* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *

LINGUIST List 24.1999

Thu May 09 2013

Confs: General Linguistics, Syntax/Norway

Editor for this issue: Anna Belew <annalinguistlist.org>

Date: 08-May-2013
From: Peter Svenonius <peter.svenoniusuit.no>
Subject: CASTL Spring Conference on Differential Object Marking
E-mail this message to a friend

CASTL Spring Conference on Differential Object Marking
Short Title: CASTL2013s

Date: 23-May-2013 - 24-May-2013
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Contact: Peter Svenonius
Contact Email: < click here to access email >
Meeting URL: https://castl.uit.no/index.php/conferences/differential-object-marking

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Syntax

Meeting Description:

Invited speaker: Mark Baker, Rutgers University

In Differential Object Marking (DOM), animacy or definiteness (or some related aspect of the interpretation of the direct object) affects the formal marking of objecthood – e.g., definite objects are overtly case marked in Hebrew, and optionally case marked in Hindi/Urdu, but not indefinite objects; as another example, specific objects are overtly case marked in Turkish, but not nonspecific objects; definite animate objects are overtly case marked in Spanish, but generally not inanimate or indefinite ones. The overt marking in such cases is sometimes identified as accusative, sometimes as dative. Such phenomena have been discussed together at least since the early 1980’s (cf. the conference web page for references).

Depending on the analysis, the phenomenon of DOM may be extended beyond case-marking alternations of the Turkish type to include object agreement. Theories of DOM sometimes also extend to verb splits (in which different verb classes take differently marked objects, a significant factor in Spanish). Bossong finds that over 300 languages exhibit some kind of DOM, broadly construed. Another potentially related set of issues involves arguments other than the object: Do the factors that cause differential marking of the object cause parallel differential marking of other arguments as well, and why or why not?

Differential Object Marking: Program
Thursday, May 23rd

Invited speaker: Mark Baker (Rutgers): On Types of Differential Object Marking in Interaction with Alignment Type


Differential Object Marking in Tatar and the functional architecture of the noun phrase: Pereltsvaig (Stanford) & Lyutikova (Moscow State)

DOM as a paradigmatic phenomenon: A hierarchical approach: Geist (Stuttgart)


Specific evidence: Differential arguments and (non-adjunct) secondary predicates: Irimia (Toronto)

The meaning of DOM in Spanish: Bassa Vanrell (Austin) & Romeu (Madrid)


Predicting the distribution of the Persian Object Marker ra: Hosseini Fatemi & Singh (Carleton, Ottawa)

Differential Object Marking in Corsican: Neuburger (Zurich)

Friday, May 24th

Differential Object Marking and Differential Object Indexation: Iemmolo & Schikowski (Zurich)

Towards a formal analysis of DOM in Hungarian: Bárány (Cambridge)


Subject and object differential marking in the Ka’apor language: Bonfim Duarte (Minas Gerais, Brazil)


DIOM in Romance (and Basque): Pineda (UA Barcelona)

Differential object marking in a language with rich case morphology: Bilous (York U, Toronto)


Spanish DOM as a case of lacking Case, Zdrojewski (Sarmiento/Buenos Aires)

In Spanish They Agree: Ormazabal (Basque Country & HiTT) & Romero (Extremadura & HiTT)

Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Page Updated: 09-May-2013

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.