Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 435–483 | Cite as

Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy

  • Judith Aissen
Article

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.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Optimality Theory Formal Approach Direct Object Object Markedness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aissen, Judith. 1997. ‘On the Syntax of Obviation’, Language 73, 705–750.Google Scholar
  2. Aissen, Judith. 1999. ‘Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17, 673–711.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Austin, Peter. 1981. ‘Case Marking in Southern Pilbara Languages’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 1, 211–226.Google Scholar
  7. Battistella, Edwin. 1990. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language, SUNY Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  8. Battistella, Edwin L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Bhatia, Tej K. 1993. Punjabi. A Cognitive-Descriptive Grammar, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  10. Birnbaum, Solomon A. 1979. Yiddish. A Survey and a Grammar, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  11. Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, Scope, and Binding, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Blake, Barry. 1977. Case Marking in Australian Languages, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
  13. Blake, Barry. 1979. A Kalkatungu Grammar, Pacific Linguistics, Canberra.Google Scholar
  14. Boersma, Paul. 1997. ‘How We Learn Variation, Optionality, and Probability’ ROA-221-109, http: //ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
  15. Bok-Bennema, R. 1991. Case and Agreement in Inuit, Foris, Berlin.Google Scholar
  16. Bossong, Georg. 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den Neuiranischen Sprachen, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Bowe, Heather. 1990. Categories, Constituents and Constituent Order in Pitjantjatjara, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Butt, John and Carmen Benjamin. 1988. A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish, Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Chung, Sandra. 1998. The Design of Agreement. Evidence from Chamorro, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Comrie, Bernard. 1979. ‘Definite and Animate Direct Objects: A Natural Class’ Linguistica silesiana 3, 13–21.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Comrie Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  30. Craig, Colette. 1977. The Structure of Jacaltec, University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  33. Davison, Alice. 1984. ‘Syntactic Markedness and the Definition of Sentence Topic’ Language 60, 797–846.Google Scholar
  34. de Hoop, Helen. 1996. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  35. DeLancey, Scott. 1981. ‘An Interpretation of Split Ergativity’ Language 57, 626–657.Google Scholar
  36. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites, The MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  37. Diesing, Molly and Eloise Jelinek. 1995. ‘Distributing Arguments’ Natural Language Semantics 3, 123–176.Google Scholar
  38. Dingare. 2001. The Effect of Feature Hierarchies on Frequencies of Passivization in English, MA thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  39. Dixon, R. M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  40. Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  42. Donohue, Cathryn. 1999. Optimizing Fore Case and Word Order, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  43. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection' Language 67, 547–619.Google Scholar
  44. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. ‘The Semantics of Specificity’ Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1–26.Google Scholar
  45. England, Nora. 1983. ‘Ergativity in Mamean (Mayan) Languages’ International Journal of American Linguistics 49, 1–19.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Farkas, Donka. 1997. Towards a Semantic Typology of Noun Phrases, Paper presented at Colloque de syntaxe et sémantique de Paris, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
  48. Foley, William and Robert Van Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  49. Gair, James. 1970. Colloquial Sinhalese Clause Structures, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Gerdts, Donna. 1988a. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  52. Gerdts, Donna. 1988b. ‘A Nominal Hierarchy in Halkomelem Clausal Organization’ Anthropological Linguistics 30, 20–36.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Goddard, Cliff. 1982. ‘Case Systems and Case Marking in Australian Languages: A New Interpretation’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 2, 167–196.Google Scholar
  55. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  56. Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. ‘Projections, Heads, and Optimality’ Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373–422.Google Scholar
  57. Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg and Ron Zacharski. 1993. ‘Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse’ Language 69, 274–307.Google Scholar
  58. 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.Google Scholar
  59. Haiman, John (ed.) 1985a. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  60. Haiman, John. 1985b. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  61. Harley, Alexander. 1944. Colloquial Hindustani, K. Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., London.Google Scholar
  62. Harris, Alice and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Hawkinson, Anne and Larry Hyman. 1974. ‘Hierarchies of Natural Topic in Shona’ Studies in African Linguistics 5, 147–170.Google Scholar
  65. Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. Basic Materials in Ritharngu: Grammar, Texts and Dictionary, Canberra.Google Scholar
  66. Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English, Department of General Linguistics, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  67. Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson. 1980. ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse’ Language 56, 251–299.Google Scholar
  68. Isenberg, Horst. 1968. Das Direkte Objekt im Spanischen, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  69. Jäger, Gerhard. 2002. Learning Constraint Sub-Hierarchies. The Bidirectional Gradual Learning Algorithm, University of Potsdam and ZAS Berlin: ROA 544-0902.Google Scholar
  70. 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.Google Scholar
  71. Johns, Alana. 1992. ‘Deriving Ergativity’ Linguistic Inquiry 23, 57–87.Google Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Karimi, Simin. 1999. ‘Specificity Effects: Evidence from Persian’ The Linguistic Review 16, 125–141.Google Scholar
  74. Katz, Dovid. 1987. Grammar of the Yiddish Language, Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
  75. 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
  76. Kellogg, S. H. 1938. A Grammar of the Hindi Language, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  77. Kidima, Lukowa. 1987. ‘Object Agreement and Topicality Hierarchies in Kiyaka’ Studies in African Linguistics 18, 175–209.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. Lazard, Gilbert. 1982. ‘Le morphème en Persan et les relations actancielles’ Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris 73, 177–208.Google Scholar
  84. 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
  85. Lee, Hanjung. 2001. Optimization in Argument Expression and Interpretation: A Unified Approach, PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford.Google Scholar
  86. Lee, Hanjung. 2002. ‘Parallel Optimization in Case Systems’ UNC Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  87. 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.Google Scholar
  88. 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
  89. Magier, David. 1987. ‘The Transitivity Prototype: Evidence from Hindi’ Word 38, 187–199.Google Scholar
  90. Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A' Distinction and Movement Theory, PhD dissertation dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  91. Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity. Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations, CSLI, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  92. 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
  93. 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
  94. McGregor, R. S. 1972. Outline of Hindi Grammar, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  95. 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
  96. Mikkelsen, Line. 2002. ‘Reanalyzing the Definiteness Effect: Evidence from Danish’ Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 69, 1–75.Google Scholar
  97. Mohanan, Tara. 1993. ‘Case Alternation on Objects in Hindi’ South Asian Language Review 3, 1–30.Google Scholar
  98. Mohanan, Tara. 1994a. Argument Structure in Hindi, CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  99. 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
  100. Monedero Carrillo de Albornoz, Carmen. 1978. ‘El objeto directo preposicional y la estilística épica’ Verba 5, 259–303.Google Scholar
  101. 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.Google Scholar
  102. Morolong, Malillo and Larry Hyman. 1977. ‘Animacy, Objects and Clitics in Sesotho’ Studies in African Linguistics 8, 199–218.Google Scholar
  103. 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
  104. 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
  105. 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.Google Scholar
  106. 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
  107. 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
  108. Pensado, Carmen. (ed.) 1995b. El Complemento Directo Preposicional. Madrid.Google Scholar
  109. 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
  110. 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
  111. Ponelis, Fritz. 1993. The Development of Afrikaans, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  112. Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  113. Ramsden, H. 1961. ‘The Use of a + Personal Pronoun in Old Spanish’ Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 38, 42–54.Google Scholar
  114. Ramsey, Marathon Montrose and Robert Spaulding. 1894/1956. A Textbook of Modern Spanish, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  115. 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
  116. Scott, Graham. 1978. The Fore Language of Papua New Guinea, School of Pacific Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
  117. Sells, Peter. 2001. Structure, Alignment and Optionality in Swedish, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  118. 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
  119. 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
  120. Silverstein, Michael. 1981. ‘Case Marking and the Nature of Language’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 1, 227–244.Google Scholar
  121. 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
  122. Smolensky, Paul. 1995. ‘On the Internal Structure of the Constraint Component Con of UG’ ROA-86-000, http: //roa.rutgers.edu.Google Scholar
  123. 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
  124. Stiebels, Barbara. 2000b. Typologie des Argumentlinkings: Ökonomie und Expresivität, Habilitation, Düsseldorf University, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  125. Torrego, Esther. 1998. The Dependencies of Objects, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  126. Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The Informational Component, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  127. 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
  128. Weissenrieder, Maureen. 1985. ‘Exceptional Uses of the Accusative aHispania 68, 393–398.Google Scholar
  129. Weissenrieder, Maureen. 1990. ‘Variable Uses of the Direct-Object Marker aHispania 73, 223–231.Google Scholar
  130. Weissenrieder, Maureen. 1991. ‘A Functional Approach to the Accusative aHispania 74, 146–156.Google Scholar
  131. Williams, Edwin. 1997. ‘Blocking and Anaphora’ Linguistic Inquiry 28, 577–628.Google Scholar
  132. 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
  133. 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

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith Aissen
    • 1
  1. 1.Linguistics DepartmentUC Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA E-mail

Personalised recommendations