Cover not available
Article published In:
Applying Embodied Cognition and Cognitive Linguistics to language teaching
Edited by Paolo Della Putta and Ferran Suñer
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:1] 2023
► pp. 293–316
Regular articles

A cognitive analysis on Spanish differential object marking based on a modified model of the Transitivity Hypothesis

ORCID logo | Korea University

There are two approaches to Differential Object Marking (dom): The Ambiguity Thesis and the Transitivity Thesis. The Ambiguity Thesis states that a morphological mark for the direct object tends to be used when it possesses the prototypical properties of the subject, such as agenthood, animacy, definiteness or topicality. The Transitivity Thesis argues that languages tend to mark categories with high transitivity values morphologically, rather than lower values. In our study we combined these two approaches to create a systematic model, which is a modified version of the Transitivity Hypothesis of Hopper and Thompson (1980). We postulate that the minimal condition to use dom in Spanish is a cognitive profiling of the referent of the direct object. The degree of profiling can be considered as cognitive prominence and can distinguish from more prototypical uses of dom to less prototypical ones. Our model provides a plausible explanation not only regarding the hierarchical relation between dom properties, but also regarding some problematic uses of dom.

Keywords: Spanish differential object marking, Transitivity Hypothesis, cognitive prominence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The previous studies: Transitivity Hypothesis in relation to Spanish dom
  • 3.A modified model of the Transitivity Hypothesis of Hopper and Thompson (1980) for dom in Spanish
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00136.yan
References
Aissen, J.
(2000) Differential object marking: Iconocity vs. economy. University of California at Santa Cruz dissertation.
(2003) Differential object marking: Iconocity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21 (3), 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alcina, J. F., & Blecua, J. M.
(1988) Gramática Española. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Arnett, C., & Jernigan, H.
(2012) Cognitive grammar and its applicability in the foreign language classroom. In G. S. Levine & A. Phipps (Eds.), AAUSC Issues in language program direction 2010: critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp.198–215). Heinle.Google Scholar
Bello, A.
(1847) Gramática de la lengua castellana (anotado por R. J. Cuervo). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Anaconda 1945.Google Scholar
Bossong, G.
(1985) Differentielle objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.
(1975) Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana, 3 1, 13–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(1988) Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. Barlow & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in natural language. Approaches, theories, descriptions (pp.159–179). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
(1990) Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Hoop, H., & Narasimhan, B.
(2005) Differential object marking in Hindi. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages the case for case (pp. 321–345). Amsterdam Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M.
(2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. The Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fernández Ramírez, S.
(1951) Gramática española 4, El verbo y la oración (volumen ordenado y completado por I. Bosque). Madrid: Arco/Libros 1986.Google Scholar
García Zúñiga, A.
(2018) Los determinantes del español en la gramaticalización del complemento directo preposicional. Ideas, IV 4 (1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S.
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56 1, 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E.
(1976) Towards a universal definition of subject. In C. L. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kliffer, M.
(1995) El ‘a’ personal, la kinesis y la individuación. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (pp. 93–111). Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Laca, B.
(1995) Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (pp. 61–91). Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
(2002) Gramaticalización y variabilidad. Propiedades inherentes y factores contextuales en la evolución del AC_PREP en español. In A. Wesch, W. Weidenbusch, R. Kailuweit & B. Laca (Eds.), Sprachgeschichte als Varietätengeschichte/ Historia de las variedades lingüísticas (pp. 195–203). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M.
(2004) Specificity and different object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3 1, 75–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melis, C.
(1995) El objeto directo personal en el Cantar de Mio Cid. Estudio sintáctico-pragmático. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (pp.133–163). Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
(2018) Spanish indexing DOM, topicality, and the case hierarchy. In I. A. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (Eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (pp. 87–116). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E.
(1978) On the case marking of objects. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language, vol. IV1 (pp. 249–290). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Naess, A.
(2004) What markedness marks. The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua, 114 1, 1186–1212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niculescu, A.
(1959) Sur l’objet direct prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. Bucuresti, Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne, 167–185.Google Scholar
Pensado, C.
(1995) La creación del complemento directo preposicional y la flexión de los pronombres personales en las lenguas románicas. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (pp.179–233). Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Pottier, B.
(1968) L’emploi de la préposition a devant l’objet en espagnol. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique, 1 1, 83–95.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española
(2010) Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Asociación de academias de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Rice, S.
(1987) Toward a cognitive model of transitivity. San Diego: University of California dissertation.
Rohlfs, G.
(1971) Autour de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. Revue de Lnguistique Romane, 35 1, 312–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A.
(2000) Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76 (4), 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrego Salcedo, E.
(1999) El complemento directo preposicional. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 1779–1805). Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z.
(1967) Linguistics in philosophy. Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H. J.
(1993) A theory of aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Aspectual issues: Studies on time and quantity. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K., & Kaiser, G. A.
(2007) Differential object marking and the lexical semantics of verbs in Spanish. In G. A. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages”. Arbeitspapier 122 (pp. 85–110). Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
(2011) Affectedness and Differential Object Marking. Morphology, 21 (3), 593–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar