LINGUIST List 29.3667
Mon Sep 24 2018
Calls: General Linguistics, Linguistic Theories, Morphology, Semantics, Syntax / Lingvisticae Investigationes (Jrnl)
Editor for this issue: Sarah Robinson <srobinsonlinguistlist.org>
***************** LINGUIST List Support *****************
Fund Drive 2018
28 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
Anna Pineda <anna.pineda
General Linguistics, Linguistic Theories, Morphology, Semantics, Syntax / Lingvisticae Investigationes (Jrnl) E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: Lingvisticae Investigationes
Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Linguistic Theories; Morphology; Semantics; Syntax
Call Deadline: 31-Oct-2018
Call for Papers:
Contributions are invited for a special issue on Differential objects and datives - a homogenous class? to appear in Lingvisticae Investigationes, edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Anna Pineda.
Please find all the information here: http://www.annapineda.cat/ca/recerca/call-for-papers/
One of the cross-linguistically robust, yet puzzling uses of dative morphology is to signal certain classes of structural (direct) objects, normally including animates, specifics, definites, or a combination thereof (Givón 1984, Bossong 1991, Lazard 2001, de Swart 2007, Glushan 2010, Manzini and Franco 2016, a.o). This picture is common across Romance, as illustrated by Spanish, where animate definite objects must take a marker which is homophonous with the dative ''a'', under differential object marking (DOM - Moravcsik 1978, Comrie 1979, 1981, Croft 1988, 1990, Bossong 1991, 1998, Aissen 2003, López 2012, a.o.). The same picture is seen in the Indo-Aryan family (Butt 1993, Mohanan 1994, Bhatt and Anagnostopoulou 1996, a.o.).
This type of syncretism extends to Guaraní (Shain 2008), Tigre (Raz 1980), Yiddish (Katz 1987), Basque varieties that have DOM (Odria 2014, 2017, Fernández and Rezac 2016, a.o.), Arabic varieties (Aoun 1999), etc. A non-trivial question is whether it signals a common syntactic source or is simply a matter of surface opacity. Under some accounts, the homomorphism has a structural nature, for example DOM and (certain types of) datives occupying the same (licensing) position (López 2012) or encoding the same relation (Manzini and Franco 2016). Various contributions have also pointed out important structural differences between datives and differentially marked objects (Ormazabal and Romero 2007 for Spanish, Odria 2014, Fernández and Rezac 2016 for Basque, Bárányi 2018 for a cross-linguistic picture, a.o.), motivating a morphological solution to the syncretism. Yet, a mixed explanation is proposed under other analyses: differential objects are absolutives/accusatives structurally but require additional marking due to the syntactic configuration (Odria 2017) or due to their complex featural make-up (Irimia 2018a, b). There are also languages where differentially marked objects and datives are not homophonous (Farsi, Hebrew, Romanian, Turkish, Palauan, Kannada, etc.), raising the question whether the 'dative behavior' also extends to them. Another important aspect is what type of diagnostics can be used to motivate a syntactic or a morphological analysis for the syncretism.
We welcome descriptive or theoretical contributions that address the source of the syncretism, as well as how to model it. Novel data or examples from less studied languages are particularly appreciated, and proposals that confront various theoretic approaches are welcome. We are also interested in discussions of this problem from an experimental perspective, in microvariation, and as well as in diachronic studies.
Papers submitted in English will follow the double-blind revision process. Submission of papers: October 31st 2018. Submissions should not exceed 37000 characters (including spaces), references included, and must respect the typographical conventions of Lingvisticae Investigationes.
Klaus von Heusinger
Monica Alexandrina Irimia
Jenneke van der Wal
Page Updated: 24-Sep-2018