Cover not available
Article In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2024
Edited by Marco Bril and Kristel Doreleijers
[Nota Bene 1:2] 2024
► pp. 297–317

The interaction between animacy, definiteness and topicality in the historical development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish

Steps towards a more complete overview

ORCID logo | Radboud University
Usage of a as a marker of direct objects in Spanish has been a popular topic of research, but there is no clarity on how different factors interact. The current investigation looks at the historical change in usage of a, focussing on animacy, definiteness, and topicality. We analyzed the extent to which historical texts follow state-of-the-art theories, by combining automatic and manual annotation. The results indicate that the investigated texts to a large extent confirm existing theories, with some aspects worth noting. First of all, inanimate definite objects sometimes carry a, which is impossible according to prescriptive grammars. Second, we found an increase in the usage of a with definite human referents through time, which was predicted by Aissen (2003), although the limited amount of available data prevents us from drawing definitive conclusions. Furthermore, there is tentative evidence that topicality plays a role.
Keywords: Differential Object Marking, Spanish, historical linguistics, definiteness, animacy, topicality
Article outline
  • 1.Differential Object Marking in Spanish
  • 2.Marking as explained in the grammar books
  • 3.From cases to prepositions: The development of a
  • 4.What factors play a role in DOM?
    • 4.1Hierarchies
    • 4.2What does ‘optional’ mean?
    • 4.3The current investigation
  • 5.Combining manual and automated annotation
    • 5.1Data
    • 5.2Analysis
  • 6.Results: Animacy and definiteness in action
    • 6.1Pronouns
    • 6.2Human names
    • 6.3Human definites
    • 6.4Indefinite non-specific humans
    • 6.5Animals
    • 6.6Inanimates
  • 7.Discussion: Towards a global vision of DOM
    • 7.1Implications
    • 7.2Limitations
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Bibliography
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (17)
Bibliography
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, R. E. & Miguel Angel San José. 2010. A reference grammar of Spanish. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloem, Jelke & Gosse Bouma. 2013. Automatic animacy classification for Dutch. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 31. 82–102.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio & Violeta Demonte (eds.). 1999. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (Colección Nebrija y Bello). Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Butt, John, Carmen Benjamin & Antonia Moreira Rodríguez. 2019. A new reference grammar of modern Spanish (Routledge Reference Grammars). 6th edition. London ; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio. 2013. Differential Object Marking in Spanish: state of the art. Borealis — An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2(2). 1–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. 2008. Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. In Brian H. Ross (ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Advances in Research and Theory), vol. 491, 209–246. Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García García, Marco. 2007. Differential Object Marking with inanimate objects. In Georg A. Kaiser & Manuel Leonetti (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop „Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages”. Konstanz, Germany: Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. In Jeff Good (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Change, 185–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, Klaus von. 2008. Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish. De Gruyter Mouton 20(1). 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, Klaus von & Georg A. Kaiser. 2005. The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In Proceedings of the Workshop “Specificity and the Evolution / Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance,” 33–69. Konstanz, Germany.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4). 609–665.Google Scholar
Melis, Chantal. 1995. El objeto directo personal en el Cantar de Mio Cid: Estudio sintáctico-pragmático. In Carmen Pensado (ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (Gramática Del Español), 133–163. Madrid: Viso Libros.Google Scholar
Penny, Ralph J. 2002. A history of the Spanish language. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Martínez, Felipe, Isabel Martínez-Sempere, Xavier Ivars-Ribes & Rafael Carrasco. 2013. An open diachronic corpus of historical Spanish. Language Resources and Evaluation 471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swart, Peter de. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD Thesis.
Tippets, Ian. 2011. Differential Object Marking: Quantitative evidence for underlying hierarchical constraints across Spanish dialects. In Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 107–117. Somerville, MA.Google Scholar