On the nature of differential object marking

Levin, Theodore

doi:10.1007/s11049-018-9412-5

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Under several accounts (Ormazabal and Romero, 2007, 2013a, López 2012, Kalin 2018, Levin 2019, what unifies special marking on certain classes of objects is precisely their requirement to enter into a (ϕ-) relationship with functions heads (v, T, C, etc.) in the clausal spine.…”

Section: Case and Incorporationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Splits in the morphosyntactic realization of objects are very common crosslinguistically as instantiations of the phenomenon labeled differential object marking (DOM; Givón 1984, Comrie 1989, Bossong 1998, Lazard 2001, Aissen 2003, de Swart 2007, López 2012, Ormazabal and Romero 2013a, Bárány 2017, Kalin 2018, Levin 2019. A typical illustration is the animacy-based object contrast in Romance (Niculescu 1965, Rohlfs 1971, Roegiest 1979, Bossong 1991, Torrego 1998, encoded via a typologically common adpositional strategy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variation in differential object marking: On some differences between Spanish and Romanian

Irimia

2020

Open Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although differential object marking (DOM) has been studied from a multitude of perspectives, research into the types of variation it allows in closely related languages is still needed. This article examines DOM from the point of view of (micro)variation, focusing on two genetically related languages, namely, standard Spanish and Romanian. Both identities and points of divergence are discussed in detail and argued to result from a morphosyntactic parameter in the realm of differential marking. Following López [López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite Objects Scrambling, Choice Functions and Differential Marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press], the Spanish special marker signals certain types of nominals which undergo short scrambling in order to have Case licensed. In Romanian, however, DOM is equated with an additional operation beyond the valuation of Case.

show abstract

Section: Case and Incorporationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in differential object marking: On some differences between Spanish and Romanian

Irimia

2020

Open Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under recent accounts, DOM is equated with structural Case/licensing. Objects that cannot show DOM are assumed to undergo (pseudo)-incorporation, as predicates (López 2012, Ormazabal and Romero 2013a, b, Kalin 2018, Levin 2019. A simple representation is given below: We build on these lines of research, as among the various formalizations for DOM they have the potential to explain the puzzle we are concerned with here; however, our claim is that DOM does not simply signal the difference between objects that undergo (pseudo-) incorporation (DOM-less ones) and objects that must be licensed in the syntax (DOM-ed).…”

Section: Steps Towards An Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential object marking and Scales: insights from diachrony

Irimia

Pineda

2019

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses a generally ignored counterexample to the Scales, comparing Old Catalan and Old Romanian on the one hand to Old Spanish on the other hand. Contrary to widely assumed marking hierarchies, Old Catalan/Old Romanian 3rd person pronouns show differential object marking, to the exclusion of or to a higher degree than 1st/2nd persons. We propose these patterns can be straightforwardly derived once we pin down micro-parameters in the composition of Romance DPs and the consequences various types of perspectival/sentience features have on the syntactic licensing of arguments.

show abstract

“…However, the person restriction on the internal argument is overcome if an additional ϕ‐probe head is introduced, as a last‐resort repair strategy, at the syntax–LF interface (in order to assure Full Interpretation; Rezac 2011, Kalin 2018, T. Levin 2019). As we will show, in the Basque impersonal the internal argument can be first or second person if it is marked dative:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Person matters in impersonality

Berro

Odria

Fernández

2022

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Basque impersonal is a detransitivized construction where the internal argument is the only overt argument and the external argument, although semantically present, does not have any morphological reflex. This article argues that, despite its intransitive shape, the impersonal involves a particular kind of Voice projection that we term defective. For case and agreement, being defective means having no uninterpretable ϕ features and no Case to assign. However, a silent person pronoun is introduced in its specifier position, and thus, there are two arguments within VoiceP. The two arguments compete to value the ϕ features of the next functional head, namely T. With this analysis we account for the main properties of the impersonal, such as the syntactic activeness of the implicit external argument and the person constraint on the internal argument.

show abstract

On the nature of differential object marking

Cited by 14 publications

References 62 publications

Variation in differential object marking: On some differences between Spanish and Romanian

Variation in differential object marking: On some differences between Spanish and Romanian

Differential object marking and Scales: insights from diachrony

Person matters in impersonality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About