Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

3. Objects

  • Ioanna Sitaridou
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of objects in Romance, presenting descriptions and proposals for formal analyses of particular Romance object(-related) properties, which reveal a great deal of variation. After having given some basic definitions and properties of objects in all languages, the chapter presents some “object markers” in a broad sense, which never coexist in a single variety, but which enable different subgroups of Romance languages to be distinguished - only Romanian, for example, has maintained morphological case distinctions for some lexical categories to date; most Romance varieties have developed Differential Object Marking (DOM) for a subset of DOs whose properties are (mainly) semantically defined, and Romance varieties can also mark DOs by (overt marking of) past participle agreement. The agreement triggering conditions differ across the varieties, but often agreement on the participle marks some kind of “special”, i. e., non canonical (= lexical, postverbal) DO. In contrast to most Romance varieties, Romanian does admit Double Object Constructions (DOC), and much variation is observed for clitic doubling and clitic climbing. Furthermore, object drop is frequently found in Romance varieties (especially for non-human and non-specific object referents), with Brazilian Portuguese also admitting object drop for definite, specific referents. Subject-object asymmetries are finally observed with respect to the distribution of bare nouns, wh-extraction asymmetries being confined to non-pro-drop languages such as French and some Rhaeto-Romance varieties.

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of objects in Romance, presenting descriptions and proposals for formal analyses of particular Romance object(-related) properties, which reveal a great deal of variation. After having given some basic definitions and properties of objects in all languages, the chapter presents some “object markers” in a broad sense, which never coexist in a single variety, but which enable different subgroups of Romance languages to be distinguished - only Romanian, for example, has maintained morphological case distinctions for some lexical categories to date; most Romance varieties have developed Differential Object Marking (DOM) for a subset of DOs whose properties are (mainly) semantically defined, and Romance varieties can also mark DOs by (overt marking of) past participle agreement. The agreement triggering conditions differ across the varieties, but often agreement on the participle marks some kind of “special”, i. e., non canonical (= lexical, postverbal) DO. In contrast to most Romance varieties, Romanian does admit Double Object Constructions (DOC), and much variation is observed for clitic doubling and clitic climbing. Furthermore, object drop is frequently found in Romance varieties (especially for non-human and non-specific object referents), with Brazilian Portuguese also admitting object drop for definite, specific referents. Subject-object asymmetries are finally observed with respect to the distribution of bare nouns, wh-extraction asymmetries being confined to non-pro-drop languages such as French and some Rhaeto-Romance varieties.

Downloaded on 20.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110377088-003/html
Scroll to top button