A contrastive analysis between differentially marked and unmarked direct objects
2 Comparing Spanish and Romanian indefinite DOs
2.1 Spanish indefinite DOs
Spanish draws a clear-cut distinction between DOMed DOs on the one hand and unmarked DOs and bare nominals on the other with respect to a number of syn-tactic and semantic phenomena: DOMed DOs may exhibit a specific interpreta-tion, outscope other scope bearing expressions, occur in certain contexts which exclude property denoting nominals and shun those contexts requiring property denoting nominals.2
Unmarked DOs evince a different behaviour in that they never enable specific or wide scope readings, occur in contexts requiring property denoting nominals and get discarded from contexts eliciting real arguments (i.e., nominals denoting entities or generalized quantifiers). This section will extend upon this clear-cut distinction that Spanish seems to draw between DOMed DOs and their unmarked counterparts, making use of the data presented in López (2012). By drawing on this different behaviour, López (2012) offers an account for Spanish marked and unmarked DOs, which will be presented in section 3 and which will be further adapted for Romanian in the subsequent sections after a comprehensive discus-sion about the relevant differences holding between the DOs in the two languages.
2.1.1 Specificity
Spanish indefinite DOs may be introduced by the differential object marker a which seems to have an important interpretive import: marked DOs may acquire
2 A note of caution is in order here: as pointed out by one of our reviewers, the data on the vari-ation of DOM in Spanish is quite vast and the brief presentvari-ation in this article does not do justice to the richness of all the studies in the literature. In this respect, we have chosen López’s (2012) work, given that it provides an accurate picture of the basic tenets of DOM marking in Spanish and the lack thereof, providing us with a sturdy point of comparison for the Romanian data.
a specific reading, unmarked DOs may not do so.3 This is illustrated in (1) below, where the variant a un traductor de alemán refers to a specific translator that Mary is looking for, while in the unmarked variant Mary is simply looking for some non-specific individual who has the property of being a translator:
(1) María busca a/Ø un traductor de alemán.
Maria seeks dom/Ø a translator of German
‘Maria is looking for a German translator.’
López (2012, 10) Expectedly, a modifier such as cierto (‘a certain’), which has been shown to fore-ground an epistemically specific interpretation given that it forces the referent denoted by the indefinite DO to become fixed with respect to the speaker´s epis-temic modal base, imposes the use of a. An unmarked indefinite is ungrammati-cal when preceded by cierto:
(2) Juan buscó a/*Ø un cierto futbolista.
Juan sought dom/*Ø a certain soccer player
‘Juan looked for a certain soccer player.’
López (2012, 17) On the other hand, the free choice indefinite cualquiera (‘any’) drives DOMed DOs to becoming non-specific. In (3) below, a un futbolista cualquiera may only be interpreted non-specifically. As expected, the unmarked variant is also fine in this context:
(3) Juan buscó a/Ø un futbolista cualquiera.
Juan sought dom/Ø a soccer player any
‘Juan looked for a soccer player, no matter who.’
López (2012, 17)
3 With respect to the type of specificity that marked indefinite DOs may evince, López argues in favour of epistemic and partitive specificity (Farkas 1999) disregarding other types of specific-ity e.g., specificspecific-ity as referential anchoring (von Heusinger 2011). There is also a split between wide scope and epistemic specificity, which other studies have subsumed as types of specificity (consider Farkas’ 1994 notion of scopal specificity). Furthermore, other studies have shown that partitives need not necessarily be specific (Kornfilt/von Heusinger 2008). In this article, we sim-ply adopt the specificity distinctions endorsed by López in an attempt to capture a parallelism of the Spanish and Romanian data and do not engage in a discussion regarding specificity types.
Mood has also been proposed as a useful tool to tease a specific interpreta-tion apart from a non-specific one (Rivero 1979). In (4) the DO una gestora (‘a manager’) has been modified by a relative clause whose predicate bears the sub-junctive mood. As a consequence, the indefinite DP may only be interpreted as non-specific. Both marked and unmarked DOs may be used in this context.
However, if the mood of the predicate in the relative clause modifying the DO is the indicative, the only available type of DO is a DOMed one and the only available interpretation is the specific one, as shown in (5) where the German speaking manager sought for by Mary is necessarily interpreted as specific:
(4) María buscó a/Ø una gestora que hablara alemán.
Maria sought dom/Ø a manager that spoke.subj German
‘Maria was looking for a manager that spoke.subj German.’
López (2012, 1) (5) María buscó a/*Ø una gestora que hablaba alemán.
Maria sought dom/*Ø a manager that spoke.ind German
‘Maria was looking for a manager that spoke.ind German.’
López (2012, 2) The subjunctive test may be further combined with un cierto or cualquiera: while un cierto needs to be combined with the indicative mood and a DOMed DO (6a), cualquiera imposes the use of the subjunctive and an unmarked DO (6b):
(6) a. María buscó a/*Ø una cierta gestora que habla/
Mary searched dom/*Ø a certain manager who speaks.ind/
*hable alemán.
speak.subj German
‘Maria looked for a certain manager that speaks.ind/*subj German.’
b. María buscó *a/ una gestora cualquiera que
Mary searched dom/Ø a manager any who
*habla/ hable alemán.
speaks.ind/ speak.subj German
‘Maria looked for a manager (no matter what) that speaks. *ind/subj German.’
López (2012, 19)
2.1.2 Scope
Besides showing a propensity for a specific interpretation, DOMed indefinites also seem to favour a wide scope reading when co-occurring with extensional quantifiers and various sentence operators. In (7a), a una mujer (‘a woman’) may outscope the universal QP todo hombre (‘every man’) enabling an interpretation according to which ‘there was (at least) one woman such that every man loved one’. A narrow scope interpretation for the indefinite DO according to which
‘each man loved a (possibly) different woman’ remains an option. The same is at stake in (7b), with the DOMed DO allowing both a wide as well as a narrow scope reading with respect to the QP subject:
(7) a. Todo hombre amó a una mujer.
every man loved dom a woman
‘Every man loved a woman.’
∃>∀ and ∀>∃
b. La mayoría de los hombres amó a una mujer.
the majority of the men loved dom a woman
‘Most men loved a woman.’
∃> Most and Most >∃
López (2012, 10) Unlike its DOMed counterpart, the unmarked DO may not outscope the QP subject and may only give rise to a narrow scope interpretation as a consequence: the only available reading in (8) is one according to which for every man/most men there exists (at least) one woman such that the respective man loves her.
(8) a. Todo hombre amó una mujer.
every man loved a woman
‘Every man loved a woman.’
* ∃>∀ and ∀>∃
b. La mayoría de los hombres amó una mujer.
the majority of the men loved a woman
‘Most men loved a woman.’
* ∃> Most and Most >∃
López (2012, 10) Marked indefinite DOs may also outscope negation. The unmarked indefinite only allows for a narrow scope interpretation:
(9) a. Juan no amó a una mujer.
Juan not loved dom a woman
‘There was a woman such that Juan did not love.’
* ‘Juan did not love any woman.’
∃ >¬ and *¬ >∃
López (2012, 10) b. Juan no amó una mujer.
Juan not loved a woman
* ‘There was a woman such that Juan did not love’
‘Juan did not love any woman.’
* ∃ >¬ and ¬ >∃
López (2012, 10) Furthermore, Spanish unmarked indefinite DOs may not outscope the condi-tional operator. DOMed indefinites, on the other hand, may acquire wide scope with respect to the conditional:
(10) a. Si Lud invita a un filósofo, Bert se ofenderá.
‘If Lud invites dom a philosopher, Bert refl offend.fut.’
∃ > → and → > ∃
b. Si Lud invita Ø un filósofo, Bert se ofenderá.
‘If Lud invites Ø a philosopher, Bert refl offend.fut.’
*∃ > → and → > ∃
López (2012, 2) Thus, just like in the case of specific readings, the split between DOMed DOs and unmarked DOs also holds with respect to scope dependencies: while marked DPs may outscope other scope bearing expressions, unmarked correspondents only exhibit dependent readings.
2.1.3 Some contexts which prohibit the use of DOMed indefinite DOs
Bleam (2005) discusses a number of contexts where DOMed DOs are discarded as infelicitous. One such context is that of the existential haber (‘have’) and the possessor or relator tener (‘have’), which only allow unmarked DOs.
Haber always selects unmarked indefinites, which are property denoting:
DOMed DPs are disallowed from these contexts. Unmarked variants on the other hand, which are of type <e,t> are felicitous.
(11) En el patio hay *a/Ø un niño.
in the yard exist *dom/Ø a boy
‘There is a boy in the yard.’
López (2012, 20) Tener allows for both DOMed and unmarked DOs. A difference in interpretation is, however, at stake. Bleam (1999; 2005) distinguishes between an individual level tener and a stage-level one. In (12a) tener functions as an individual level predicate and is the equivalent of own in (13a) in that the possession relationship is not associated with or restricted by a particular spatio-temporal location. In this particular context, the use of DOM is disallowed. (12b) on the other hand prompts the stage level reading and the use of a is permitted:
(12) a. María tiene *a/Ø tres hijos.
‘Maria has *dom/Ø three children.’
b. María tiene a/ un hijo en el ejército.
‘Maria has dom/ a son in the army.’
López (2012, 20–21) (13) I have a car.
a. I own a car (individual-level)
b. I have a car (with me today) (stage level)
In order to account for these facts, Bleam suggests that tener always selects a property-denoting expression. Nevertheless, in its stage-level use, tener takes a complement of type <s,t>, denoting a property over events, which syntactically amounts to a small clause containing the subject DP and a spatio-temporal predicate. In its individual-level interpretation, tener selects an <e,t> complement, denoting a property of individuals. This also accounts for the fact that in this latter use, the NP complement may never be definite (see Bleam 1999 for discussion):
as known, definite descriptions semantically correspond to individual constants and are of type e.
In the stage-level use of tener, definite nominals are allowed and this is so due to the fact that the DP is not itself a complement of tener, but the subject of the small clause, which tener takes as its complement. As such, the DP subject occupies an argumental position.
The difference of behaviour between marked and unmarked DOs in these contexts thus suggests a difference of status: while DOMed DOs are true argu-ments of the verb, being able to occur in the stage-level use of tener, their
unmarked correspondents do not have real argumenthood, being interpreted as property-denoting nominals and only co-occurring with the individual-level of tener.
2.1.4 Some syntactic phenomena which do not involve scope or specificity López (2012) identifies three special contexts where the use of DOM seems to be required in the absence of any semantic triggers such as specificity or scope.
The obligatoriness of DOM in these contexts prompts López (2012) to propose that the marking mechanism is actually syntactically triggered.
Small clause complements
One context where the use of DOM is compulsory is that of small clause comple-ments: in (14) un estudiante, the argument within the small clause complement is obligatorily DOMed; the unmarked variant is discarded as ungrammatical and so is the bare plural in (15):
(14) Considero a/*Ø un estudiante inteligente.
consider.I dom/*Ø a student intelligent
‘I consider a student intelligent.’
López (2012, 10) (15) El profesor consideró a/*Ø estudiantes inteligentes.
the professor considered dom/*Ø students intelligent
‘The professor considered students intelligent.’
López (2012, 23) The fact that DOM has not been called for by any semantic trigger in this context is accounted for by examples such as (16) below where the argument of the small clause is an indefinite DP with a non-specific interpretation, given the use of the subjunctive in the modifying relative. The use of DOM is compulsory:
(16) Juan no considera honrado a/*Ø un hombre que Juan not considers honest dom/*Ø a man that acepte sobornos
accepts.subj bribes
‘Juan does not consider honest a man that accepts bribes.’
López (2012, 25)
Object control predicates
The object of an object control predicate also requires the use of DOM:
(17) Juan forzó a/*Ø un niño a hacer los deberes.
Juan forced dom/*Ø a boy to do.inf the homework
‘John forced a child to do his homework.’
López (2012, 25) Just as in the case of small clause complements, the use of DOM with object control predicates does not seem to be imposed by any semantic considerations:
in (18) the DOMed DO has been modified by a relative clause whose predicate bears the subjunctive mood:
(18) María forzaría a/*Ø una empleada que tuviera Maria force.cond dom/*Ø an employee that had.subj depresión a venir al trabajo.
depression to come.inf to work
‘Mary would force an employee who were depressed to come to work.’
López (2012, 25) Clause union
A third syntactic context where DOM is required in Spanish is that provided by accusative affected arguments in clause union. In the causative construction pre-sented under (19) below, the causee in the accusative is necessarily DOMed. An unmarked indefinite or a bare plural is out.
(19) a. María hizo llegar tarde a/*Ø un niño.
Maria made arrive late dom/*Ø a boy
‘Maria made a boy arrive late.’
b. * María hizo llegar tarde a/ iños.
Maria made arrive late dom/ boys
‘Maria made boys arrive late.’
López (2012, 24) Again, DOM is not triggered by specificity as may be seen from (20) where the relative clause modifying the affectee contains the subjunctive mood.
(20) María hace quedarse en clase a/*Ø un niño que Maria does stay.inf in class dom/*Ø a boy that no haya terminado los deberes.
no has.subj finished the homework.
‘Maria makes a boy that has not finished the assignment stay in class.’
López (2012, 25) Such phenomena, where specificity or scope considerations play no role with respect to the requirement for the use of DOM prompt López (2012) to observe that the mechanism comes as a consequence of the suitable environmental conditions in which the DO may find itself and that scrambling represents a prerequisite for these conditions. DOM is thus argued to be the morphological expression of a syntactic configuration (López 2012, 28).
Furthermore, the three contexts above seem to lead to the same conclusion as do the observations regarding DO behaviour with respect to specificity and scope dependencies: Spanish seems to draw a distinction between marked indefinite DOs on the one hand and unmarked indefinites and bare plurals on the other.
The syntactic and the semantic properties of these nominals seem to go hand in hand. Indeed, as will be seen in section 3: DOMed DOs are argued to function as KPs and to always leave their merge position, scrambling to a position outside the VP. By so doing, they check case against a functional projection (αP in López´
terms) and have access to a mode of semantic composition with their predicate which enables the specific/wide scope readings shown to be available for them.
Unmarked DOs and bare nominals, on the other hand, will be argued to stay within the VP and to incorporate into the predicate for case checking. As a conse-quence, they only get a non-specific/narrow scope interpretation.