Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 32, Utrecht
Edited by Sergio Baauw, Frank Drijkoningen and Luisa Meroni
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 357] 2021
► pp. 117–130

Chapter 6
Differential object marking and scale reversals

| University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
| Sorbonne Université
This paper focuses on some problematic aspects of the diachrony of differential object marking in Old Catalan and Old Romanian (11th to 17th centuries). Corpus data from both languages reveal two unexpected facts: (i) there is a prominence of 3rd person to the exclusion of 1st and 2nd person, contrary to what the Animacy/Person scale would predict; (ii) differential marking appears to be present on nominals (especially proper names), to the exclusion of pronouns, this time contrary to the Specificity/Definiteness Scale. The account we propose for these types of scale reversals builds on the idea that languages can have more than one differential object marking strategy, as well as more than one type of structure for pronouns and animate nominals. Moreover, the co-existence of various mechanisms for nominal licensing can explain why, in some instances, classes lower down the hierarchies can get signaled to the exclusion of higher ones.
Keywords: differential object marking, animacy, scale, reversals, Old Catalan, Old Romanian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.DOM in Old Romanian and Old Catalan
    • 2.1Pronouns and DPs
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Animacy and person
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Sources
    • old catalan
    • old romanian
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.357.06iri
References (32)
References
Aissen, Judith L. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avram, Larisa & Rodica Zafiu. 2017. Semantic hierarchies in the evolution of differential object marking in Romanian. In Adina Dragomirescu, Alexandru Nicolae, Camelia Stan & Rodica Zafiu (eds.), Sintaxa ca mod de a fi. Omagiu Gabrielei Pană-Dindelegan, la aniversare, 29–42. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Bárány, András. 2018. DOM and dative case. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 97. 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: Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2005. Some remarks on markedness hierarchies. A reply to Aissen (2003). Coyote Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 37–50.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2000. Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics II (1). 91–106., [URL]
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Georg Kaiser. 2005. The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In Klaus von Heusinger, Georg Kaiser & Elisabeth Stark (eds), Specificity and the evolution /emergence of nominal determination systems in Romance, 33–69. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus, Udo Klein & Peter de Swart. 2008. Variation in differential object marking. Paper presented at Workshop on Case variation, Stuttgart, Germany, June 19–20.
von Heusinger, Klaus & Edgar Onea Gáspár. 2008. Triggering and blocking effects in the development of DOM in Romanian. Probus 20. 67–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia & Alexandru Mardale. 2019. Patterns of differential object marking in the history of Romanian. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3. 5.Google Scholar
. 2021. The diachrony of differential object marking in Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Irimia, Monica & Anna Pineda. 2019. Differential object marking and Scales: Insights from Romance diachrony. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 4. 57. 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change: Change results in typological generalizations. In Jeff Good (ed.), Language universals and language change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2003. Specificity and object marking: The case of a. In Klaus von Heusinger & Georg A. Kaiser (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages. Arbeitspapier 113, 67–101. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
. 2008. Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus 20. 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mardale, Alexandru. 2015. Differential object marking in the first Romanian texts. In Virginia Hill (ed.), Formal approaches to DPs in Old Romanian, 200–246. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Ashild. 2004. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 114. 1186–1212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicula Parashiv, Irina. 2016. The direct object. In Gabriela Pană-Dindelegan (ed.), The syntax of Old Romanian, 123–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2013. Differential object marking, case and agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2(2). 221–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pană-Dindelegan, Gabriela. 2016. Preface. In Gabriela Pană-Dindelegan (ed.), The syntax of Old Romanian, xxiii-xxvi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puşcariu, Sextil. 1921/1922. Despre pre la acuzativ. Dacoromania 2. 565–581.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective agree: Case Alternations, and the prominence of Person. In Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (Volume on Scales), Volume 86, 137–161. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel. 2007. The syntax of objects. Agree and differential object marking. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Connecticut Storrs.Google Scholar
Roegiest, Eugeen. 1979. À propos de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans quelques langues romanes. Vox romanica 38. 312–334.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerard. 1971. Autour de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. Revue de Linguistique Romaine 35. 312–327.Google Scholar
. 1973. Panorama de l’accusatif prépositionnel en Italie. Studii și Cercetari Lingvistice 24. 617–621.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1997. L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in napoletano antico. Italienische Studien 18. 66–80.Google Scholar
. 1998. Processi di convergenza nella formazione di un tipo sintattico: la genesi ibrida dell’oggetto preposizionale. ACILPR XXII 2, 419–427.Google Scholar
Stan, Camelia. 2013. O sintaxă diacronică a limbii române vechi. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar