Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A formal approach to the typology of differential object marking (DOM) is developed within the framework of Optimality Theory. The functional/typological literature has established that variation in DOM is structured by the dimensions of animacy and definiteness, with degree of prominence on these dimensions directly correlated with the likelihood of overt case-marking. In the present analysis, the degree to which DOM penetrates the class of objects reflects the tension between two types of principles. One involves iconicity: the more marked a direct object qua object, the more likely it is to be overtly case-marked. The other is a principle of economy: avoid case-marking. The tension between the two principles is resolved differently in different languages, as determined by language-particular ranking of the corresponding constraints. Constraints expressing object markedness are derived throughharmonic alignment of prominence scales. Harmonic alignment predicts a corresponding phenomenon ofdifferential subject marking. This too exists, though in a less articulated form.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aissen, Judith. 1997. ‘On the Syntax of Obviation’, Language 73, 705–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aissen, Judith. 1999. ‘Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17, 673–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anttila, Arto and Vivienne Fong. 2002. Variation, Ambiguity, and Noun Classes in English, ms., New York University, New York; to appear in Lingua.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artstein, Ron. 1999. ‘Person, Animacy and Null Subjects’, in T. Cambier-Langeveld, A. Liptak, M. Redford and E. J. v. d. Torre (eds.), Proceedings of Console VII, SOLE, Leiden, pp. 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asudeh, Ash. 2001. ‘Linking, Optionality, and Ambiguity in Marathi’, in P. Sells (ed.), Formal and Empirical Issues in Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp. 257–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, Peter. 1981. ‘Case Marking in Southern Pilbara Languages’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 1, 211–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battistella, Edwin. 1990. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language, SUNY Press, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battistella, Edwin L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, Tej K. 1993. Punjabi. A Cognitive-Descriptive Grammar, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Solomon A. 1979. Yiddish. A Survey and a Grammar, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, Scope, and Binding, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, Barry. 1977. Case Marking in Australian Languages, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, Barry. 1979. A Kalkatungu Grammar, Pacific Linguistics, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, Paul. 1997. ‘How We Learn Variation, Optionality, and Probability’ ROA-221-109, http: //ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.

  • Bok-Bennema, R. 1991. Case and Agreement in Inuit, Foris, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossong, Georg. 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den Neuiranischen Sprachen, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossong, Georg. 1991. ‘Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond’ in D. Wanner and D. Kibbee (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Urbana-Champaign, April 7–9, 1988, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 143–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowe, Heather. 1990. Categories, Constituents and Constituent Order in Pitjantjatjara, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, Joan. 2000. ‘Optimal Syntax’ in J. Dekkers, F. v. d. Leeuw and J. v. d. Weijer (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 334–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, Joan, Shipra Dingare and Chris Manning. 2001. ‘Soft Constraints Mirror Hard Constraints: Voice and Person in Lummi and English’ in M. Butt and T. H. King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, University of Hong Kong, CSLI Publications (on-line), http: //csli-publications.stanford.edu.

  • Browning, Marguerite and Ezat Karimi. 1994. ‘Scrambling to Object Position in Persian’ in N. Corver and H. v. Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies on Scrambling. Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 61–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt, John and Carmen Benjamin. 1988. A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish, Edward Arnold, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt, Miriam. 1993. ‘Object Specificity and Agreement in Hindi/Urdu’ Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Sandra. 1984. ‘Identifiability and Null Objects in Chamorro’ Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, pp. 116–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Sandra. 1998. The Design of Agreement. Evidence from Chamorro, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1979. ‘Definite and Animate Direct Objects: A Natural Class’ Linguistica silesiana 3, 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1980. ‘Agreement, Animacy, and Voice’ in G. Brettschneider and C. Lehmann (eds.), Wege Zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler, Gunter Narr, Tübingen, pp. 229–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie Bernard. 1986. ‘Markedness, Grammar, People, and the World’ in F. Eckman, E. Moravcsik and J. Wirth (eds.), Markedness, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Colette. 1977. The Structure of Jacaltec, University of Texas Press, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, William. 1988. ‘Agreement vs. Case Marking and Direct Objects’ in M. Barlow and C. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions, CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp. 159–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, Alice. 1984. ‘Syntactic Markedness and the Definition of Sentence Topic’ Language 60, 797–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hoop, Helen. 1996. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation, Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLancey, Scott. 1981. ‘An Interpretation of Split Ergativity’ Language 57, 626–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites, The MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, Molly and Eloise Jelinek. 1995. ‘Distributing Arguments’ Natural Language Semantics 3, 123–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingare. 2001. The Effect of Feature Hierarchies on Frequencies of Passivization in English, MA thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue, Cathryn. 1999. Optimizing Fore Case and Word Order, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection' Language 67, 547–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enç, Mürvet. 1991. ‘The Semantics of Specificity’ Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • England, Nora. 1983. ‘Ergativity in Mamean (Mayan) Languages’ International Journal of American Linguistics 49, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, Donka. 1978. ‘Direct and Indirect Object Reduplication in Romanian’ Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 88–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, Donka. 1997. Towards a Semantic Typology of Noun Phrases, Paper presented at Colloque de syntaxe et sémantique de Paris, Université Paris 7.

  • Foley, William and Robert Van Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gair, James. 1970. Colloquial Sinhalese Clause Structures, Mouton, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • García, Erica and Florimon vn Putte. 1995. ‘La mejor palabra es la que no se habla’ in C. Pensado (ed.), El Complemento Directo Preposicional, Visor Libros, Madrid, pp. 113–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerdts, Donna. 1988a. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish, Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerdts, Donna. 1988b. ‘A Nominal Hierarchy in Halkomelem Clausal Organization’ Anthropological Linguistics 30, 20–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Givón, Talmy. 1978. ‘Definiteness and Referentiality’ in J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 291–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, Cliff. 1982. ‘Case Systems and Case Marking in Australian Languages: A New Interpretation’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 2, 167–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies, Mouton, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. ‘Projections, Heads, and Optimality’ Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg and Ron Zacharski. 1993. ‘Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse’ Language 69, 274–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo. 2002. Structural Markedness and Syntactic Structure: A Study of Word Order and the Left Periphery in Mexican Spanish, PhD dissertation, UCSC, Santa Cruz.

  • Haiman, John (ed.) 1985a. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam.

  • Haiman, John. 1985b. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, Alexander. 1944. Colloquial Hindustani, K. Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Alice and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haviland, John. 1979. ‘Guugu Yimidhirr’ in R. M. W. Dixon and B. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian Languages, Vol. 1, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 27–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkinson, Anne and Larry Hyman. 1974. ‘Hierarchies of Natural Topic in Shona’ Studies in African Linguistics 5, 147–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. Basic Materials in Ritharngu: Grammar, Texts and Dictionary, Canberra.

  • Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English, Department of General Linguistics, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson. 1980. ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse’ Language 56, 251–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, Horst. 1968. Das Direkte Objekt im Spanischen, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, Gerhard. 2002. Learning Constraint Sub-Hierarchies. The Bidirectional Gradual Learning Algorithm, University of Potsdam and ZAS Berlin: ROA 544-0902.

  • Jakobson, Roman. 1939. ‘Signe Zéro’ Melanges de Linguistique Offerts à Charles Bally sous les Auspices de la Faculté des Lettres de L'université de Genève por des Collegues, des Confrères, des Disciples Reconnaissants, Georg et cie, s.a., Genève.

  • Johns, Alana. 1992. ‘Deriving Ergativity’ Linguistic Inquiry 23, 57–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junghare, Indira. 1983. ‘Markers of Definiteness in Indo-Aryan’ in A. Dahlstrom et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, pp. 116–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karimi, Simin. 1999. ‘Specificity Effects: Evidence from Persian’ The Linguistic Review 16, 125–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Dovid. 1987. Grammar of the Yiddish Language, Duckworth, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, Edward. 1976. ‘Towards a Universal Definition of “Subject”’ in C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, Academic Press, New York, pp. 303–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, S. H. 1938. A Grammar of the Hindi Language, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidima, Lukowa. 1987. ‘Object Agreement and Topicality Hierarchies in Kiyaka’ Studies in African Linguistics 18, 175–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. ‘Partitive Case and Aspect’ in M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments, CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp. 265–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kliffer, Michael. 1982. ‘Personal a, Kinesis and Individuation’ in P. Baldi (ed.), Papers from the XII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 195–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laca, Brenda. 1995. ‘Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español’ in C. Pensado (ed.), El Complemento Directo Preposicional, Visor, Madrid, pp. 61–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laca, Brenda. 2001. ‘Gramaticalización y variabilidad: propiedades inherentes y factores contextuales en la evolución del acusativo preposicional en español’ in Andreas Wesch et al. (eds.), Sprachgeschichte als Varietätengeschichte. Festschrift Jens Lüdtke, Stauffenberg, Tubingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazard, Gilbert. 1982. ‘Le morphème râ en Persan et les relations actancielles’ Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris 73, 177–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazard Gilbert. 1984. ‘Actance Variations and Categories of the Object’ in F. Plank (ed.), Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Academic Press, London, pp. 269–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Hanjung. 2001. Optimization in Argument Expression and Interpretation: A Unified Approach, PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Hanjung. 2002. ‘Parallel Optimization in Case Systems’ UNC Chapel Hill.

  • Lee, Hanjung. to appear. ‘Referential Accessibility and Stylistic Variation in OT: A Corpus Study’ Papers from the Thirty-Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.

  • Legendre, Géraldine, William Raymond and Paul Smolensky. 1993. ‘An Optimality-Theoretic Typology of Case and Grammatical Voice Systems’ Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, pp. 464–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magier, David. 1987. ‘The Transitivity Prototype: Evidence from Hindi’ Word 38, 187–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A' Distinction and Movement Theory, PhD dissertation dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity. Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations, CSLI, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manoliu-Manea, Maria. 1993. ‘From Staging Strategies to Syntax’ in H. Aertsen and R. Jeffers (eds.), Papers from the 9th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 297–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masica, Colin. 1982. ‘Identified Object Marking in Hindi and Other Languages’ in O. N. Koul (ed.), Topics in Hindi Linguistics, Vol. 2, Bahri Publications, New Delhi, pp. 16–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, R. S. 1972. Outline of Hindi Grammar, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melis, Chantal. 1995. ‘El objeto directo personal en el Cantar de Mío Cid: Estudio Sintáctico-Pragmático’ in C. Pensado (ed.), El Complemento Directo Preposicional, Visor, Madrid, pp. 133–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelsen, Line. 2002. ‘Reanalyzing the Definiteness Effect: Evidence from Danish’ Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 69, 1–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohanan, Tara. 1993. ‘Case Alternation on Objects in Hindi’ South Asian Language Review 3, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohanan, Tara. 1994a. Argument Structure in Hindi, CSLI, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohanan, Tara. 1994b. ‘Case OCP: A Constraint on Word Order in Hindi’ in M. Butt, T.H. King and G. Ramchand (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages, CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp. 185–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monedero Carrillo de Albornoz, Carmen. 1978. ‘El objeto directo preposicional y la estilística épica’ Verba 5, 259–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morimoto, Yukiko. 2002. ‘Prominence Mismatches and Differential Object Marking in Bantu’ in M. Butt and T. H. King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, National Technical University of Athens, CSLI Publications (on-line), http: //cslipublications. stanford.edu.

  • Morolong, Malillo and Larry Hyman. 1977. ‘Animacy, Objects and Clitics in Sesotho’ Studies in African Linguistics 8, 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Gereon. 2002. ‘Harmonic Alignment and the Hierarchy of Pronouns in German’ in H. Simon and H. Wiese (eds.), Pronouns: Grammar and Representation, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 205–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Gereon. 2003. ‘Optionality in Optimality-Theoretic Syntax’ in L. Cheng and R. Sybesma (eds.), The Second GLOT International State-of-the-Article Book, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 289–321. Original publication: 1999, GLOT International, 4: 5, pp. 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Connor, Catherine. 1999. Harmonic Alignment of Participant Hierarchy Features and the Structure of Possessive DPs in Northern Pomo, Paper presented at Optimal Typology Workshop, UCSC.

  • Ortmann, Albert. 2002. ‘Economy-Based Splits, Constraints, and Representations’ in I. Kaufmann and B. Stiebels (eds.), More Than Words. A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pensado, Carmen. 1995a. ‘El complemento directo preposicional: estado de la cuestión y bibliografía comentada’ in C. Pensado (ed.), El Complemento Directo Preposicional, Visor, Madrid, pp. 11–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pensado, Carmen. (ed.) 1995b. El Complemento Directo Preposicional. Madrid.

  • Pesetsky, David. 1997. ‘Optimality Theory and Syntax: Movement and Pronunciation’ in D. Archangeli and D. T. Langendoen (eds.), Optimality Theory. An Overview, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 134–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, David. 1998. ‘Some Optimality Principles of Sentence Pronunciation’ in P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky (eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 337–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponelis, Fritz. 1993. The Development of Afrikaans, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, H. 1961. ‘The Use of a + Personal Pronoun in Old Spanish’ Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 38, 42–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, Marathon Montrose and Robert Spaulding. 1894/1956. A Textbook of Modern Spanish, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigau, Gemma. 1986. ‘Some Remarks on the Nature of Strong Pronouns in Null-Subject Languages’ in I. Bordelois, H. Contreras and K. Zagona (eds.), Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 143–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, Graham. 1978. The Fore Language of Papua New Guinea, School of Pacific Studies, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sells, Peter. 2001. Structure, Alignment and Optionality in Swedish, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, Devyani. 2001. ‘Kashmiri Case Clitics and Person Hierarchy Effects’ in P. Sells (ed.), Formal and Empirical Issues in Optimality Theoretic Syntax, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp. 225–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1976. ‘Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity’ in R. M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 112–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1981. ‘Case Marking and the Nature of Language’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 1, 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Mona. 1994. ‘Thematic Roles, Word Order, and Definiteness’ in M. Butt, T. H. King and G. Ramchand (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages, CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp. 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolensky, Paul. 1995. ‘On the Internal Structure of the Constraint Component Con of UG’ ROA-86-000, http: //roa.rutgers.edu.

  • Stiebels, Barbara. 2000a. ‘Linker Inventories, Linking Splits, and Lexical Economy’ in B. Stiebels and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Lexicon in Focus, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 211–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiebels, Barbara. 2000b. Typologie des Argumentlinkings: Ökonomie und Expresivität, Habilitation, Düsseldorf University, Düsseldorf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrego, Esther. 1998. The Dependencies of Objects, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The Informational Component, Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin, Robert. 1985. ‘Case Marking and the Structure of the Lakhota Clause’ in J. Nichols and A. Woodbury (eds.), Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause: Some Approaches to Theory from the Field, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 363–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissenrieder, Maureen. 1985. ‘Exceptional Uses of the Accusative a’ Hispania 68, 393–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissenrieder, Maureen. 1990. ‘Variable Uses of the Direct-Object Marker a’ Hispania 73, 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissenrieder, Maureen. 1991. ‘A Functional Approach to the Accusative a’ Hispania 74, 146–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edwin. 1997. ‘Blocking and Anaphora’ Linguistic Inquiry 28, 577–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolford, Ellen. 1995. ‘Object Agreement in Palauan: Specificity, Humanness, Economy and Optimality’ in J. N. Beckman, L. W. Dickey and S. Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, GLSA, Amherst, MA, pp. 655–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolford, Ellen. 2001. ‘Case Patterns’ in G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw, and S. Vikner (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 509–543.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Linguistics Department, UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA E-mail

    Judith Aissen

Authors
  1. Judith Aissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aissen, J. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 435–483 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573

Keywords

Search

Navigation