Cover not available

In:Differential Object Marking in Romance: Towards microvariation
Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Alexandru Mardale
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 280] 2023
► pp. 135–159

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Differential object marking in Brazilian Portuguese

 | University of Campinas
 | University of Modena and Regio Emilia
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.280.06cyr
Abstract
This paper addresses two important aspects related to the problem of differential object marking in Brazilian Portuguese. On the one hand, it demonstrates that this phenomenon is not completely absent from the language, contrary to traditional assumptions. Among the contexts in which differential object marking is still obligatory or possible are types of equatives, animates under coordination, or animate relative pronouns. On the other hand, it shows that these contexts can be unified as involving configurations resulting from sentential ellipsis. More specifically, the relevant structures contain two constituents with clausal nature, out of which the second is subject to a process of deletion. Differential object marking on the nominal signals the presence of a raising operation to the high left periphery in the second clause, which allows the argument to escape the deletion operation at the TP level. Differential object marking based on raising to the high left periphery unites Brazilian Portuguese to (Romance) languages where differential object marking is dependent on topicalization to the left periphery.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.DOM in Brazilian Portuguese
  • 3.Differential object marking in European Portuguese
  • 4.Towards an analysis
  • 5.BP and Topic heads
  • 6.Evidence for sentential ellipsis
  • 7.Differential object marking and dative morphology
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • The abbreviations are as follows
  • References
References (50)
References
D’Alessandro, R. (2017). When you have too many features: Auxiliaries, agreement and clitics in Italian varieties. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 50, 1–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bárany, A. (2018). DOM and dative case. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 97, 1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (2004). Aspects of the low IP area. In L. Rizzi (ed.) The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures (pp. 16–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). On a-marking of object topics in the Italian left periphery. In R. Petrosino, P. Cerrone, & H. van der Hulst (Eds.) From sounds to structure: Beyond the veil of Maya (pp. 445–466). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berlinck, R. S. (1997). Sobre a realização do objeto indireto no português do Brasil. Anais do II Encontro do Círculo de Estudos Linguísticos do Sul. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bossong, G. (1991). Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. A. Kibbee (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics. Selected papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Urbana-Champaign, April 7–9, 1988 (pp. 143–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calindro, A. (2015). Introduzindo argumentos: Uma proposta para as sentenças ditransitivas do português brasileiro (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of São Paulo.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornilescu, A. (2000). On the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 2(1), 91–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cunha, C., & Cintra, L. (2016). Nova gramática do português contemporâneo. Lexikon Editora Digital.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cyrino, S., & Irimia, M.-A. (2019). Differential object marking in Brazilian Portuguese. Revista Letras UFPR, 99, 177–201.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1994). The syntax of Romanian. Comparative studies in Romance. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Döhla, H.-J. (2014). Diachronic convergence and divergence in differential object marking between Spanish and Portuguese. In K. Braunmüller, S. Höder, & K. Kühl (Eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact: Factors and mechanisms (pp. 265–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galves, C., Andrade, A., & Faria, P. (2017). Tycho Brahe Parsed Corpus of Historical Portuguese. Retrieved on 22 February 2023 from [URL]
Gibrail, A. (2003). O acusativo preposicionado do português clássico: Uma abordagem diacrônica e teórica (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Campinas.
Irimia, M. A. (2016). When differential (object) marking is obligatory: (Equality) comparatives. Handout from presentation at RALFE Paris, 4 November 2016.
(2018). When differential object marking is obligatory. Some remarks on the role of Case in ellipsis and comparatives. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 24(I, 13), 105–114.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Types of structural objects. Some remarks on differential object marking in Romanian. In A. Bárány & L. Kalin (Eds.), Case, agreement and their interactions. New perspectives on differential argument marking (pp. 77–126). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Oblique differential object marking and types of nominals. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 66(4), 486 – 518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(to appear). Asymmetric coordination in Romanian: a diagnostic for DOM position? To appear in Linguistic Inquiry.
Irimia, M. A., & Cyrino, S. (2017). Manifestations of differential object marking: From Brazilian Portuguese to prepositional accusatives. Revue Romaine de Linguistique, LXII(4), 411–426.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keine, S. (2010). Case and agreement from fringe to core: A minimalist approach. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keine, S., & Müller, G. (2008). Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In M. Richards & A. Maulchukov (Eds.), Scales (pp. 83–136). Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khouja, M. (2019). DOM as a syntax-pragmatics interface marker. In M. A. Irimia & A. Pineda (Eds.), Differential objects and datives – A homogeneous class? Special issue of Lingvisticae Investigationes, 42(1), 56–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1969). On pronominalization and the chain of command. In D. A. Reibel & S. A. Schane (Eds.), Modern studies in English (pp. 160–186). Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2008). Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus, 20(1), 33–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lobeck, A. (1995). Ellipsis. Functional heads, licensing and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López, L. (2012). Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luft, C. (2010). Dicionário prático de regência verbal. Ática.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manzini, R., & Franco, L. (2016). Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 197–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martins, A.-M. (2015). Variação sintática no português quinhentista: A colocação dos pronomes clíticos. Estudos de Lingüística Galega, 7, 83–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mateus, M.-H. et al. (2003). Gramática da língua portuguesa. Caminho.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. (2001). The syntax of silence. Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2010). Why Agree? Why Move? Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oliveira, M. (2004). A perda da preposição A e a recategorização de LHE. Estudos Lingüísticos, 34, 292–297.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J., & Romero, J. (2007). The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25(2), 315–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013a). Differential object marking, case and agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2(2), 221–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013b). Object clitics: Agreement and dialectal variation. Probus, 20, 33–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pires, A. (2017). A marcação diferencial do objeto no português: Um estudo sintático-diacrônico (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Campinas.
Ramos, J. (1992). Marcação de caso e mudança sintática no português do Brasil: uma abordagem gerativa e variacionista (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Campinas.
Ross, J.-R. (1969). Guess who? In R. Binnick, A. Davison, G. Green, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 2523–2586). CLS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saab, A., & Zdrojewski, P. (2021). On the non-existence of asymmetric DOM in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 52(4), 852–866. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tigău, Alina. (2011). Syntax and interpretation of the direct object in Romance and Germanic languages. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din București.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1998). The dependency of objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torres Morais, M. A., & Salles, H. (2010). Parametric change in the grammatical encoding of indirect objects in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus, 22, 181–209.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torres Morais, M. A., & Berlinck, R. (2018). O objeto indireto: Argumentos aplicados e preposicionado. In S. Cyrino & M. A. Torres Morais (Eds.), Mudança sintática do português brasileiro: Perspectiva gerativista (pp. 252–307). Contexto.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue