Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 171–192

Differential object marking

What type of licensing?

| University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
Under many recent formal accounts, differential object marking has been taken to signal nominals that must undergo licensing in the clausal syntax, as they bear an [uC] feature (Ormazabal & Romero 2013a; Alcaraz 2018; Bárány 2018; Kalin 2018, among others). While this implementation can capture (standard) Spanish data, the empirical facts from Romanian and Neapolitan I address in this contribution support a view where the differential marker must rather be associated with an additional licensing operation beyond [uC]. More generally, this split appears to be an important locus of parametrization in Romance differential object marking, also confirming similar findings in Ledgeway et al. (2019) for other Romance languages.
Keywords: differential object marking, DP, licensing, animacy, referentiality
Article outline
  • 1.Differential object marking and licensing
  • 2.Differential object marking in Spanish
    • 2.1Differential object marking as licensing
  • 3.Differential object marking in Romanian: Additional licensing
    • 3.1Types of D0 in Romanian
    • 3.2Differentially marked objects in Romanian
  • 4.Differential object marking in Neapolitan: More evidence for additional licensing
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.09iri
References (40)
References
Aissen, Judith L. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alcaraz, Alejo. 2018. Deep and surface clitics in northern Castilian Spanish. Paper presented at GLOW 2018, Budapest, April 10–14.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2006. Clitic Doubling. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdjik (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (1st edn.), Volume 1, 519–581. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bárány, András. 2017. Person, case and agreement: The morphosyntax of inverse agreement and global case splits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2018. DOM and dative case. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of the PCC effects. In Ana Theresa Pérez-Leroux & Yves Roberge (eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’object dans les langues de l’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 193–259. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2000. Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 2(1). 91–106.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra & Alina Tigău. 2017. On the competition between differentially marked objects and indirect objects in Romanian. Paper presented at Going Romance 2017 University of Bucharest. 2017.
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Ian Roberts. 2010. Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split-auxiliary selection and the null subject parameter. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(1). 41–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2018. ‘Nominalization’ as predicativization in Lillooet and the nominal mapping parameter. Paper presented at GLOW 2018, Budapest, April 10–14.
Espinal, Maria Teresa & Sonia Cyrino. 2017. The definite article in Romance expletives and long weak definites. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1). 23. 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1993. La sintassi dei determinanti. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric approach. Language 78(3). 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2018. Licensing and differential object marking. The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax 21(2). 112–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2000. A comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam, Norma Schifano & Giuseppina Silvestri. 2019. Differential object marking and the properties of D in the dialects of extreme south of Italy. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1). 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Theodore. 2015. Licensing without case. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2008. Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters. In Henrik Høeg Müller & Alex Klinge (eds.), Essays on nominal determination. From morphology to discourse management, 189–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe & Cristina Guardiano. 2009. Evidence for syntax as a signal of language relatedness. Lingua 119(11). 1679–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 1998. Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
. 2010. The logic of past participle agreement. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy, 225–243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Ludovico Franco. 2016. Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(1). 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2017. Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2013. Raising from the dead. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1). 157–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2). 273–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2013a. Differential object marking: Case and agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2(2). 221–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Non accusative objects. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 12. 155–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective agree: Case alternations, and the prominence of person. In Marc Richards & Andrej L. Machukov (eds.), Scales, Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86, 137–161. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel. 2007. The syntax of objects. Agree and differential object marking. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(3). 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina. 2011. Syntax and interpretation of the direct object in Romance and Germanic languages with an emphasis on Romanian, German, Dutch and English. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 5(2). 225–243.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The universal structure of categories: Towards a functional typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the determiner phrase. New York: Garland Publishing (Routledge).Google Scholar