Cover not available
Part of
Points of Convergence in Romance Linguistics: Papers selected from the 48th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL 48), Toronto, 25-28 April 2018
Edited by Gabriela Alboiu and Ruth King
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 360] 2022
► pp. 81–96

Chapter 4
Differential object marking, oblique morphology, and enriched case hierarchies

| University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
The puzzle of oblique morphology on differentially marked objects (dom) has received renewed attention in the recent formal literature, under two main theoretical lines: (i) oblique syntax for dom (Manzini & Franco 2016, 2019, inter alii; (ii) oblique marking on dom as morphological syncretism (Keine & Müller 2008; Keine 2010; Bárány 2018, inter alii). This paper evaluates the predictions made by these accounts against a limited set of Romance dom varieties, crucially including both dom as dative (Western Romance) and dom as a non-dative adposition (Romanian). A specific syntactic implementation for oblique dom is proposed, building on the idea of additional licensing in certain types of accusatives, combined with enriched case hierarchies (Starke 2017). This not only preserves the advantages of the above-mentioned accounts, but also opens up the path to addressing several less-studied or recalcitrant (micro)variation points.
Keywords: differential object marking, oblique morphology, syncretism, enriched case hierarchies
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Differential objects as syntactic obliques
  • 2.Oblique morphology as morphological syncretism
  • 3.Oblique dom in enriched case hierarchies
    • 3.1Nominal structure in enriched case hierarchies
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 10 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.360.04iri
References (34)
References
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2007. Clitic doubling. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdjik (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 519–581. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Bárány, András. 2018. dom and datives. Glossa. 3(1). 97.1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17 (1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. (Past) participle agreement. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 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
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Tromsø, Norway: University of Tromsø dissertation. [URL]
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2000. Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 1(2). 91–106.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Ian Roberts. 2010. Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split-auxiliary selection and the null subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28(1). 41–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The syntax of Romanian. Comparative studies in Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29 (3). 399–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harðarson, Gísli Rúnar. 2016. A case for a Weak Case contiguity hypothesis: A reply to Caha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34. 1329–1343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2011. Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Pavia, Italy: University of Pavia dissertation.
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina. 2020. Types of structural objects. Some remarks on differential object marking in Romanian. In András Bárány & Laura Kalin (eds.), Case, agreement, and their interactions: New perspectives on Differential Object Marking. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina & Anna Pineda. 2019. Differential objects and datives: A homogeneous class? In Monica Alexandrina Irimia & Anna Pineda (eds.), Lingvisticae Investigationes – Special issues on Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class? 42 (1), 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael Allan. 1993. Sardinian syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2018. Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax 21(2). 112–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keine, Stefan. 2010. Case and agreement from fringe to core: A minimalist approach. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keine, Stefan & Gereon Müller. 2008. Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Scales 83–136. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86. Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo & Etsuko Kaburaki. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4). 627–672. [URL]
Ledgway, Adam. 2000. A comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 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 and Linguistic Theory 34(1). 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. ‘Agreement of structural obliques’ parameter. In Monica Alexandrina Irimia & Anna Pineda (eds.), Lingvisticae Investigationes, Special issues on Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class 42(1), 82–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci: Morfosintassi generativa. 3 volumes. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Mardale, Alexandru. 2008. Microvariation within Differential Object Marking. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 53(4). 448–467.Google Scholar
Martín, Juan. 2005. Aspectual quantization and [±] accusative case checking in Romance. In Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003, 177–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero. 2013. Differential object marking: case and agreement. Borealis: an International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2.2:221–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana & María Luisa Zubizarreta. 2018. The Person Case Constraint. The syntactic encoding of perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(4). 1291–1337. [URL]
Rodrîguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel. 2007. The syntax of objects. Agree and differential object marking. Mansfield, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Săvescu Ciucivara, Oana. 2009. A syntactic analysis of pronominal clitic clusters in Romance: The view from Romanian. New York City, NY: New York University dissertation.
Starke, Michal. 2017. Resolving dat=acc (≠ gen). Glossa 2(1). 104. 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tigău, Alina M. 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 Bucureşti.Google Scholar