Article published In: Applying Embodied Cognition and Cognitive Linguistics to language teaching:
Edited by Paolo Della Putta and Ferran Suñer
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:1] 2023
► pp. 293–316
Regular articles
A cognitive analysis on Spanish differential object marking based on a modified model of the Transitivity Hypothesis
Published online: 14 February 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00136.yan
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00136.yan
Abstract
There are two approaches to Differential Object Marking (dom): The Ambiguity Thesis and the Transitivity Thesis. The Ambiguity Thesis states that a morphological mark for the direct object tends to be used when it possesses the prototypical properties of the subject, such as agenthood, animacy, definiteness or topicality. The Transitivity Thesis argues that languages tend to mark categories with high transitivity values morphologically, rather than lower values. In our study we combined these two approaches to create a systematic model, which is a modified version of the Transitivity Hypothesis of Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 561, 251–299. . We postulate that the minimal condition to use dom in Spanish is a cognitive profiling of the referent of the direct object. The degree of profiling can be considered as cognitive prominence and can distinguish from more prototypical uses of dom to less prototypical ones. Our model provides a plausible explanation not only regarding the hierarchical relation between dom properties, but also regarding some problematic uses of dom.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The previous studies: Transitivity Hypothesis in relation to Spanish dom
- 3.A modified model of the Transitivity Hypothesis of Hopper and Thompson (1980) for dom in Spanish
- 4.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (38)
Aissen, J. (2000). Differential object marking: Iconocity vs. economy. University of California at Santa Cruz dissertation.
(2003). Differential object marking: Iconocity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.
Arnett, C., & Jernigan, H. (2012). Cognitive grammar and its applicability in the foreign language classroom. In G. S. Levine & A. Phipps (Eds.), AAUSC Issues in language program direction 2010: critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp.198–215). Heinle.
Bello, A. (1847). Gramática de la lengua castellana (anotado por R. J. Cuervo). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Anaconda. 1945.
Bossong, G. (1985). Differentielle objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Comrie, B. (1975). Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana, 31, 13–21.
Croft, W. (1988). Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. Barlow & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in natural language. Approaches, theories, descriptions (pp.159–179). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
de Hoop, H., & Narasimhan, B. (2005). Differential object marking in Hindi. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages the case for case (pp. 321–345). Amsterdam Oxford: Elsevier.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. The Edinburgh University Press.
Fernández Ramírez, S. (1951). Gramática española 4, El verbo y la oración (volumen ordenado y completado por I. Bosque). Madrid: Arco/Libros. 1986.
García Zúñiga, A. (2018). Los determinantes del español en la gramaticalización del complemento directo preposicional. Ideas, IV 4(1), 1–25.
Keenan, E. (1976). Towards a universal definition of subject. In C. L. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.
Kliffer, M. (1995). El ‘a’ personal, la kinesis y la individuación. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (pp. 93–111). Madrid: Visor.
Laca, B. (1995). Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (pp. 61–91). Madrid: Visor.
(2002). Gramaticalización y variabilidad. Propiedades inherentes y factores contextuales en la evolución del AC_PREP en español. In A. Wesch, W. Weidenbusch, R. Kailuweit & B. Laca (Eds.), Sprachgeschichte als Varietätengeschichte/ Historia de las variedades lingüísticas (pp. 195–203). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Leonetti, M. (2004). Specificity and different object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 31, 75–114.
Melis, C. (1995). El objeto directo personal en el Cantar de Mio Cid. Estudio sintáctico-pragmático. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (pp.133–163). Madrid: Visor.
(2018). Spanish indexing DOM, topicality, and the case hierarchy. In I. A. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (Eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (pp. 87–116). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Moravcsik, E. (1978). On the case marking of objects. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language, vol. IV1 (pp. 249–290). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Naess, A. (2004). What markedness marks. The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua, 1141, 1186–1212.
Niculescu, A. (1959). Sur l’objet direct prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. Bucuresti, Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne, 167–185.
Pensado, C. (1995). La creación del complemento directo preposicional y la flexión de los pronombres personales en las lenguas románicas. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (pp.179–233). Madrid: Visor.
Pottier, B. (1968). L’emploi de la préposition a devant l’objet en espagnol. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique, 11, 83–95.
Real Academia Española (2010). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Asociación de academias de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.
Rice, S. (1987). Toward a cognitive model of transitivity. San Diego: University of California dissertation.
Rohlfs, G. (1971). Autour de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes. Revue de Lnguistique Romane, 351, 312–334.
Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76(4), 859–890.
Torrego Salcedo, E. (1999). El complemento directo preposicional. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 1779–1805). Madrid: Espasa.
(1999). Aspectual issues: Studies on time and quantity. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
von Heusinger, K., & Kaiser, G. A. (2007). Differential object marking and the lexical semantics of verbs in Spanish. In G. A. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages”. Arbeitspapier 122 (pp. 85–110). Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft: Universität Konstanz.