Cover not available

In:The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking
Edited by Alexandru Mardale and Silvina Montrul
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 26] 2020
► pp. 1–20

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

Introduction

Differential Object Marking and its acquisition in different languages and contexts

 | Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales de Paris | Laboratoire SeDyL UMR8202 CNRS
 | University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.26.00mar
Abstract
This volume brings together a selection of papers that were presented at the international workshop on the acquisition of Differential Object Marking (DOM) organized by Alexandru Mardale (INaLCO, SeDyL) in Paris on December 10, 2016 as part of the Unity and diversity in Differential Object Marking research project funded by the Fédération Typologie et Universaux Linguistiques of the CNRS. Other papers in the volume were comissioned by Silvina Montrul (University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign) as part of her collaborative research projects on DOM in language acquisition. Taking a crosslinguistic perspective, the present volume includes 13 chapters on the monolingual and bilingual acquisition of DOM in a number of typologically unrelated languages (Basque, Estonian, Hindi, Korean, Persian, Romanian, Spanish, Turkish), from different theoretical and acquisition perspectives, and using different methodologies. The new and original empirical data from diverse acquisition situations presented in this collection contribute to advance our understanding of the factors that characterize DOM in diverse languages and to test and evaluate the explanatory power of available theoretical analyses of DOM and of language acquisition.
Article outline
  • 1.Differential Object Marking at a glance
  • 2.The acquisition of Differential Object Marking
  • 3.Conclusions and further directions
  • References
References (58)
References
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Avram, L. (Ed.). (2015). The L1 acquisition of Differential Object Marking. Special issue of Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U., & Mohammadi, S. (2013). Acquiring Persian object marking: Balochi learners of L2 Persian. Orientalia Suecana, 61, 59–89.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In J. Feuillet (Ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe (pp. 258–293). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J., Iverson, M., Giancaspro, D., & Halloran, B. (2020). Implications of L1 versus L2 transfer in L3 rate of morphosyntactic acquisition. In K. Molsing, C. Becker Lopes Perna, & A. M. Tramunt Ibaños (Eds.), pp. 11-33 Linguistic approaches to Portuguese as an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chamorro, G., Sturt, P., & Sorace, A. (2016). Selectivity in L1 attrition: Differential Object Marking in Spanish near-native speakers of English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(3): 697–715.
Ciovârnache, C., & Avram, L. (2013). Specificity and animacy in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in L2 Persian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 58(4), 417–436.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1975). Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Lingüística Silesiona, 3, 13–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornilescu, A. (2000). Observaţii privind interpretarea acuzativului prepoziţional în limba română. In G. Pană Dindelegan (Ed.), Actele Colocviului Catedrei de limba română (pp. 25–40). Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1994). Voice: Beyond control and affectedness. In P. J. Hopper & B. Fox (Eds.), Voice: Form and function (pp.89–117). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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
Daniel, M., & Khurshudian, V. (2015). Valency classes in Eastern Armenian. In B. Comrie & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Valency in the world’s languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the framework, and case studies from Africa and Eurasia (pp. 483–540). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danon, G. (2002). The Hebrew object marker and semantic type. In Y. Falk (Ed.), Proceedings of IATL17 (19pp). Jerusalem: The Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Py, B. (1991). La restructuration d’une première langue: L’intégration de variantes de contact dans la compétence de migrants bilingues. La Linguistique, 27, 35–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guijarro Fuentes, P. (2012). The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 15, 701–720. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoop, H., de & Swart, P. de. (2007). Semantic aspects of Differential Object Marking. In E. Puig- Waldmüller (Ed.), Proceedings of SuB11 (pp. 568–581). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heusinger, K. von, & Kaiser, G. A. (2005). The evolution of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. In Proceedings of the Workshop: Specificity and the Evolution / Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance (pp. 33–69). Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Differential Object Marking and the lexical semantics of verbs in Spanish. In Workshop on DOM in Romance, Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart, 14–15 June.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Floricic, F. (2003). Notes sur l’accusatif prépositionnel en Sarde. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 98(1), 247–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2017). On the interaction of DOM and clitic doubling. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 62(4), 393–411.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, M. (1993). Sardinian syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laca, B. (1995). Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español. In C. Pensado (Ed.), El complemento directo preposicional (pp. 61–91). Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Gramaticalización y variabilidad – propriedades inherentes y factores contextuales en la evolución del acusativo preposiciónal en español. In A. Wesch (Ed.), Sprachgeschichte als Varietätengeschichte romanicher Sprachen. Festschrift für Jens Lüdtke zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 195–303). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). El objeto directo. In C. Company (Ed.), Sintaxis historica del español, Vol 1: La frase verbal. México, DF: Universidad Nacional de México.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazard, G. (1994). L’actance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2003). Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Specificity in clitic doubling and in DOM. Probus, 20(1), 33–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The CHILDES system. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 5(1), 5–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). The emergence of linguistic form in time. Connection Science, 17, 191–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mardale, A. (2008). Microvariation within Differential Object Marking: Data from Romance, Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 53(4), 448–467.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Les prépositions fonctionnelles du roumain: Études comparatives sur le marquage casuel. Paris: l’Harmattan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Éléments d’analyse du marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues romanes. Faits de Langues. Les Cahiers, 2, 161–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mardale, A., & Karatsareas, P. (in press). Introduction to the special issue Differential Object Marking and Language Contact. Journal of Language Contact.
Mišeska-Tomić, O. (2006). Balkan Sprachbund morpho-syntactic features. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Special issue on Interfaces in language acquisition. Lingua, 212(4), 591–604. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Searching for the roots of structural changes in the Spanish of the United States. Lingua, 151, 177–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A. (2012). Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage Speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 141–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N. (2013). Differential Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20, 109–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R. (2015). Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Naess, A. (2004). What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua, 114, 1186–1212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Niculescu, A. (1965). Obiectul direct prepoziţional în limbile romanice. Individualitatea limbii române între limbile romanice. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., Varlokosta, S., Spyropoulos, V., Kaili, H., Prokou, S., & Revithiadou, A. (2011). Case morphology and word order in second language Turkish: Evidence from Greek learners. Second Language Research, 27(2), 173–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riaño Rufilanchas, D. (2014). Differential Object Marking in Ancient Greek. Linguistics, 52(2), 513–541.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2008). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20(1), 111–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1): 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ticio, E. (2015). Differential Object Marking in Spanish-English early bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(1), 62–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tigău, A. (2010). Towards an account of DOM in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 12(1), 137–158.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Argument licensing and Differential Object Marking. The Annual Conference of the English Department, University of Bucharest.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1998). The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). El complemento directo preposicional. In I. Bosque Muñoz & V. Demonte Barreto (Eds.), Gramatica descriptiva de la lengua española (pp 1779–1907). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, A., & Seržant, I. (2018). Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In I. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (Eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (pp. 1–40). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kurian Mathew, Annu & Bhuvana Narasimhan
2025. The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Tamil. In The Oxford Handbook of Dravidian Languages, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 july 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue