Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?
Contributions are invited for a special issue on Differential objects and datives – a homogenous class? to appear in Lingvisticae Investigationes, edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) and Anna Pineda (Universitat Pompeu Fabra).
One of the cross-linguistically robust, yet puzzling uses of dative morphology is to signal certain classes of structural (direct) objects, normally including animates, specifics, definites, or a combination thereof (Givón 1984, Bossong 1991, Lazard 2001, de Swart 2007, Glushan 2010, Manzini and Franco 2016, a.o). This picture is common across Romance, as illustrated by Spanish (1). The animate definite object in (1a) must take a marker which is homophonous with the dative a (1c), under differential object marking (dom – Moravcsik 1978, Comrie 1979, 1981, Croft 1988, 1990, Bossong 1991, 1998, Aissen 2003, López 2012, a.o.):
a. He encontrado *(a) la niña.
have.1.sg found dat=dom the girl
‘I have found the girl.’
b. He encontrado (*a) el libro.
Have.1.sg found dat=dom the book
‘I have found the book.’ (Ormazabal and Romero 2013, ex.1 a, b)
c. Les recomendé un libro a los estudiantes.
cl.3.pl.dat recommended a book dat the students
‘I recommended a book to the students.’ (Ormazabal and Romero 2010, ex.1)
The same picture is seen in the Indo-Aryan family (Butt 1993, Mohanan 1994, Bhatt and Anagnostopoulou 1996, a.o.). In (2a) the object proper name must take an obligatory postposition which is homophonous with the dative (2c):
a. Ram Anil-*(ko) uthae-gaa.
Ram Anil-dat=dom carry-fut
‘Ram will carry Anil.
b. laa-ne haar-(*ko) uthayuthay-aa.
Ila-erg necklace-dat=dom carry-perf
‘Ilaa carried a necklace.’ (Mohanan 1994, ex. 92, 80)
c. Ram-ne Aditi-ko kitaab dikhaa-ii.
Ram-erg Aditi-dat book.f show-perf.f
‘Ram showed a book to Aditi.’ (Bhatt and Anagnostopoulou 1996, ex. 1b)
This type of syncretism extends to Guaraní (Shain 2008), Tigre (Raz 1980), Yiddish (Katz 1987), Basque varieties that have dom (Odria 2014, 2017, Fernández and Rezac 2016, a.o.), Arabic varieties (Aoun 1999), etc. A non-trivial question is whether it signals a common syntactic source or is simply a matter of surface opacity. Under some accounts, the homomorphism has a structural nature, for example dom and (certain types of) datives occupying the same (licensing) position (López 2012) or encoding the same relation (Manzini and Franco 2016). Various contributions have also pointed out important structural differences between datives and differentially marked objects (Ormazabal and Romero 2007 for Spanish, Odria 2014, Fernández and Rezac 2016 for Basque, Bárányi 2018 for a cross-linguistic picture, a.o.), motivating a morphological solution to the syncretism. Yet, a mixed explanation is proposed under other analyses: differential objects are absolutives/accusatives structurally but require additional marking due to the syntactic configuration (Odria 2017) or due to their complex featural make-up (Irimia 2018a, b). There are also languages where differentially marked objects and datives are not homophonous (Farsi, Hebrew, Romanian, Turkish, Palauan, Kannada, etc.), raising the question whether the ‘dative behavior’ also extends to them. Another important aspect is what type of diagnostics can be used to motivate a syntactic or a morphological analysis for the syncretism.
We welcome descriptive or theoretical contributions that address the source of the syncretism, as well as how to model it. Novel data or examples from less studied languages are particularly appreciated, and proposals that confront various theoretic approaches are welcome. We are also interested in discussions of this problem from an experimental perspective, in microvariation, and as well as in diachronic studies.
Papers submitted in English will follow the double-blind revision process. The selection of the papers for publication is made on full versions of the papers: the final versions should not be significantly longer than or different from the original papers. Submissions should not exceed 37000 characters (including spaces), references included, and must respect the typographical conventions of Lingvisticae Investigationes:
– submission of papers: October 31st 2018
– notification to authors: November 30th 2018
– final version of papers: December 31st 2018
– publication: February 28th 2019
Larisa Avram (University of Bucharest)
András Bárány (SOAS University of London)
Alexandra Cornilescu (University of Bucharest)
Cristina Cuervo (University of Toronto)
Beatriz Fernández (University of the Basque Country)
Cristina Guardiano (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia)
Klaus von Heusinger (University of Cologne)
Virginia Hill (University of New Brunswick in Saint John)
Monica Alexandrina Irimia (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia)
Jaklin Kornfilt (Syracuse University)
Béatrice Lamiroy (KU Leuven)
Luis López (University of Illinois at Chicago)
Alexandru Mardale (INALCO, Paris)
Dimitris Michelioudakis (University of York)
Javier Ormazabal (University of the Basque Country)
Anna Pineda (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona)
Juan Romero (University of Extremadura)
Alina Tigău (University of Bucharest)
Jenneke van der Wal (Leiden University)
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435-483.
Aoun, Joseph. 1999. Clitic-doubled arguments. In Kyle Johnson & Ian Roberts (eds.), Beyond
principles and parameters: Essays in memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli, 13–42. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bárány, András. 2018. DOM and dative case. Ms.
Bhatt, Rajesh and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1996. Object shift and specificity: evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. In Lisa M. Dobrin, Kora Singer and Lisa McNair (eds.), Papers from the 32nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 11-22. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Kibbee and D. Wanner (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics. 143-170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’object dans les langues de l’Europe. In Feuillet, Jack (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe. 193-259. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Butt, Miriam. 1993. Object specificity and agreement in Hindi-Urdu. In Catharine Beals and al. (eds.), Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 89-103. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class. Linguistica Silesiana 3. (Katowice: University of Silesia). 13-21.
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural language. Approaches, theories, description. 159-180 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fernández, Beatriz & Milan Rezac. 2016. Differential object marking in Basque varieties. In Beatriz Fernández, Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), Microparameters in the grammar of Basque. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Direct objects and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case. In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects. Towards a theory of grammatical relations. 151-183. London: Academic Press.
Glushan, Zhanna. 2010. Deriving Case syncretism in Differential Object marking systems. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001040.
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina. 2018a. Differential objects and other structural objects. Some remarks on the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Ms.
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina. 2018b. Differential objects and other structural objects. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America. 3 (50): 1-15.
Katz, Dovid. 1987. Grammar of the Yiddish language. London: Duckworth.
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. Le marquage différential de l’objet. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Österreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and linguistic universals. An international handbook, vol 2. 873-885. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lidz, Jeffrey. 2006. The grammar of accusative case in Kannada. Language 82 (1): 10-32.
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Manzini, M. Rita and Ludovico Franco. 2016. Goal and DOM datives. Natural language and linguistic theory. 34(1): 197-240.
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA. CSLI Publications.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. On the case marking of objects. In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language. Syntax. Volume IV, 249-289. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Odria, Ane. 2014. Differential object marking and the nature of dative case in Basque varieties. Linguistic variation 14 (2): 289-314.
Odria, Ane. 2017. Differential object marking and datives in Basque syntax. PhD thesis, University of the Basque Country.
Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25 (2): 315-347.
Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero. 2010. The derivation of dative alternations. In Maia Duguine, Susana Huidobro & Nerea Madariaga (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from a Crosslinguistic Perspective. 203-232. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero. 2013. Differential Object Marking, Case and Agreement.
Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2 (2): 221-239.
Raz, Shlomo. 1980. Tigre syntax and Semitic Ethiopian. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African studies. 43 (2): 235-250.
Shain, Cory Adam. 2008. Differential object marking in Paraguayan Guaraní. BA thesis. University of Columbus, Ohio.
de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Radbound: University of Nijmegen doctoral dissertation.