Case Constraint: A morphological approach. In The Morphology-Syntax Connection, number 22 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 33–52.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and Beyond. In Dieter Wanner and Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et Valence dans les langues d’Europe, 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale. A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Company, Concepción. 2002. Grammaticalization and category weakness. In Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 201–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2000. Notes on the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 91–106.Google Scholar
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at Large. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta and Ian Roberts. 2010. Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: split-auxiliary selection and the null subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28(1), 41–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darlymple, Mary and Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daskalaki, Evangelia. 2008. (Mis)Matching Patterns in Greek Free Relatives. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
. 2011. (Mis)matches in Greek free relatives. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference for Greek Linguistics, University of Chicago, 139–153.Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 71, 5–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The syntax of Romanian: comparative studies in Romance. Berlin/New York. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2007a. Topics from Ibiza: Differential object marking and clitic dis- location. In Georg Kaiser and Manuel Leonetti (eds.), Definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance languages, 23–43. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
. 2007b. 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 33(4), 832–885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabra, Pompeu. 1918/1933. Gramàtica catalana. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, Giuliana (ed.). 2003. Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García García, Marco. 2007. Differential object marking with inanimate objects. In Proceedings of the workshop “Definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance languages”, 63–84. Universität Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft (Arbetispapier 122).Google Scholar
. 2018. Nominal and verbal parameters in the diachrony of differential object marking in Spanish. In Ilja A. Seržant and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (ed.), The diachronic typology of differential argument marking, 207–239. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
GIEC (2016) = Institut d’Estudis Catalans (2016). Gramàtica de la llengua catalana. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi and Eizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: a feature-geometric approach. Language 78(3), 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio. 1992. Catalan. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking: evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language, 34(2), 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina. 2020. Oblique DOM and co-occurrence restrictions. How many types. Ms.Google Scholar
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina and Anna Pineda. 2019. On the setting of DOM Scales. Insights from diachrony. In Patrick Farrell (ed.), Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 4, 57: 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. On the setting of scales in the diachrony of Differential Object Marking. Journal of Historical Syntax, 51: article 8, 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 1986. Three issues in the theory of clitics. In Hagit Borer (ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, pp. 15–42. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael Allan. 1993. Sardinian syntax. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura and Philip Weisser. 2019. Asymmetric DOM in co-ordination. A problem for movement-based approaches. Linguistic Inquiry. 50(3), 662–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1989. Facets of Romance Past Participle Agreement. In Paola Benincà (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, 85–104. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khouja, Marta. 2019. DOM as a syntax-pragmatics interface marker. Lingvisticae Investigationes. Special issue on Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?, ed. by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Anna Pineda, 42(1), 56–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laca, Brenda. 2006. El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional. In Concepción Company (dir.), Sintaxis historica del español. Primera parte: La frase verbal, vol. 11, 423–475. Mexico: Fondo de cultura económica/Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2004. Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 31, 75–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus 201, 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2008. Reference to individuals, Person, and the variety of mapping parameters. In Alex Klinge and Henrik Høeg Müller (eds.), Essays on nominal determination, 189–211. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects: scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA /London, England: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Ludovico Franco. 2016. Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 341, 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. ‘Agreement of structural obliques’ parameter. Lingvisticae Investigationes, Special issue on Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?, ed. by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Anna Pineda, 42(1), 82–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 191: 153–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1985. Case, movement and raising in modern Irish. In Proceedings of WCCFL 4, Goldberg, Jeffrey, Susannah MacKaye, and Michael T. Wescoat (eds.), 190–205. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
McCreight, Katherine. 1988. Multiple Case assignment. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge. MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Moll, Francesc de B. 1975. Gramàtica catalana referida especialment a les Illes Balears. Palma: Moll.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for the person-case constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25–21, 27–313.Google Scholar
Odria, Ane. 2017. Differential Object Marking and datives in Basque syntax. PhD dissertation, UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2), 315–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The derivation of dative alternations. In Duguine Maia, Susana Guidobro and Nerea Madariaga (eds.), Argument structure and syntactic relations. A cross-linguistic perspective, 203–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. Differential object marking, case and agreement. Borealis: an International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 21, 221–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Non accusative Objects. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 121, 155–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana and María Luisa Zubizarreta. 2018. The Person Case Constraint. The syntactic encoding of perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(4): 1291–1337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pensado, Carmen. 1995. El complement directo preposicional: estado de la cuestion y bibliografía comentada. In Carmen Pensado (ed.), El complemento directo preposicional, 11–59. Madrid, Visos Libros.Google Scholar
Pineda, Anna. 2016. Les fronteres de la (in)transitivitat. Estudi dels aplicatius en llengües romàniques i basc [published and revised version of the PhD dissertation]. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Món Juïc. Col·lecció Cum Laude, 6.Google Scholar
. 2018. Acostament al marcatge diferencial d’objecte als inicis del català modern, eHumanista/IVITRA 14 (Special issue Gramàtica del Català Modern (1601–1833)), 570–596.Google Scholar
. 2019. Aspectes de la transivititat en els inicis del català modern, Caplletra. Revista Internacional de Filologia, 661, 207–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Double object constructions in Romance: the common denominator. Syntax, 23(3), 203–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. El marcatge diferencial d’objecte en català (i Fabra). In M. Àngel Pradilla (ed.), De llengua i societat: De la proposta fabriana a la reforma normativa de l’IEC. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans, p. 211–222.Google Scholar
. In press a. The development of DOM in the diachrony of Catalan: (dis)similarities with respect to Spanish. In Johannes Kabatek, Philipp Obrist and Albert Wall (ed.): Differential Object Marking in Romance – The third wave. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logo
. In press b. El complement directe (I). El marcatge diferencial d’objecte. In Josep Martines, Manuel Pérez-Saldanya and Gemma Rigau (ed.), Gramàtica del català antic. Barcelona: John Benjamins.
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s SCOPA. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(4), 917–937. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. What the PCC tells us about ‘abstract agreement’, head movement and locality. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 4(1): 131, 1–42.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Lina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Ribera, Josep. In press. Els pronoms personals febles (I): Les funcions dels pronoms. In Josep Martines, Manuel Pérez-Saldanya and Gemma Rigau (ed.), Gramàtica del català antic. Barcelona: John Benjamins.
Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective agree: Case Alternations, and the prominence of Person. In Marc Richards and Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Linguistische Arbeits Berichte (volume on Scales), vol. 861, 137–161. Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2016. Contiguity Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rigau, Gemma. 1978. Hi, datiu inanimat. Els Marges 121, 99–102.Google Scholar
. 1982. Inanimate Indirect Object in Catalan. Linguistic Inquiry 131, 146–150.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel. 2007. The syntax of objects. Agree and differential object marking, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerard. 1971. Autour de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. Revue de Linguistique Romaine 351, 312–327.Google Scholar
. 1973. Panorama de l’accusatif prépositionnel en Italie. Studii și Cercetari Lingvistice 241, 617–621.Google Scholar
Rosselló, Joana. 2002. El SV, I: Verb i arguments verbals. In Joan Solà, Maria-Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró and Manuel Pérez Saldanya (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 21, 1853–1949. Barcelona: Empúries.Google Scholar
Saab, Andrés and Pablo Zdrojewski. To appear. On the non-existence of asymmetric DOM in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry. DOI logo
Sancho Cremades, Pelegrí. 2002. La preposició i el sintagma preposicional. In Joan Solà, Maria-Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró and Manuel Pérez Saldanya (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 21, 1749–1768. Barcelona: Empúries.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 2002. On the nature of default case. Syntax. 4(3): 205–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert. M. W. Dixon (ed.), categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2017. Objects. In Dufter, Andreas and Elizabeth Stark (eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax, 89–153. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solà, Joan. 1994. Sintaxi normativa: estat de la qüestió. Barcelona: Empúries.Google Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1997. L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in napoletano antico. Italienische Studien 181, 66–80.Google Scholar
Spyropoulos, Vassilios. 2007. Case Conflict in Greek Free Relatives. In Studies in the Morpho-Syntax of Greek, ed. by A. Alexiadou, 251–293. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 26 (1): 79–123.Google Scholar
. 1996. Determiner clitic placement. In Freidin, Robert (ed.), Current issues in comparative grammar, 257–296. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus and Georg Kaiser. 2005. The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In Klaus von Heusinger, Georg Kaiser and Elisabeth and Stark (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop “Specificity and the evolution /emergence of nominal determination systems in Romance”, 33–69. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin S. 1983. Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2), 287–308.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The universal structure of categories. Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Fortuny, Jordi
2024. Structural Ambiguity and the Architecture of Language1. Studia Linguistica 78:1 ► pp. 35 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.