Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish

Catalan Journal of Linguistics

Volumn 3, Issue , 2004, Pages 75-114

  Leonetti, Manuel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALCALÁ   (Spain)

Author keywords

Animacy; Inference; Object marking; Specificity; Topicality

Indexed keywords

EID: 85035958942     PISSN: 16956885     EISSN: 20149719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5565/rev/catjl.106     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Abbott, Barbara (1995). «Some Remarks on Specificity». Linguistic Inquiry 26: 341-347.
2. Adger, David (1996). «Economy and Optionality: Interpretations of Subjects in Italian». Probus 8: 117-135.
3. Aissen, Judith (1992). «Topic and Focus in Mayan». Language 68: 43-80.
4. Aissen, Judith (2003). «Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs Economy». Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435-483.
5. Alexiadou, Artemis; Anagnostopoulou, Elena (1997). «Toward a Uniform Account of Scrambling and Clitic Doubling». In: Abraham, Werner; Van Gelderen, Elly (eds.). German: Syntactic Problems, Problematic Syntax?. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, pp. 143-161.
6. Bleam, Tonia (1999a). Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling. University of Delaware, doctoral dissertation.
7. Bleam, Tonia (1999b). «Object Bare Plurals in Spanish and the Semantics of Personal A». In: Authier, Jean-Marc; Bullock, Barbara; Reed, Lisa (eds.). Formal Perspectives on Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21-37.
8. Bosque, Ignacio (2001). «Adjective Position and the Interpretation of Indefinites». In: Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier; Silva-Villar, Luis (eds.). Current Issues in Spanish Syntax and Semantics. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 17-37.
9. Bossong, Georg (1997). «Le marquage différentiel de l'objet dans les langues d'Europe». In: Feuillet, Jacques (ed.). Actance et Valence dans les langues d'Europe. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 193-258.
10. Brugè, Laura (2000). «La realizzazione morfologica del caso accusativo». In Categorie funzionali del nome nelle lingue romanze. Milano: Cisalpino, pp. 193-304.
11. Brugè, Laura; Brugger, Gerhard (1996). «On the Accusative A in Spanish». Probus 8: 1-51.
12. Büring, Daniel (2001). «A Weak Theory of Strong Readings». In: Galloway, Teresa; Spence, Justin (eds.). Proceedings of SALT VI, CLC Publications.
13. Choi, Hye-Won (1999). Optimizing Structure in Context. CSLI: Stanford.
14. Chung, Sandra; Ladusaw, William (2004). Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
15. Cohen, Ariel; Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (2002). «Topic, Focus, and the Interpretation of Bare Plurals». Natural Language Semantics 10: 125-165.
16. Company, Concepción (2002). «El avance diacrónico de la marcación prepositiva en objetos directos inanimados». In: Bernabé, Alberto et al. (eds.). Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España, vol. II. Madrid: SEL, pp. 146-154.
17. Dahl, Östen; Fraurud, Kari (1996). «Animacy in Grammar and Discourse». In: Fretheim, Thorstein; Gundel, Jeannette (eds.). Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47-64.
18. Delbecque, Nicole (1999). «La transitivité en espagnol: Deux constructions plutôt qu'une». Verbum 21, 1: 49-65.
19. Delfitto, Denis; Corver, Norbert (1998). «Feature Primitives and the Syntax of Specificity». Rivista di Linguistica 10.2: 281-334.
20. Diesing, Molly (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
21. Enç, Mürvet (1991). «The Semantics of Specificity». Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1-25.
22. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1997). The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Escandell-Vidal, M. Victoria; Leonetti, Manuel (2000). «Categorías funcionales y semántica procedimental». In: Martínez Hernández, Marcos et al. (eds.). Cien años de investigación semántica: De Michel Bréal a la actualidad, vol. I. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, pp. 363-378.
24. Farkas, Donka (1995). «Specificity and Scope». In: Nash, Lea; Tsoulas, Georges (eds.). Actes du Premier Colloque Langues & Grammaire. Paris. 119-137.
25. Farkas, Donka (2001). «Vers une typologie sémantique des syntagmes nominaux». In: Kleiber, Georges; Laca, Brenda; Tasmowski, Liliane (eds.). Typologie des groupes nominaux. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, pp. 17-46.
26. Farkas, Donka (2002). «Specificity Distinctions». Journal of Semantics 19: 1-31.
27. Farkas, Donka; von Heusinger, Klaus (2003). «Stability of Reference and Object Marking in Romanian». UC Santa Cruz/Universität Stuttgart, unpublished manuscript.
28. Farkas, Donka; De Swart, Henriëtte (2003a). The Semantics of Incorporation: From Argument Structure to Discourse Transparency. Stanford: CSLI.
29. Farkas, Donka; De Swart, Henriëtte (2003b). «Incorporation, Plurality, and the Incorporation of Plurals: A Dynamic Approach», this volume.
30. Fauconnier, Gilles (1984). Espaces mentaux. Paris: Minuit.
31. Franco, Jon; Mejías-Bikandi, Errapel (1999). «The Presuppositionality Condition and Spanish Clitic-Doubled Objects». In: Authier, Jean-Marc; Bullock, Barbara; Reed, Lisa (eds.). Formal Perspectives on Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107-119.
32. Gierling, Diana (1997). «Clitic Doubling, Specificity and Focus in Romanian». In: Black, James; Motapanyane, Virginia (eds.). Clitics, Pronouns and Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 63-85.
33. Geurts, Bart (2002). «Specific Indefinites, Presupposition and Scope». In: Baüerle, Rainer; Reyle, Uwe; Zimmermann, Thomas E. (eds.). Presuppositions in Discourse. Oxford: Elsevier.
34. Haspelmath, Martin (1997). Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
35. von Heusinger, Klaus (2001). «Cross-linguistic Implementations of Specificity». In: Jaszczolt, Kassia; Turner, Ken (eds.). Meanings in Contrast: The Cambridge Papers, vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 405-421.
36. von Heusinger, Klaus (2002). «Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure». Journal of Semantics 19: 245-274.
37. von Heusinger, Klaus; Kaiser, Georg (2003). «The Interaction of Animacy, Definiteness and Specificity in Spanish». In von Heusinger, Klaus; Kaiser, Georg (eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop «Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages», Arbeitspapier 113. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft. Universität Konstanz, pp. 41-65.
38. Jacobs, Joachim (2001). «The Dimensions of Topic-Comment». Linguistics 39-4: 641-681.
39. Jäger, Gerhard (1995a). «Weak Quantifiers and Information Structure». NELS 25: 303-318.
40. Jäger, Gerhard (1995b). «Topic, Scrambling and Aktionsart». In: Kohlhof, Inga; Winkler, Susanne; Drubig, Hans (eds.): Proceedings of the Göttingen Focus Workshop. Tübingen. 19-34.
41. Jäger, Gerhard (2001). «Topic-Comment Structure and the Contrast Between Stage Level and Individual Level Predicates». Journal of Semantics 18: 83-126.
42. Karimi, Simin (1990). «Obliqueness, Specificity, and Discourse Functions: Râ in Persian». Linguistic Analysis 20, 3-4: 139-191.
43. Karimi, Simin (1996). «Case and Specificity: Persian Râ Revisited». Linguistic Analysis 26: 174-194.
44. Karimi, Simin (1999). «A Note on Parasitic Gaps and Specificity». Linguistic Inquiry 30: 704-713.
45. Karimi, Simin (ed.)(2003). Word Order and Scrambling. Oxford: Blackwell.
46. Laca, Brenda (1987). «Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español». In: Pensado, Carmen (ed.). El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor, pp. 61-91.
47. Laca, Brenda (1990). «Generic Objects: Some More Pieces of the Puzzle». Lingua 81: 25-46.
48. Laca, Brenda (1996). «Acerca de la semántica de los plurales escuetos del español». In: Bosque, Ignacio (ed.). El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española. Madrid: Visor, pp. 241-268.
49. Laca, Brenda (1999). «Presencia y ausencia de determinante». In: Bosque, Ignacio; Demonte, Violeta (eds.). Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, I. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, pp. 891-928.
50. Lazard, Gilbert (1982). «Le morphème râ en perse et les relations actancielles». Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 73: 177-207.
51. Leonetti, Manuel (1998). «A Relevance-Theoretic Account of the Property Predication Restriction». In: Jucker, Andreas; Rouchota, Villy (eds.). Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 143-169.
52. Leonetti, Manuel (1999). «El artículo». In: Bosque, Ignacio; Demonte, Violeta (eds.). Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, I. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, pp. 787-890.
53. Lidz, Jeffrey (1999). «The Morphosemantics of Object Case in Kannada». In: Proceedings of WCCFL 18. Sommerville (Mass.): Cascadilla Press.
54. Lyons, Christopher (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Martín, Juan (1999): «The Syntax and Semantics of Spanish Accusative a». In: Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier; Martínez-Gil, Fernando (eds.). Advances in Hispanic Linguistics, vol. 2. Sommerville: Cascadilla Press, pp. 469-485.
56. McNally, Louise (1995). «Bare Plurals in Spanish are Interpreted as Properties». In: Morrill, Glyn; Oehrle, Richard (eds.). Formal Grammar. Barcelona: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, pp. 197-222.
57. Meinunger, André (2000). Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
58. Melis, Chantal (1995). «El objeto directo personal en El Cantar de Mio Cid. Estudio sintáctico-pragmático». In: Pensado, Carmen (ed.). El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor, pp. 133-163.
59. Milsark, Gary (1977). «Towards an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities in the Existential Construction in English». Linguistic Analysis 3: 1-30.
60. Moreno, Norberto; Pérez, Isabel (2001). «Information Structure and the Referential Status of Bare Plurals». ZAS Papers in Linguistics 23: 159-170.
61. Nakanishi, Kimiko (2002). «Scope Encoding of Indefinite NPs in Japanese». In: Von Heusinger, Klaus; Kempson, Ruth; Meyer-Viol, Wilfrid (eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop «Choice Functions and Natural Language Semantics». Arbeitspapier Nr. 110, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz. 141-165.
62. Neeleman, Ad; Reinhart, Tanya (1998). «Scrambling and the PF Interface». In: Butt, Miriam; Geuder, Willem (eds.). The Projection of Arguments. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 309-351.
63. Nikolaeva, Irina (2001). «Secondary Topic as a Relation in Information Structure». Linguistics 39.1: 1-49.
64. Pensado, Carmen (1995). «El complemento directo preposicional: Estado de la cuestión y bibliografía comentada». In: Pensado, Carmen (ed.). El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor, pp. 11-59.
65. Pesetsky, David (1987). «Wh-in-Situ: Movement and Unselective Binding». In: Reuland, Eric; ter Meulen, Alice (eds.). The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, pp. 98-129.
66. Picallo, Carme (1994). «A Mark of Specificity in Indefinite Nominals». Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 4.1: 143-167.
67. Portner, Paul; Yabushita, Katsuhiko (2001). «Specific Indefinites and the Information Structure Theory of Topics». Journal of Semantics 18: 271-297.
68. Prince, Ellen (1992). «The ZPG letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information Status». In: Thompson, Sandra; Mann, William (eds.). Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 295-325.
69. Rapoport, Tova (1995). «Specificity, Objects and Nominal Small Clauses». In: Cardinaletti, Anna; Guasti, Maria Teresa (eds.). Syntax and Semantic, 28: Small Clauses. New York: Academic Press.
70. Raposo, Eduardo; Uriagereka, Juan (1995). «Two Types of Small Clauses (Towards a Syntax of Theme/Rheme Relations)». In Cardinaletti, Anna; Guasti, Maria Teresa (eds.). Syntax and Semantics, 28: Small Clauses. New York: Academic Press, pp. 179-206.
71. Rouchota, Villy (1994). «On Indefinite Descriptions». Journal of Linguistics 30: 441-475.
72. Sadler, Misumi (2002). «From a Pragmatic Marker to a Direct Object Marker». Studies in Language 26: 243-281.
73. Sánchez López, Cristina (1995). «Construcciones concesivas con para». Revista Española de Lingüística 25: 99-123.
74. Shokouhi, Hussein; Kipka, Peter (2003). «A Discourse Study of Persian râ». Lingua 113: 953-966.
75. Sperber, Dan; Wilson, Deirdre (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
76. Suñer, Margarita (1988). «The Role of Agreement in Clitic-Doubled Constructions». Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 391-434.
77. Torrego, Esther (1998). The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
78. Torrego, Esther (1999). «El complemento directo preposicional». In: Bosque, Ignacio; Demonte, Violeta (eds.). Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, II. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, pp. 1779-1805.
79. Vallduví, Enric (1992). The Informational Component. New York: Garland.
80. Van Geenhoven, Verle (1998). Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI.
81. Van Geenhoven, Verle; McNally, Louise (to appear). «On the Property Analysis of Opaque Complements», Lingua.
82. Wilson, Deirdre; Sperber, Dan (1993). «Linguistic Form and Relevance». Lingua 93: 1-25.
83. Yamamoto, Mutsumi (1999). Animacy and Reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
84. Yeom, Jae-Il (1998). A Presuppositional Analysis of Specific Indefinites. New York: Garland.