Cover not available
Part of
Stability and Divergence in Language Contact: Factors and Mechanisms
Edited by Kurt Braunmüller, Steffen Höder and Karoline Kühl
[Studies in Language Variation 16] 2014
► pp. 265–290

Diachronic convergence and divergence in differential object marking between Spanish and Portuguese

Comparing the evolution of differential object marking (DOM) in Spanish and Portuguese between the 16th and the 20th c. we discover great differences between the two neighbor languages. Whereas in Spanish we notice a steady increase and high degree of grammaticalization of DOM, the graph for the degree of grammaticalization of DOM in Portuguese resembles a standardized normal Gaussian distribution with its peak in the 17th c. The increase of object marking until the 17th c. is in consequence of convergence towards Spanish due to the high prestige of the latter language. From the 18th c. onwards divergence due to the building of an own national and linguistic identity finally led to the disappearance of DOM in modern Portuguese.
Published online: 26 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.16.12doh
References (51)
Ares Montes, J. 1956. Góngora y la poesía portuguesa en el s. XVII. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Backus, A. 2004. Convergence as a mechanism of language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 179–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bastardas Parera, J. 1953. Particularidades sintácticas del latín medieval. Cartularios españoles de los siglos VIII al XI. Barcelona/Madrid: Escuela de Filología.Google Scholar
Beltrán, L. 1997. Cuarenta y cinco cantigas del códice rico de Alfonso el Sabio. Palma de Mallorca: Olañeta.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. 1982. Historische Sprachwissenschaft und empirische Universalienforschung. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 33: 17–51.Google Scholar
. 1984. Diachronie und Pragmatik der spanischen Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 100: 92–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den Neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1990. Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachphilosophie in der Romania. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
. 2006. La sintaxis de las Glosas Emilianenses en una perspectiva tipológica. In Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española (Madrid, septiembre 2003), 529–543. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
. 2009. Divergence, convergence, contact. Challenges for the genealogical classification of languages. In Convergence and Divergence in Language Contact Situations [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 8], K. Braunmüller & J. House (eds), 13–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brito Gibrail, A.V. 2003. O acusativo preposicionado do português clássico: uma abordagem diacrônica e teórica. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
Camões, L. de. 1999 [1572]. Die Lusiaden – Os Lusíadas. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
CdE = Davies, M. 2002. Corpus del Español: 100 million words, 1200s–1900s. Available online at [URL]. (May 29th 2013)Google Scholar
CDP =Corpo Diplomático Portuguez contendo os actos e relações políticas e diplomáticas de Portugal com as diversas potençias do mundo, desde o seculo XVI até os nossos días. Lisboa: Academia Real das Sciencias. [Tomos I–XV (1862–1936). Relações com a Curia Romana (1501–1680)].
CdP =Davies, M. & Ferreira, M. 2006. Corpus do Português: 45 Million Words, 1300s–1900s. Available online at [URL]. (May 29th 2013).Google Scholar
Company Company, C. 2003. Transitivity and grammaticalization of object. The diachronic struggle of direct and indirect object in Spanish. In Romance Objects: Transitivity in Romance Languages, G. Fiorentino (ed.), 217–260. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 21989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: The University of ­Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corriente, F. 1997. Poesía dialectal árabe y romance en Alandalús. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Costa, I. 2002. O uso do artigo definido diante de nome próprio de pessoa e de possessivo do século XIII ao século XVI. In O português quinhentista. Estudos lingüísticos, R.V. Mattos e Silva & A.V. Lopes Machado Filho (eds), 283–306. Salvador: EDUFBA/Feira de Santana, UEFS.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M. & Nikolaeva, I. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defourneaux, M. 1964. La vie quotidienne en Espagne au siècle d’or. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Delille, K.H. 1970. Die geschichtliche Entwicklung des präpositionalen Akkusativs im Portugiesischen. Bonn: Romanisches Seminar der Universität Bonn.Google Scholar
Döhla, H.-J. 2009. El libro de Calila e Dimna (1251). Nueva edición y estudio de los dos manuscritos castellanos. Zaragoza: Instituto de Estudios Islámicos y del Oriente Próximo.Google Scholar
García García, M. 2010. Differentielle Objektmarkierung bei unbelebten Objekten im Spanischen. Dissertation Universiät Freiburg i. Br.Google Scholar
García Márquez, G. 2007 [1967]. Cien años de soledad. Madrid: Real Academia Española. [Portuguese translation: 252009. Cem anos de solidão, tradução de M. Santiago. Alfragide: Dom Quixote/English translation: 1972. One Hundred Years of Solitude, translated by G. Rabassa. London: Penguin.]Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Subject and Topic, C.N. Li (ed.), 149–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1966. Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist, New Series 68(4): 922–935. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, K. 2008. Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish. Probus 20: 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, K. & Kaiser, G. 2011. Affectedness and differential object marking in Spanish. In Morphology 21, 593–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundertmark-Santos Martins, M.T. 21998. Portugiesische Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, G. 2010/11. Towards a Typological Study of Differential Object Marking and Differential Object Indexation. Ph.D. dissertation, Università degli Studi di Pavia.Google Scholar
Koch, R. & Österreicher, W. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.Google Scholar
. 2007. Lengua hablada en la Romania: español, francés, italiano. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 3: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montaner Frutos, A. 2011. Cantar de mio Cid. Edición, estudio y notas. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg/Círculo de Lectores.Google Scholar
Montoya, J. 1988. Alfonso X el Sabio: Cantigas. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Müller, C. 2007. Die Arcádia Lusitana. Gescheitertes Experiment oder nachhaltiger Impuls. ­Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Teo Ferrer de Mesquita.Google Scholar
Neumann-Holzschuh, I. 1997. Die Satzgliedanordnung im Spanischen. Eine diachrone Analyse. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliveira Marques, A.H. de. 2001. Geschichte Portugals und des portugiesischen Weltreichs. ­Stuttgart: Kröner. [original: 1995. Breve História de Portugal. Lisboa: Presença]Google Scholar
Pensado Ruiz, C. 1995. La creación del complemento directo preposicional y la flexión de los pronombres personales en las lenguas románicas. In El complemento directo preposicional, C. Pensado Ruiz (ed.), 179–230. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Reichenkron, G. 1951. Das präpositionale Akkusativ-Objekt im ältesten Spanisch. Romanische Forschungen 63: 342–397.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, B. 1557/58 [1554]. Primeira e segunda parte do liuro chamado as Saudades de Bernardim Ribeiro com todas suas obras; treladado de seu proprio original [Menina e moça]. Évora: Casa de Andre de Burgos.Google Scholar
Schäfer-Prieß, B. 2000. Die portugiesische Grammatikschreibung von 1540 bis 1822: Entstehungsbedingungen und Kategorisierungsverfahren vor dem Hintergrund der lateinischen, spanischen und französischen Tradition. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. O acusativo preposicional na história da língua portuguesa. In História da Língua e História da Gramática. Actas do Encontro, B. Head et al. (eds), 405–419. Braga: Universidade do Minho.Google Scholar
Schäfer-Prieß, B. & Schöntag, R. 2012. Spanisch/Portugiesisch kontrastiv. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies & New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Theyssier, P. 1959. La langue de Gil Vicente. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Thomason, S.G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington D.C.: Georgetown ­University Press.Google Scholar
Verney, L.A. 1746. Verdadeiro método de estudar, para ser util à Republica, e à Igreja: proporcionado ao estilo, e necesidade de Portugal, 2 vols. Valensa: Na oficina de Antonio Ballé.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, M. 1999. Animacy and Reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Silva-Domínguez, Carme
2022. O posesivo non concordado en galego e en castelán de Galicia como mudanza sintáctica en curso. Madrygal. Revista de Estudios Gallegos 24 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Cardoso, Hugo C.
2021. Convergence in the Malabar. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 36:2 ► pp. 298 ff. DOI logo
Pires, Aline Jéssica
2020. A influência da gramática espanhola na Marcação Diferencial de Objeto no português diacrônico. Cadernos de Linguística 1:2 ► pp. 01 ff. DOI logo
Martins, Ana Maria
2015. Variação sintática no português quinhentista: a colocação dos pronomes clíticos. Estudos de Lingüística Galega 7 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.