Introduction
Differential objects and datives
A homogeneous class?
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
-
References
This article is available free of charge.
References (32)
References
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Anand, P. & Nevins, A. 2006. The locus of ergative Case assignment: Evidence from scope. In A. Johns, D. Massam & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 143–171. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aoun, J. 1999. Clitic-doubled arguments. In K. Johnson & I. Roberts (Eds.), Beyond principles and parameters: Essays in memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli, 13–42. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bárány, A. 2018.
dom and dative case. Glossa, 3 (1), 97.1–40. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bhatt, R. & Anagnostopoulou, E. 1996. Object shift and specificity: evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. In L. M. Dobrin, K. Singer & L. McNair (Eds.), Papers from the 32nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 11–22. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bossong, G. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’object dans les langues de l’Europe. In J. Feuillet (Ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 193–259. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butt, M. 1993. Object specificity and agreement in Hindi-Urdu. In C. Beals et al. (Eds.), Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 89–103. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Comrie, B. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class. Linguistica Silesiana 31. (Katowice: University of Silesia), 13–21.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Comrie, B. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. 1988. Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. Barlow & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in natural language. Approaches, theories, description, 159–180. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, T. 1984. Direct objects and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case. In F. Plank (Ed.), Objects. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 151–183. London: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glushan, Z. 2010. Deriving Case syncretism in Differential Object marking systems. [URL]
Irimia, M. A. 2018. Differential objects and other structural objects. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 3 (50), 1–15. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Irimia, M. A. To appear. Differential objects and other structural objects. Some remarks on differential object marking in Romanian. Ms. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Jaeggli, O. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Katz, D. 1987. Grammar of the Yiddish language. London: Duckworth.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lazard, G. 2001. Le marquage différential de l’objet. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Österreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and linguistic universals. An international handbook, vol 21, 873–885. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
López, L. 2012. Indefinite objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Manzini, M. R. & Franco, L. 2016. Goal and dom datives. Natural language and linguistic theory, 34(1), 197–240. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mohanan, T. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA. CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moravcsik, E. A. 1978. On the case marking of objects. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language. Syntax. Volume IV1, 249–289. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Odria, A. 2017. Differential object marking and datives in Basque syntax. PhD thesis, University of the Basque Country.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25 (2), 315–347. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2010. The derivation of dative alternations. In M. Duguine, S. Huidobro & N. Madariaga (Eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from a Crosslinguistic Perspective, 203–232. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2013. Differential Object Marking, Case and Agreement. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2 (2), 221–239. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Raz, S. 1980. Tigre syntax and Semitic Ethiopian. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African studies, 43 (2), 235–250. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shain, C. A. 2008. Differential object marking in Paraguayan Guaraní. BA thesis. University of Columbus, Ohio.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Swart, P. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Radbound: University of Nijmegen doctoral dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina
Bárány, András
2021.
Partially ordered case hierarchies.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.