Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 32:1 (2019) ► pp.185–219
The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish by Romanian speakers
Published online: 24 July 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.17040.mon
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.17040.mon
Abstract
The obligatory use of the preposition ‘a’ with
animate, specific direct objects in Spanish (Juan conoce a
María “Juan knows Maria”) is a well-known instance of Differential
Object Marking (dom). This study investigates the acquisition of
dom by native speakers of Romanian learning Spanish. Spanish and
Romanian have dom lexicalized in the prepositions ‘a’
(Spanish) and in ‘pe’ (Romanian). In the two languages
dom is regulated by animacy and specificity. Thirty-two native
speakers of Spanish and 36 Romanian-speaking learners of Spanish with advanced
proficiency completed a written production, a written comprehension, and an
acceptability judgment task. The results show that, in general, and unlike what
has been found for English-speaking learners of Spanish, advanced Romanian
learners of Spanish are successful at acquiring the feature specification and
distribution of dom in Spanish. The findings are discussed with respect
to the nature of ultimate attainment as a function of language transfer.
Resumen
El uso obligatorio de la preposición ‘a’ con objetos
directos animados y específicos en español (Juan conoce a
María) es un ejemplo bien conocido del marcado diferencial de
objeto (MDO). Este estudio investiga la adquisición del MDO por hablantes
nativos de rumano que son aprendices de español. Tanto el español como el rumano
lexicalizan el MDO en las preposiciones ‘a’ (español) y
‘pe’ (rumano). En ambas lenguas el MDO está regido por la
animacidad y la especificidad. Treinta y dos hablantes nativos de español y 36
aprendices de español de nivel avanzado de lengua materna rumano completaron
tres pruebas escritas: una de producción, una de comprensión y una de juicios de
gramaticalidad. Los resultados muestran que, en general, y a diferencia de lo
que se ha encontrado con aprendices de español cuya lengua materna es el inglés,
los aprendices de español con nivel avanzado y primera lengua rumano adquieren
con éxito los rasgos característicos y la distribución del MDO en español. Los
resultados se discuten en torno a la naturaleza del logro final de una lengua
segunda y en función de la posible transferencia de la lengua materna.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Differential Object Marking (DOM)
- 3.The study
- 3.1Participants
- 3.2Tasks
- 3.2.1Written production
- 3.2.2Written comprehension
- 3.2.3Acceptability judgments
- 4.Discussion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (58)
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: iconicity vs.
economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–448.
Alfaraz, G. (2011). Accusative object marking. A change in progress in Cuban
Spanish? Spanish in Context, 8(2), 213–234.
Arechabaleta, B. (2014). The L2 Acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish by
English Speakers. Unpublished MA paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Bardel, C. & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition:
The case of Germanic Syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459–484.
Bautista Maldonado, S. & Montrul, S. (2019). An experimental investigation of Differential Object Marking in
Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context, 16, 1, 22–50.
Belloro, V. (2007). Spanish clitic doubling: A study of the syntax semantics
interface. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Birdsong, D. & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence of maturational constraints in second language
acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 441, 235–49.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 201, 3–49.
Borgonovo, C. & Prévost, P. (2003). Knowledge of polarity subjunctive in L2 Spanish. In Proceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on Language
Development, (150–161). Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Press.
Bossong, G. (1991). Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. Kibbee (Eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the XVIII
Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, (pp. 143–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bowles, M. & Montrul, S. (2009). Instructed L2 acquisition of Differential Object Marking in
Spanish. In R. Leow, H. Campos & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little words. Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics
and acquisition, (pp. 199–210). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Bruhn de Garavito, J. (1997). Verb complementation, coreference and Tense in the acquisition of
Spanish as a second language. In A. T. Perez-Leroux and W. Glass (Eds), Contemporary Perspectives in the Acquisition of Spanish, (pp. 167–180). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Company, C. (2002). El avance diacrónico de la marcación prepositiva en objetos
directos inanimados. In A. Bernabé et al. (Eds.), Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España, Vol. II1, (pp. 146–154). Madrid: SEL.
David, O. (2015). Clitic doubling and differential object marking. A study in
diachronic construction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 7(1), 103–135.
Dumitrescu, D. (1997). El parámetro discursivo en la expresión del objeto directo
lexical: español madrileño vs. español porteño. Signo y Seña, 71, 305–354.
Fábregas, A. (2013). Differential Object Marking in Spanish: State of the
Art. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 21, 1–80.
Farkas, D. (1978). Direct and indirect object reduplication in
Romanian. In D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen & K. W. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics
Society (CLS 14), (pp. 88–97). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Farkas, D., & von Heusinger, K. (2003). Stability of reference and object marking in
Romanian. Paper presented at Workshop on Direct Reference and Specificity, ESSLLI, Vienna, August 2003.
Farley, A. & McCollam, K. (2004). Learner readiness and L2 production in Spanish: Processability
theory on trial. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 221, 47–69.
Franceschina, F. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An
assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research, 171, 213–247.
Geeslin, K. (Ed.) (2014). The acquisition of the copula contrast in second language
Spanish. Handbook of Spanish as a Second Language. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Guijarro Fuentes, P. & Geeslin, K. (2003). Age related factors in copula choice in steady state L2 Spanish
grammars. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 161, 83–110.
Guijarro Fuentes, P. (2011). Feature composition in Differential Object
Marking. In L. Roberts, G. Pallotti & C. Bettoni (Eds), EUROSLA Yearbook 111, (pp. 138–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2012). The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal
a
. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 151, 701–720.
Guijarro Fuentes, P. & Marinis, T. (2007). Acquiring the syntax/semantic interface in L2 Spanish: the
personal preposition ‘a’. In L. Roberts, A. Gürel, S. Tatar & L. Martı (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook 71, (pp. 67–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Granena, G. & Long, M. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and
ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343.
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C. & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2A: A production or a real-time processing
problem? Second Language Research, 281, 191–216.
von Heusinger, K. (2002). Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse
structure. Journal of semantics, 19(3), 245–274.
(2005). The evolution of Differential Object Marking in
Spanish. In K. von Heusinger, G. Kaiser & E. Stark (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Specificity and the Evolution/Emergence of
Nominal Determination Systems in Romance, (pp. 33–70). Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz, Arbeitspapier
Nr. 119.
von Heusinger, K. & Kaiser, G. (2011). Affectedness and Differential Object Marking in
Spanish. Morphology, 211, 593–617.
von Heusinger, K. & Onea Gáspar, E. (2008). Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of
DOM in Romanian. Probus, 201, 67–110.
Hill, V. & Mardale, A. (2017). On the interaction of Differential Object Marking and Clitic
Doubling in Romanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique (RRL), LXII, 4, 393–409. Bucureşti.
Hyltenstam, K. & Abrahamsson, N. (2009). Age of onset and native-likeness in second language acquisition:
Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 591, 249–306.
Ioup, G., Boustagoui, E., Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: a case study of
successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 161, 73–98.
Laca, B. (2006). El objeto directo. In Company, C. (Ed.) Sintaxis histórica del español. Vol I1: La frase verbal. México: Universidad Autónoma de México.
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate Attainment in Second Language Acquisition. A Case
Study. Mawhaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second
language acquisition. Second Language Research, 251, 173–227.
Leonetti, M. (2004). Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish.
Catalan. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 75–114.
Long, M. (2003). Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage
development. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 487–536). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
López, L. (2012). Indefinite objects. Scrambling, choice functions and differential
marking. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 631. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. In K. Brown & J. Miller (Eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories (pp. 125–131). Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Mardale, A. (2007). Les prépositions fonctionnelles du roumain: étude
comparative. Doctoral dissertation, Diderot Paris (Paris 7) and University of Bucharest.
Montrul, S. (2014). Searching for the roots of structural changes in the Spanish of
the United States. Lingua, 1511, 177–196.
(2013). Differential Object Marking in Argentine Spanish. An experimental
study. In L. Colantoni & C. Rodríguez Louro (Eds.). The Handbook of Argentine Spanish, (pp. 207–228). Frankfurt: Vervuert Iberoamericana.
Montrul, S. and Gürel, A. (2015). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish by
Turkish speakers. In T. Judy & S. Perpiñán (Eds.), The Acquisition of Spanish by speakers of less commonly studies
languages (pp. 281–308). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers:
An investigation of the preterite/imperfect contrast in
Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 251, 351–398.
Papadopoulou, D., Varlokosta, S., Spyropoulos, V., Kaili, H., Prokou, S. & Revithiadou, A. (2010). Case morphology and word order in second language Turkish:
Evidence from Greek learners. Second Language Research, 27(2), 173–205.
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2008). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in
Spanish. Probus, 201, 111–145.
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access
model. Second Language Research, 121, 40–72.
Suñer, M. (1988). The role of agreement in dative doubled
constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 61, 391–434.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
López Otero, Julio César & Adina Camelia Bleotu
Wall, Albert, Senta Zeugin, Philipp Obrist, Patrick Santos Rebelo & Johannes Kabatek
Karkaletsou, Foteini, Alina Kholodova & Shanley E. M. Allen
Ponnet, Aaricia & Ludovic De Cuypere
Smeets, Liz
López Otero, Julio César & Abril Jimenez
López Otero, Julio César
2020. On the acceptability of the Spanish DOM among Romanian-Spanish
bilinguals. In The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 26], ► pp. 161 ff.
López Otero, Julio César
2020. Chapter 6. On the acceptability of the Spanish DOM among Romanian-Spanish bilinguals. In The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 26], ► pp. 161 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
