Article published in:
Stability and Divergence in Language Contact: Factors and Mechanisms
Edited by Kurt Braunmüller, Steffen Höder and Karoline Kühl
[Studies in Language Variation 16] 2014
► pp. 265–290

Diachronic convergence and divergence in differential object marking between Spanish and Portuguese

Comparing the evolution of differential object marking (DOM) in Spanish and Portuguese between the 16th and the 20th c. we discover great differences between the two neighbor languages. Whereas in Spanish we notice a steady increase and high degree of grammaticalization of DOM, the graph for the degree of grammaticalization of DOM in Portuguese resembles a standardized normal Gaussian distribution with its peak in the 17th c. The increase of object marking until the 17th c. is in consequence of convergence towards Spanish due to the high prestige of the latter language. From the 18th c. onwards divergence due to the building of an own national and linguistic identity finally led to the disappearance of DOM in modern Portuguese.
Published online: 26 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.16.12doh
References
Ares Montes, J.
1956. Góngora y la poesía portuguesa en el s. XVII. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Backus, A.
2004 Convergence as a mechanism of language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 179–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bastardas Parera, J.
1953 Particularidades sintácticas del latín medieval. Cartularios españoles de los siglos VIII al XI. Barcelona/Madrid: Escuela de Filología.Google Scholar
Beltrán, L.
1997 Cuarenta y cinco cantigas del códice rico de Alfonso el Sabio. Palma de Mallorca: Olañeta.Google Scholar
Bossong, G.
1982 Historische Sprachwissenschaft und empirische Universalienforschung. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 33: 17–51.Google Scholar
1984 Diachronie und Pragmatik der spanischen Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 100: 92–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985 Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den Neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1990 Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachphilosophie in der Romania. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
2006 La sintaxis de las Glosas Emilianenses en una perspectiva tipológica. In Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española (Madrid, septiembre 2003), 529–543. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
2009 Divergence, convergence, contact. Challenges for the genealogical classification of languages. In Convergence and Divergence in Language Contact Situations [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 8], K. Braunmüller & J. House (eds), 13–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brito Gibrail, A.V.
2003 O acusativo preposicionado do português clássico: uma abordagem diacrônica e teórica. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
Camões, L. de
1999 [1572] Die Lusiaden – Os Lusíadas. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
CdE =
Davies, M 2002 Corpus del Español: 100 million words, 1200s–1900s. Available online at http://​www​.corpusdelespanol​.org. (May 29th 2013)Google Scholar
CDP =
Corpo Diplomático Portuguez contendo os actos e relações políticas e diplomáticas de Portugal com as diversas potençias do mundo, desde o seculo XVI até os nossos días. Lisboa: Academia Real das Sciencias. [Tomos I–XV (1862–1936). Relações com a Curia Romana (1501–1680)].
CdP = Davies, M. & Ferreira, M.
2006 Corpus do Português: 45 Million Words, 1300s–1900s. Available online at http://​www​.corpusdoportugues​.org. (May 29th 2013).Google Scholar
Company Company, C.
2003 Transitivity and grammaticalization of object. The diachronic struggle of direct and indirect object in Spanish. In Romance Objects: Transitivity in Romance Languages, G. Fiorentino (ed.), 217–260. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.
. 21989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: The University of ­Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corriente, F.
1997 Poesía dialectal árabe y romance en Alandalús. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Costa, I.
2002 O uso do artigo definido diante de nome próprio de pessoa e de possessivo do século XIII ao século XVI. In O português quinhentista. Estudos lingüísticos, R.V. Mattos e Silva & A.V. Lopes Machado Filho (eds), 283–306. Salvador: EDUFBA/Feira de Santana, UEFS.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M. & Nikolaeva, I.
2011 Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Defourneaux, M.
1964 La vie quotidienne en Espagne au siècle d’or. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Delille, K.H.
1970 Die geschichtliche Entwicklung des präpositionalen Akkusativs im Portugiesischen. Bonn: Romanisches Seminar der Universität Bonn.Google Scholar
Döhla, H.-J.
2009 El libro de Calila e Dimna (1251). Nueva edición y estudio de los dos manuscritos castellanos. Zaragoza: Instituto de Estudios Islámicos y del Oriente Próximo.Google Scholar
García García, M.
2010 Differentielle Objektmarkierung bei unbelebten Objekten im Spanischen. Dissertation Universiät Freiburg i. Br.Google Scholar
García Márquez, G.
2007 [1967] Cien años de soledad. Madrid: Real Academia Española. [Portuguese translation: 252009. Cem anos de solidão, tradução de M. Santiago. Alfragide: Dom Quixote/English translation: 1972. One Hundred Years of Solitude, translated by G. Rabassa. London: Penguin.]Google Scholar
Givón, T.
1976 Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Subject and Topic, C.N. Li (ed.), 149–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, E.
1966 Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist, New Series 68(4): 922–935. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, K.
2008 Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish. Probus 20: 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, K. & Kaiser, G.
2011 Affectedness and differential object marking in Spanish. In Morphology 21, 593–617. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundertmark-Santos Martins, M.T.
. 21998 Portugiesische Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, G.
2010/11 Towards a Typological Study of Differential Object Marking and Differential Object Indexation. Ph.D. dissertation, Università degli Studi di Pavia.Google Scholar
Koch, R. & Österreicher, W.
1985 Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.Google Scholar
2007 Lengua hablada en la Romania: español, francés, italiano. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Labov, W.
2010 Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 3: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C.
1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montaner Frutos, A.
2011 Cantar de mio Cid. Edición, estudio y notas. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg/Círculo de Lectores.Google Scholar
Montoya, J.
1988 Alfonso X el Sabio: Cantigas. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Müller, C.
2007 Die Arcádia Lusitana. Gescheitertes Experiment oder nachhaltiger Impuls. ­Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Teo Ferrer de Mesquita.Google Scholar
Neumann-Holzschuh, I.
1997 Die Satzgliedanordnung im Spanischen. Eine diachrone Analyse. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira Marques, A.H. de
2001 Geschichte Portugals und des portugiesischen Weltreichs. ­Stuttgart: Kröner. [original: 1995. Breve História de Portugal. Lisboa: Presença]Google Scholar
Pensado Ruiz, C.
1995 La creación del complemento directo preposicional y la flexión de los pronombres personales en las lenguas románicas. In El complemento directo preposicional, C. Pensado Ruiz (ed.), 179–230. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Reichenkron, G.
1951 Das präpositionale Akkusativ-Objekt im ältesten Spanisch. Romanische Forschungen 63: 342–397.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, B.
1557/58 [1554] Primeira e segunda parte do liuro chamado as Saudades de Bernardim Ribeiro com todas suas obras; treladado de seu proprio original [Menina e moça]. Évora: Casa de Andre de Burgos.Google Scholar
Schäfer-Prieß, B.
2000 Die portugiesische Grammatikschreibung von 1540 bis 1822: Entstehungsbedingungen und Kategorisierungsverfahren vor dem Hintergrund der lateinischen, spanischen und französischen Tradition. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 O acusativo preposicional na história da língua portuguesa. In História da Língua e História da Gramática. Actas do Encontro, B. Head et al. (eds), 405–419. Braga: Universidade do Minho.Google Scholar
Schäfer-Prieß, B. & Schöntag, R.
2012 Spanisch/Portugiesisch kontrastiv. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M.
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies & New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Theyssier, P.
1959 La langue de Gil Vicente. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Thomason, S.G.
2001 Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington D.C.: Georgetown ­University Press.Google Scholar
Verney, L.A.
1746 Verdadeiro método de estudar, para ser util à Republica, e à Igreja: proporcionado ao estilo, e necesidade de Portugal, 2 vols. Valensa: Na oficina de Antonio Ballé.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, M.
1999 Animacy and Reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar