Oblique differential object marking and types of nominals

The question of whether differentially marked objects should be linked with Case licensing or some other mechanism in the grammar has given rise to numerous debates. Addressing contexts of differential object marking (DOM) with oblique morphology, this article shows that, while the Case licensing approach might be adequate for varieties of Spanish, oblique differential marking rather signals an independent licensing operation, beyond Case, in languages like Romanian, Gujarati or Mandarin Chinese. This additional mechanism, relevant at the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface, tracks the role of grammaticalized animates or how the speaker relates to other entities in the discourse. Additionally, the data examined here indicate that objects can come in a variety of sizes and structures, with distinct licensing constraints, such that the divide Case licensed/unlicensed or Case licensing/(pseudo-)incorporation is not enough.

Representational and Computational Changes in Heritage Language Grammars

The notion of complexity has been applied to descriptions and comparisons of languages and to explanations related to ease and difficulty of various linguistic phenomena in first and second language acquisition. It has been noted that compared to baseline grammars, heritage language grammars are less complex, displaying morphological simplification and structural shrinking, especially among heritage speakers with lower proficiency in the language. On some recent proposals of gender agreement in Spanish and Norwegian (Fuchs et al., 2015; Lohndal & Putnam, 2020), these differences are representational, affecting the projection of functional categories and feature specifications in the syntax. An alternative possibility is that differences between baseline and heritage grammars arise from computational considerations related to bilingualism, affecting speed of lexical access and feature reassembly online in the minority language. We illustrate this proposal with empirical data from gender agreement and differential object marking. Although presented as alternatives, the representational and computational explanations are not incompatible, and may both be adequate to capture varying levels of variability modulated by linguistic proficiency. These proposals formalize bilingual acquisition models of grammar competition and directly relate the availability and type of input (the acquisition evidence) to the locus and nature of the grammatical differences between heritage and baseline grammars.