Prolegomena to the study of object relations
This paper argues that there is nothing “differential” in the
licensing conditions of Differential Object Marking and outlines an analysis
that unifies dom with dative object marking and with a broader set of
“derived object”-marking configurations. We show that neither morphological nor
syntactic distinctiveness can be the driving force for dom: accounts of
dom as a morphological distinctiveness device are inadequate
diachronically and very unefficient functionally. Syntactic analyses that
postulate DP-internal differences or construction-specific double-licensing
conditions fail to capture the basic fact that dom is a relation
between the objects and the predicates selecting them. Precisely, the burden of
our unified explanation falls on the checking requirements imposed to the DP
complements by the structural heads selecting them.
Article outline
- 1.Scales and other theoretical artifacts
- 2.Syntactic accounts
- 2.1Differential licensing
- 2.2The locus of parametric variation
- 3.The importance of being an object
- 3.1Direct objects
- 3.1.1The house of dom
- 3.1.2A note on specificity
- 3.1.3
dom and agreement are not two sides of the same coin
- 3.1.4Putting everything together. The derivation of Object
dom
- 3.2Derived objects
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (65)
References
Aissen, J. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 17, 673–711. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity Vs.
Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 211, 435–483. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Alcaraz, A. 2019. Configurations of A-movement. PhD. Thesis, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baker, M. C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baker, M. C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baker, M. C. & Vinokurova, N. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28:3, 593–64. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Béjar, S. & Rezac, M. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry, 401, 35–73. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Belletti, A. & Menetti, C. In press. Topics and passives in Italian-speaking children and
adults. Language acquisition.
Bernstein, J., Ordóñez, F. & Roca, F. 2018.
dom and DP layers in romance. Talk presented at
Differential Object Marking in romance-towards
microvariation
, Inalco, Paris Nov. 10 2018.
Berro, A. & Fernández, B. 2018. Applicatives without verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, first on line Dec. 2018. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brugè, L. & Brugger, G. 1996. On the accusative a in Spanish. Probus, 8:1, 1–52. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![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. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. & Poole, K. T. 2008. Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional
scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical linguistics, 341, 1–37. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Danon, G. 2006. Caseless nominals and the projection of DP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 241, 977–1008. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67:3, 547–619. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dryer, M. S. 1986. Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and
Antidative. Language, 621, 808–845. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
García García, M. 2007. Differential object marking with inanimate
objects. In G. A. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in
Ibero-Romance Languages”, 63–84. Arbeitspapier 122. Universität Konstanz.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glushan, Zhanna. 2010. Deriving case syncretism in Differential Object marking systems. Ms., University of Connecticut.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Green, G. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harley, H. & Ritter, E. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature geometric
analysis. Language, 781, 482–526. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, M. 2004. Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: a usage-based
account. Constructions 2.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, M. 2008. Descriptive scales versus comparative scales. In M. Richards & A. L. Malchukov (Eds.), Scales, 39–53. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86, Universität Leipzig.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, M. 2018. Are we making progress in understanding differential object
marking? [URL]
Ingason, A. K. 2016. Applicatives in the noun phrase. Ms. University of Iceland.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Irimia, M. A. 2018. Variation in differential object marking: on some differences between
Romanian and Spanish. Ms. University Modena and Reggio Emilia.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jaeggli, O. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Laca, B. 1995. Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en
español. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional, 61–91. Madrid: Visor.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Larson, R. K. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19:3, 335–391.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ledgeway, A. 2018. Parametric variation in dom in the dialects of Southern
Italy. Talk, International workshop Differential Object Marking in Romance.
Towards Microvariation. INALCO, Paris 2018/11/9-10
Leonetti, M. 2008. Specificity in Clitic Doubling and in Differential Object Marking
in Spanish. Probus 201, 33–66. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
López, L. 2012. Indefinite objects. Cambridge, MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In ESCOL ’91: proceedings of the eighth eastern states conference on
linguistics, 234–253.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mendikoetxea, A. 1999. Construcciones con se: Medias, Pasivas e
Impersonales. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 1631–1722. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mithun, M. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language, 601, 847–94. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Odria, A. 2017. Differential Object Marking and Datives in Basque
Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Odria, A. 2018.
dom and datives in Basque: not as homogeneous as they
look like. Manuscript, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2007. The Object Agreement Constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 251, 315–347. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2013a. Object Clitics, Agreement and Dialectal Variation. Probus, 251, 301–344. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2013b. Non accusative objects. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 121, 155–173. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2013c. Differential Object Marking, case and agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 21, 221–239. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2017. Historical Changes in Basque Dative Alternations: Evidence for a
P-based (neo)derivational analysis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2:1, 781, 1–39. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2019a. Deconstructing se constructions. Ms. UPV/EHU & Universidad de Extremadura.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormazabal, J. & Romero, J. 2019b. The formal properties of non paradigmatic
se
. To appear in Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 81, 55–84. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pensado, C. 1995. El complemento directo preposicional. Estado de la cuestión y
bibliografía comentada. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional, 11–59. Madrid: Visor.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peterson, D. A. 2006. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pineda, A. 2018. Differential object marking in Catalan varieties. Talk, International workshop Differential Object Marking in Romance.
Towards Microvariation. INALCO, Paris 2018/11/9-10.
Rappaport-Hovav, M. & Levin, B. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb
sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 441, 129–167. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rezac, M. 2011. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rigau, G. 1988. Strong pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 191, 503–511.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rodríguez-Ordoñez, I. 2016. Differential Object Marking in Basque: Grammaticalization, attitudes and
ideological representations. Urbana-Champaign: UIUC PhD dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rodríguez-Ordóñez, I. 2017. Reexamining differential object marking as a linguistic
contact-phenomenon in Gernika Basque. Journal of Language Contact, 10:2, 318–352. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rodríguez Mondoñedo, M. 2007. The syntax of objects: Agree and differential object
marking. Ph Dissertation, U. of Connecticut.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2004. The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 161, 219–251.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2006. The Nominative Puzzle and the Low Nominative
Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 371, 289–308. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. [Reprinted in P. Muysken, & H. van Riemsdijk. 1986. Features and projections, Foris, Dordrecht, 163–232.]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Uriagereka, J. 1996. Warps: some thoughts on categorization. Cuadernos de Lingüística del I.U. Ortega y Gasset, 41, 1–38.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
von Heusinger, K. & Kaiser, G. A. 2005. The evolution of differential object marking in
Spanish. In K. von Heusinger, G. A. Kaiser & E. Stark (Eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop “Specificity and the Evolution / Emergence
of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance”, 33–70. Arbeitspapier Nr. 119. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Camacho Ramírez, Rafael
2022.
Differential Object Marking and Labeling in Spanish.
Languages 7:2
► pp. 114 ff.
![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.