Differential Object Marking, Case and Agreement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7557/1.2.2.2808Keywords:
agreement, case, prepositional accusative, Differential Object Marking, DOM, se, ECM, exceptional case marking, dativeAbstract
In this paper, we present empirical evidence showing that Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Spanish is determined by structural conditions related to Case and agreement. We also argue that semantic concepts such as specificity, definiteness, animacy, or topicality, tightly connected to the presence or absence of A, must be parasitic on the syntactic configurations where DOM is licensed. We also present some consequences of our analysis for the general theory of agreement. We argue that the same structural relation is involved in all cases of DOM, as well as in Dative Clitic Constructions, where the presence of the particle A preceding clitic-doubled datives is syntactically unified with DOM phenomena. The accusative/dative distinction traditionally attributed to the Spanish pronominal system does not correspond, in synchronic terms, to different case relations, but distinguishes between agreeing and non-agreeing arguments. Similarly, the distribution of DOM corresponds to a Case-checked/Caseless difference. We extend the analysis to account for well-known restrictions on the co-appearance of two DOM arguments, which are analyzed as the consequence of a competition between two arguments for a single target.References
Baker, M. (1996). The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, M. (1997). Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure, in L. Haegeman (ed.), The Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 73-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2
Boeckx, C. & N. Hornstein. (2005). A Gap in the ECM Paradigm. Linguistic Inquiry 36, pp. 437-441. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396926 https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396926
Bošković, Ž. (1997). The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: an Economy approach. Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00051
Bošković, Ž. (2002). A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5, pp. 167-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00051 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00051
Campos, H. (1999). Transitividad e intrasitividad, in I. Bosque & V. Demonte (dirs.), pp.1519-1574.
Demonte, V. (1995). Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7, pp. 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5 https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5
Duguine, M. 2013. Null Arguments And Linguistic Variation: A Minimalist Analysis Of Pro-Drop. PhD. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)
Evans, N. (1996). The syntax and semantics of body part incorporation in Mayali, in Chapell, Hilary & McGregor, William (eds.), The grammar of inalienability. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65-109. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822137.65 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822137.65
Fábregas, A. (2013). Differential object marking in Spanish: state of the art. Borealis Vol. 2, No 2, pp. 1-80. https://doi.org/10.7557/1.2.2.2603 https://doi.org/10.7557/1.2.2.2603
Glushan, Z. (2010). Deriving Case syncretism in Differential Object marking systems. University of Connecticut, unpublished manuscript.
Hale, K. & S.J. Keyser. (1993). On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In K. Hale & S.J. Keyser, eds., The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Synvain Bromberger, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 53-109.
Harley, H. (2002). Possession and the DOC. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, pp. 31-70. https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.04har https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.04har
Laca, B. (1995). Sobre el uso del acusativo personal en español, in C. Pensado (ed.), El acusativo Personal, Madrid: Visor.
Larson, R. (1988). On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, pp. 335-391.
Lasnik, H. (1995). Last Resort. [reprinted in Lasnik 1999, Minimalist Analysis, Blackwell, pp. 120-145].
Lasnik, H. (1999). Chains of Arguments, in S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press, pp. 189-215.
Lasnik, H. (2008). On the Development of Case Theory: triumphs and challenges, in M. Friedin (ed.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in honor of JeanRoger Vergnaud. Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press., pp. 17-41. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0003 https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0003
Lasnik H. & M. Saito. (1991). On the Subject of Infinitives, in L. Dobrin et al (eds.), Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp.324-343 [reprinted in Lasnik 1999, Minimalist Analysis, Blackwell, pp. 7-24].
Levin, B. (2008). First Objects and Datives: two of a kind? Ms. Stanford University
López, L. (2012). Indefinite Objects. Scrambling, Choice Functions and Differential Marking. Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9165.003.0005 https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001
Mendikoetxea, A. (1999). Construcciones con se: Medias, pasivas e impersonales, in I. Bosque & Violeta Demonte (dirs.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, vol. II. Madrid, Espasa, pp. 1631-1722.
Mithun, M (1984). The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60, pp. 847-893. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0038 https://doi.org/10.2307/413800
Ormazabal, J. & J. Romero. (2007). The Object Agreement Constraint, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, pp. 315-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9010-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9010-9
Ormazabal, J. & J. Romero (2010). The Derivation of Dative Alternations, in M. Duguine et al. (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from a Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 203-232. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.158.13orm https://doi.org/10.1075/la.158.13orm
Ormazabal, J. & J. Romero (2012). PPs without disguises: reply to Bruening. Linguistic Inquiry 43, pp. 455-474. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00097 https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00097
Ormazabal, J. & J. Romero (2013a). Object Clitics, Agreement and Dialectal Variation. Probus. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 25, pp. 301-344. https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0012 https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0012
Ormazabal, J. & J. Romero. (2013b). Non Accusative Objects. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 12, pp. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.65 https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.65
Ormazabal, J. & J. Romero. (2013c). Why P. Ms. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)-Basque Group of Theoretical Linguistics (HiTT) & University of Extremadura (UNEX)-HiTT.
Ormazabal, J. & J. Romero. (2014). Agreement Restrictions Revisited: too many beggars, to few hosts. Ms. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) - Basque Group of Theoretical Linguistics (HiTT) & University of Extremadura (UNEX)-HiTT.
Pensado, C., ed. (1995). El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor.
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero Syntax. Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Postal, P. (1975). On Raising. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Pineda, A. (2013b). Double object constructions in Spanish (and Catalan) revisited, in F. A. C. Drijkoningen (ed.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2011. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.5.10pin https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.5.10pin
Rezac, M. (2010). Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of Language, Dordrecht, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2
Roca, F. (1996). Morfemals objetivos y determinantes: los clíticos del español. Verba 23, pp. 83-119.
Rodriguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2007). The Syntax of Objects: Agree and Differential Object Marking. PhD. Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Romero, J. (1997). Construcciones de doble objeto y gramática universal. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Uriagereka, J. (1988). On Government. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Zdrojewski, P. (2008). Por quién doblan los clíticos. Univ. Nacional Comahue Master Thesis.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Javier Ormazabal, Juan Romero
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
