Affectedness and Differential Object Marking in Spanish

In this study we investigate the impact of affectedness on the diachronic development of Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Spanish. DOM in Spanish synchronically depends on (i) the referential features of the direct object, such as animacy and referentiality, and (ii) the semantics of the verb. Several studies have also shown that the diachronic development of DOM proceeds along the Animacy Scale and the Referentiality Scale, and some recent corpus studies have indicated an influence of the verb’s semantics on this diachronic process. This study presents new findings from a detailed analysis of extensive corpus research on the distribution of DOM with respect to affectedness, understood as “the persistent change of an event participant”. We use Tsunoda’s Affectedness Scale to order the verb classes under investigation. Our findings provide evidence that this scale can be partly correlated with the diachronic spread of DOM in Spanish which would tend to confirm the influence of verbal semantics on DOM in Spanish.

[1]  Miriam Butt,et al.  The Dative-Ergative Connection , 2006 .

[2]  I. Bosque,et al.  Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española , 1999 .

[3]  Georg A. Kaiser,et al.  Bibelübersetzungen als Grundlage für empirische Sprachwandeluntersuchungen , 2005 .

[4]  Beatrice Primus,et al.  Cases and thematic roles : ergative, accusative and active , 1999 .

[5]  Brenda Laca.  El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional , 2006 .

[6]  John Beavers,et al.  Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning , 2006 .

[7]  H.G.A. Hughes,et al.  The Blackwell Companion to Syntax , 2006 .

[8]  Maureen Weissenrieder,et al.  A Functional Approach to the Accusative A , 1991 .

[9]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics , 1989 .

[10]  Jóhanna Barðdal.  The Perplexity of Dat-Nom Verbs in Icelandic , 2001, Nordic Journal of Linguistics.

[11]  C. Tenny.  Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness , 1987 .

[12]  Alice C. Harris,et al.  Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective , 1995 .

[13]  William Croft,et al.  Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs , 1993 .

[14]  小泉 保,et al.  COMRIE,Bernard:Language Universals and Linguistic Typology,Syntax and Morphology,1989 , 1983 .

[15]  J.F.A.K. van Benthem,et al.  Semantics and Contextual Expressions , 1989 .

[16]  Esther Torrego Salcedo,et al.  El complemento directo preposicional , 1999 .

[17]  Mengistu Amberber.  Chapter 1 – Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case , 2005 .

[18]  Klaus von Heusinger,et al.  Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish , 2008 .

[19]  Peter de Swart,et al.  Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking , 2007 .

[20]  Åshild Næss,et al.  What markedness marks: the markedness problem with direct objects , 2004 .

[21]  M. Leonetti.  Specificity in Clitic Doubling and in Differential Object Marking , 2008 .

[22]  Miriam Butt,et al.  The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors , 2004 .

[23]  Mengistu Amberber,et al.  Competition and Variation in Natural Languages , 2005 .

[24]  Klaus von Heusinger,et al.  Differential object marking and the lexical semantics of verbs in Spanish , 2007 .

[25]  A. Bello,et al.  Gramatica de la lengua castellana destinada al uso de los americanos , 1887 .

[26]  David R. Dowty.  Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[27]  Martin Everaert,et al.  The Blackwell Companion to Syntax , 2006 .

[28]  Sextil Puşcariu..  Etudes de linguistique roumaine , 1973 .

[29]  Malcolm J. Bowman,et al.  Proceedings of the Workshop , 1978 .

[30]  Alice C. Harris,et al.  Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Frontmatter , 1995 .

[31]  Georg A. Kaiser,et al.  Proceedings of the workshop definiteness, specificity and animacy in ibero-romance languages , 2007 .

[32]  Beatrice Primus,et al.  Cases and thematic roles , 1999 .

[33]  Comrie Bernard.  Language Universals and Linguistic Typology , 1982 .

[34]  Bernard Comrie,et al.  Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology , 1981 .

[35]  Georg Bossong.  Empirische Universalienforschung : differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen , 1985 .

[36]  Andrés Enrique-Arias.  Biblias romanceadas e historia de la lengua , 2008 .

[37]  A. Malchukov.  Case Pattern Splits, Verb Types and Construction Competition , 2005 .

[38]  A. Kroch.  Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change , 1989, Language Variation and Change.

[39]  Klaus Von Heusinger,et al.  Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian , 2008 .

[40]  Τ. Givón.  Ergative morphology and transitivity gradients in Newari , 1985 .

[41]  Nicole Delbecque.  Why Spanish has two transitive construction frames , 1997 .

[42]  Kristin Davidse,et al.  The nominative & accusative and their counterparts , 2002 .

[43]  T. Tsunoda.  Remarks on transitivity , 1985, Journal of Linguistics.

[44]  S. Thompson,et al.  Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse , 1980 .

[45]  Doris L. Payne,et al.  Noun Phrase Structure , 2012 .

[46]  Nicole Delbecque.  Two transitive construction frames in Spanish: the prepositional and the non-prepositional one , 1999 .

[47]  Judith Aissen,et al.  Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy , 2003 .

[48]  Helen de Hoop,et al.  Differential case-marking in Hindi , 2005 .

[49]  N. Delbecque.  4. A construction grammar approach to transitivity in Spanish , 2002 .

[50]  C. Ruiz.  El complemento directo preposicional: estado de la cuestión y bibliografía comentada , 1995 .

[51]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  Semantics and The Lexicon , 1993 .

[52]  John Beavers,et al.  On affectedness , 2011 .

[53]  Manuel Leonetti,et al.  Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish , 2004 .

[54]  Christian Kay,et al.  Syntax and morphology , 2004 .

[55]  Chantal Melis.  El objeto directo personal en el Cantar del Mio Cid: estudio sintáctico-pragmático , 1995 .