Cover not available
Article published In:
Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?
Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Anna Pineda
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 42:1] 2019
► pp. 82–101

‘Agreement of structural obliques’ parameter

dom and pseudopartitives

| Università di Firenze
| Università di Firenze
We consider two sets of facts. The first is that dom objects may or may not agree with perfect participles in Indo-Aryan. The second is that (pseudo)partitive subjects may agree with the verb in the plural or not. We account for the dom parameter, basing on the assumption that dom corresponds to embedding of a DP under an oblique adposition: if P projects, the dom object is labelled PP and does not agree; if D projects, it is labelled DP, projecting like any other DP. On the contrary, inherent datives, where P/K is lexically selected, must project P/K and are therefore not goals for Agree. We extend this labelling account to (pseudo)partitives, as well as to optionally agreeing oblique clitics in Romance.
Keywords: dom , pseudopartitives, agreement, oblique, labelling
Article outline
  • 1.(Pseudo)partitives
  • 2.Differential Object Marking
  • 3.The agreement of structural obliques parameter
    • 3.1Analysis: Labelling
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00030.man
References (47)
References
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anand, P. & Nevins, A. 2005. 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.Google Scholar
Barker, C. 1998. Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 161, 679–717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. 1996. Su alcuni casi di accordo del participio passato in francese e in italiano. In P. Benincà, G. Cinque, T. De Mauro & N. Vincent (Eds.), Italiano e dialetti nel tempo: saggi di grammatica per Giulio C. Lepschy, 7–22. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Belvin, R., & den Dikken, M. 1997. There, happens, to, be, have . Lingua, 1011, 151–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N. 2011. The biolinguistic program: the current state of its evolution and development. In A. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise, 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., & Sheehan, M. 2014. Complexity in comparative syntax: the view from modern parametric theory. In F. Newmeyer & L. Preston (Eds.), Measuring Linguistic Complexity, 103–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, V. 2000. Concord in Minimalist Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 2: 319–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1998. Partitives, reference to kinds and semantic variation. In A. Lawson (Ed.), Proceedings of Semantics And Linguistic Theory Volume VII, 73–98. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Danon, G. 2013. Agreement alternations with quantified nominals in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics, 491, 55–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demonte, V. & Pérez-Jiménez, I. 2015. Construcciones partitivas y pseudopartivas en español. In E. Hernández & P. M. Butragueño (Eds.), Variación y diversidad lingüística, 15–98. Ciudad de México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The Case for Case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Franco, L., Manzini, M. R. & L. Savoia. 2015. Linkers and agreement. The Linguistic Review, 321, 277–332.Google Scholar
Franco, L. & Manzini, M. R. 2017. Instrumental prepositions and case: Contexts of occurrence and alternations with datives. Glossa, 2(1): 81, 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franco, L., Manzini, M. R. & Savoia, L. To appear. Locative Ps as general relators: Location, direction, DOM in Romance. In V. Acedo Matellan et al. (Eds.), Linguistic Variation Special Issue.
Franks, S. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 121, 597–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, P. & Patel-Grosz, P. 2014. Agreement and verb types in Kutchi Gujarati. In P. Chandra & R. Srishti (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface: Perspectives from South Asian languages, 217–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irimia, M. A. 2018. Differential objects and other structural objects. Linguistics Society of America 2018 Proceedings, 3, 50:1–15.Google Scholar
Johns, A. 1992. Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry, 231, 57–87.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2008. Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations. In J. Good (Ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korn, A. 2008. Marking of Arguments in Balochi Ergative and Mixed Constructions. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian & D. Stilo (Eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics, 249–276. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Laka, I. 2006. Deriving split ergativity in the progressive: the case of Basque. In A. Johns, D. Massam & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 173–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001. The Structure of DPs: Some Principles, Parameters, and Problems. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 562–603. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorusso, P. & Franco, L. 2017. Patterns of syntactic agreement with embedded NPs, Lingua, 1951, 39–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R. 2019. Parameters and the design of the Language Faculty. Northern Italian partial null subjects. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 11: 24–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R. & L. Franco. 2016. Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 341, 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & L. M. Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (31 volumes). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R., Savoia, L. & Franco, L. 2015. Ergative Case, Aspect and Person Splits: Two Case Studies. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 621, 297–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., Savoia, L. 2018. The morphosyntax of Albanian and Aromanian varieties. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nash, L. 2017. The structural source of split ergativity and ergative case in Georgian. In J. Coon, D. Massam & L. Travis (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 175–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patel-Grosz, P. & Grosz, P. 2014. Agreement and verb types in Kutchi Gujarati, In P. Chandra & R. Srishti (Eds.), The Lexicon – Syntax Interface: Perspectives from South Asian languages, 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1982. Paths and Categories (PhD dissertation), MIT.Google Scholar
Pineda, A. 2014. (In)transitivity borders. A study of applicatives in Romance languages and Basque (PhD Dissertation), UAB.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2016. Deconstructing Ergativity. Two Types of Ergative Languages and Their Features. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rezac, M., Albizu, P. & Etxepare, R. 2014. The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 321, 1273–1330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. 2006. The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax, 91, 67–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax, 285–316. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2002. Icelandic case and the structure of events. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 51, 197–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toosarvandani, M. & Nasser, H. 2017. Quantification in Persian. In D. Paperno & E. L. Keenan (Eds.), Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language: Volume II, 665–696. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. 2009. Variability in the Case Patterns of Causative Formation in Romance and Its Implications. Linguistic Inquiry, 411, 445–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, S. 2013. Alignment and ergativity in new Indo-Aryan languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolford, E. 2006. Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 371, 111–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, R. 2008. Dei ex-machina: a note on plural/mass indefinite determiners, Studia Linguistica, 631, 301–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

MANZINI, MARIA RITA
2023. Romance pronominal clitics as pure heads. Journal of Linguistics 59:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina
2022. Chapter 4. Differential object marking, oblique morphology, and enriched case hierarchies. In Points of Convergence in Romance Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 360], ► pp. 82 ff. DOI logo
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina & Anna Pineda
2022. Differential object marking in Catalan. Linguistic Variation 22:2 ► pp. 325 ff. DOI logo
Hacohen, Aviya, Olga Kagan & Dana Plaut
2021. Differential Object Marking in Modern Hebrew: Definiteness and partitivity. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 DOI logo

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.