Article published in:
Spanish in Context
Vol. 16:1 (2019) ► pp. 22–50

An experimental investigation of differential object marking in Mexican Spanish

| Universidad Autónoma del Carmen
| University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Differential Object Marking (DOM) is a phenomenon widely attested in Spanish. In two experimental studies using production and acceptability judgments we examined the extent to which Mexican Spanish presents some variation among monolingual speakers with respect to expansion of DOM. We tested whether DOM with animate and specific objects is categorical in this variety, and whether DOM is expanding to inanimate definite and indefinite objects as observed by diachronic studies of Mexican and other Latin American varieties. We also tested DOM with other constructions: bare plurals, the verbs like tener and haber, small clauses and causative and perception verbs. Our study contributes new data documenting linguistic variation in native speakers and confirms synchronic and diachronic analyses of DOM in Spanish.
Keywords: Spanish, Mexican Spanish, Differential Object Marking, oral production, acceptability judgments, animacy, definiteness, direct objects
Published online: 27 February 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00025.bau
References

References

Aissen, Judith
2003 “Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21 (3): 435–448. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alfaraz, Gabriela
2011 “Accusative object marking. A change in progress in Cuban Spanish?” Spanish in Context 8 (2): 213–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bader, Markus and Häussler, Jana
2010 “Toward a model of grammaticality judgments.” Journal of Linguistics 46: 273–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Balasch, Sonia
2011 “Factors determining Spanish Differential Object Marking within its domain of variation.” In Selected Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Spanish sociolinguistics ed. by J. Michnowicz and R. Dodsworth, 113–124. Sommerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Belloro, Valeria
2007 Spanish clitic doubling: A study of the syntax semantics interface. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1985 Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objecktmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1991 “Differential object marking in Romance and beyond.” In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages ed. by Dieter Wanner and Douglas Kibbee, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brugé, Laura and Brugger, Gerhad
1996 “On the accusative a in Spanish.” Probus 8: 1–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Company Company, Concepción
2001 “Multiple dative marking grammaticalization: Spanish as a special kind of primary object language.” Studies in Language 25: 1–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “El avance diacrónico de la marcación prepositiva en objetos directos inanimados.” In Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España, Vol. II ed. by Alberto Bernabé, José Antonio Berenguer, Margarita Cantarero, José Carlos de Torres, 146–154. Madrid: SEL.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1988 “Agreement vs. Case marking and direct objects.” In Agreement in Natural Languages. Approaches, Theories, descriptions ed. by M. Barlow and C. A. Ferguson, 159–179. Stanford: Center for the Study of language and Information.Google Scholar
Dumitrescu, Domnita
1997 “El parámetro discursivo en la expresión del objeto directo lexical: Español madrileño vs. español porteño.” Signo y Seña 7: 305–354.Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio
2013 “Differential Object Marking in Spanish: State of the Art.” Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2: 1–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García García, Marco
2007 “Differential Object Marking with Inanimate Objects.” In Proceedings of the Workshop Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero Romance Languages ed. by G. A. Kaiser & M. Leonetti, 63–84. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Hoff, Mark
2018 “Are Argentines a-blind? Acceptability of a-marked inanimate direct objects.” In Contemporary Trends in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics: Selected papers from the Hispanic Linguistic Symposium ed. by J. MacDonald, 121–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Florian
2008 “Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformational or not) and toward logit mixed models.” Journal of Memory and Language 59 (4): 434–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo
1982 Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1975 French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laca, Brenda
2002 “Gramaticalización y variabilidad: propiedades inherentes y factores contextuales en la evolución del acusativo preposicional en español.” In Sprachgeschichte als Varietätengeschichte ed. by Andreas Wesch, Waltraud Weidenbusch, Rolf Kailuweit, Brenda Laca, 195–203. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2006 “El objeto directo: La marcación preposicional”. In Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Primera parte: La frase verbal, vol. 1 ed. by Concepción Company Company, 421–475. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica/UNAM.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel
2004 “Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3: 75–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Specificity in Clitic Doubling and in Differential Object Marking” Probus, 20: 35–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
López, Luis
2012 Indefinite Objects. Diferential Object Marking, Scrambling and Choice Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lunn, Patricia
2002 “Tout se tient in Dominican Spanish.” In Structure, Meaning and Acquisition in Spanish ed. by James Lee, Kimberly Geelin and Clancy Clements, 65–72. Sommerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, Silvina
2004 “Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergenc.” Bilingualism, Language and Cognition 7: 125–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Differential Object Marking in Argentine Spanish. An experimental study.” In The Handbook of Argentine Spanish ed. by Laura Colantoni and Celeste Rodríguez Louro, 207–228. Frankfurt: Vervuert Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
2014 “Searching for the roots of structural changes in the Spanish of the United States.” Lingua 151: 177–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, Silvina and Bowles, Melissa
2009 “Back to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12, 363–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, Silvina and Sánchez-Walker, Noelia
2013 “Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers.” Language Acquisition 20: 109–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, Silvina, Bhatt, Rakesh and Girju, Roxana
2015 “Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages.” Language 91 (3): 564–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pensado, Carmen
1985 “La creación del objeto directo preposicional y la flexión de los pronombres personales en las lenguas románicas” Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 30 (2): 123–158.Google Scholar
1995 El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
R Core Team
2013 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://​www​.R​-project​.org/
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel
2007 The syntax of objects. Agree and Differential Object Marking. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Sánchez, Liliana
2003 Quechua-Spanish Bilingualism. Interference and Convergence in Functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 “Hierarchy of features sand ergativity.” In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages ed. by Robert M. W. Dixon, 121–171. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita
1988 “The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 391–434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter, and Helen de Hoop
2007 “Semantic Aspects of Differential Object Marking.” In Proceedings of SuB11 ed. by E. Puig-Waldmüller, 568–581. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Ticio, Emma and Avram, Larisa
2015 “The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish and Romanian: Semantic scales or semantic features?.” Revue Roumane de Linguistique RRL, LX, 4: 383–402.Google Scholar
Tippets, Ian
2010 Differential Object Marking in Spanish: A Quantitative Variationist Study. Doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther
1998 The dependency of objects. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Von Heusinger, Klaus and Kaiser, Georg
2005 “The evolution of Differential Object Marking in Spanish.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Specificity and the Evolution/Emergence of Nominal Determination in Romance ed. by Klaus von Heusinger, Georg Kaiser, Elisabeth Stark, 33–69. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universitaet Konstanz (Arbeitspapier, 119).Google Scholar
Weissenrieder, Maureen
1985 “Exceptional uses of the accusative A.” Hispania 68: 393–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 “Variable uses of the direct-object marker A.” Hispania 73: 223–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen
1999 “Animacy Hierarchy effects in Object Agreement.” In New Dimensions in African Linguistics and Languages ed. by Paul Kote. Trends in African Linguistics 3: 203–216.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen
2002 The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L.
1998 Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Montrul, Silvina
2019. The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish by Romanian speakers. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 32:1 ► pp. 185 ff. Crossref logo
Montrul, Silvina & Nicoleta Bateman
2020. Vulnerability and stability of Differential Object Marking in Romanian heritage speakers. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 119 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 2021. 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.