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.
{"title":"‘Agreement of structural obliques’\u0000 parameter","authors":"M. R. Manzini, Ludovico Franco","doi":"10.1075/LI.00030.MAN","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LI.00030.MAN","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 We consider two sets of facts. The first is that dom\u0000 objects may or may not agree with perfect participles in Indo-Aryan. The second\u0000 is that (pseudo)partitive subjects may agree with the verb in the plural or not.\u0000 We account for the dom parameter, basing on the assumption that\u0000 dom corresponds to embedding of a DP under an oblique adposition:\u0000 if P projects, the dom object is labelled PP and does not agree; if D\u0000 projects, it is labelled DP, projecting like any other DP. On the contrary,\u0000 inherent datives, where P/K is lexically selected, must project P/K and are\u0000 therefore not goals for Agree. We extend this labelling account to\u0000 (pseudo)partitives, as well as to optionally agreeing oblique clitics in\u0000 Romance.","PeriodicalId":187045,"journal":{"name":"Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127199413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper analyzes the syntax of dom and causee, experiencer, goal and possessor datives in Basque. It presents novel criteria distinguishing their categorical status: the possibility (i) to license Depictive Secondary Predication (DSP) and (ii) to appear as non-agreeing in contexts affected by the Person Case Constraint (PCC). It argues that, contrary to the rest of the datives, goals are generated as PPs, since they are unable to license DSP, but able to occur as non-agreeing in PCC-affected contexts. Besides, despite exhibiting the same categorical status as causee, experiencer and possessor datives, it claims that dom objects are syntactically identical to canonical absolutives, as they show the same configurational as well as Case licensing pattern, which is based on v-Agree.
{"title":"dom and datives in Basque","authors":"A. Odria","doi":"10.1075/LI.00027.ODR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LI.00027.ODR","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper analyzes the syntax of dom and causee, experiencer, goal and possessor datives in Basque. It presents\u0000 novel criteria distinguishing their categorical status: the possibility (i) to license Depictive Secondary Predication (DSP) and (ii) to\u0000 appear as non-agreeing in contexts affected by the Person Case Constraint (PCC). It argues that, contrary to the\u0000 rest of the datives, goals are generated as PPs, since they are unable to license DSP, but able to occur as non-agreeing in\u0000 PCC-affected contexts. Besides, despite exhibiting the same categorical status as causee, experiencer and possessor datives, it\u0000 claims that dom objects are syntactically identical to canonical absolutives, as they show the same configurational as well as Case\u0000 licensing pattern, which is based on v-Agree.","PeriodicalId":187045,"journal":{"name":"Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125244543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Differential objects and datives","authors":"M. Irimia, Anna Pineda","doi":"10.1075/LI.00026.IRI","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LI.00026.IRI","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":187045,"journal":{"name":"Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121404415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The parallel data discussed in this article suggest that in Guaraní languages differential objects seem far from being exclusively highlighted in morphology. Instead, the Guaraní dom systems exhibit a differential treatment of certain direct objects within narrow syntax. Focusing on [+animate] direct objects, I supply evidence that [+dom] direct objects scramble out of their base position into a higher, vP-internal, projection, namely αP (following López 2012). This short DO scrambling is derived including data from simple transitive, ditransitive, and applicative constructions as well as from object conjunction. The short scrambling within vP is followed by further direct object dislocation into a higher functional domain, an operation described in literature as triggered by φ-feature under T° and targeting a specifier in an expanded functional domain (Freitas 2011b). DOs that move out of their base position may be marked with the overt case marker, homophonous with dat case. The homophony between dat and dom is conceived as morphological opacity in the Guaraní case. Syntactically, however, [+dom] DOs pattern together with their zero-marked acc counterparts, rather than with indirect objects.
{"title":"Differential object marking and object scrambling in the Guaraní\u0000 language cluster","authors":"E. Roessler","doi":"10.1075/LI.00028.ROE","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LI.00028.ROE","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The parallel data discussed in this article suggest that in\u0000 Guaraní languages differential objects seem far from being exclusively\u0000 highlighted in morphology. Instead, the Guaraní dom systems exhibit a\u0000 differential treatment of certain direct objects within narrow syntax. Focusing\u0000 on [+animate] direct objects, I supply evidence that [+dom] direct\u0000 objects scramble out of their base position into a higher,\u0000 vP-internal, projection, namely αP (following López 2012). This\u0000 short DO scrambling is derived including data from simple\u0000 transitive, ditransitive, and applicative constructions as well as from object\u0000 conjunction. The short scrambling within vP is followed by\u0000 further direct object dislocation into a higher functional domain, an operation\u0000 described in literature as triggered by φ-feature under T° and targeting a\u0000 specifier in an expanded functional domain (Freitas 2011b). DOs that move out of their base position may be marked with the overt case marker, homophonous with dat case. The homophony between dat and dom is conceived as morphological opacity in the Guaraní case. Syntactically, however, [+dom] DOs pattern together with their zero-marked acc counterparts, rather than\u0000 with indirect objects.","PeriodicalId":187045,"journal":{"name":"Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122596436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Building on the display of dom in Catalan and focusing on the Balearic variety, this paper explores this phenomenon arguing for a discourse-driven marking, showing that the assumption that semantic hierarchies as crucial triggers for dom cannot be assumed anymore. We aim to present some ideas to address the correlation between prepositional markings and peripheral positions and to provide arguments for a syntax-pragmatics approach to dom in Clitic Dislocation. Our data shed light on the link between information structure – in particular, anaphoricity- and marked objects. This analysis would also account for other markers (i.e. de) available as a mechanism for signalling the same [+anaphoric] feature.
{"title":"dom as a syntax-pragmatics interface\u0000 marker","authors":"Marta Khouja","doi":"10.1075/LI.00029.KHO","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LI.00029.KHO","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Building on the display of dom in Catalan and focusing\u0000 on the Balearic variety, this paper explores this phenomenon arguing for a\u0000 discourse-driven marking, showing that the assumption that semantic hierarchies\u0000 as crucial triggers for dom cannot be assumed anymore. We aim to\u0000 present some ideas to address the correlation between prepositional markings and\u0000 peripheral positions and to provide arguments for a syntax-pragmatics approach\u0000 to dom in Clitic Dislocation. Our data shed light on the link between\u0000 information structure – in particular, anaphoricity- and marked objects. This\u0000 analysis would also account for other markers (i.e. de)\u0000 available as a mechanism for signalling the same [+anaphoric] feature.","PeriodicalId":187045,"journal":{"name":"Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124415966","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"title":"Prolegomena to the study of object relations","authors":"Javier Ormazabal, Juan Romero","doi":"10.1075/LI.00031.ORM","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LI.00031.ORM","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper argues that there is nothing “differential” in the\u0000 licensing conditions of Differential Object Marking and outlines an analysis\u0000 that unifies dom with dative object marking and with a broader set of\u0000 “derived object”-marking configurations. We show that neither morphological nor\u0000 syntactic distinctiveness can be the driving force for dom: accounts of\u0000 dom as a morphological distinctiveness device are inadequate\u0000 diachronically and very unefficient functionally. Syntactic analyses that\u0000 postulate DP-internal differences or construction-specific double-licensing\u0000 conditions fail to capture the basic fact that dom is a relation\u0000 between the objects and the predicates selecting them. Precisely, the burden of\u0000 our unified explanation falls on the checking requirements imposed to the DP\u0000 complements by the structural heads selecting them.","PeriodicalId":187045,"journal":{"name":"Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115204768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：