<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.4 20241031//EN"
        "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.4/JATS-journalpublishing1-4.dtd">
<article  article-type="research-article"        dtd-version="1.4">
            <front>

                <journal-meta>
                                                                <journal-id>jlr</journal-id>
            <journal-title-group>
                                                                                    <journal-title>Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi</journal-title>
            </journal-title-group>
                            <issn pub-type="ppub">1300-8552</issn>
                                        <issn pub-type="epub">2587-0939</issn>
                                                                                            <publisher>
                    <publisher-name>Dilbilim Derneği</publisher-name>
                </publisher>
                    </journal-meta>
                <article-meta>
                                        <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18492/dad.1213001</article-id>
                                                                <article-categories>
                                            <subj-group  xml:lang="en">
                                                            <subject>Linguistics</subject>
                                                            <subject>Linguistic Structures (Incl. Phonology, Morphology and Syntax)</subject>
                                                    </subj-group>
                                            <subj-group  xml:lang="tr">
                                                            <subject>Dilbilim</subject>
                                                            <subject>Dilsel Yapılar (Fonoloji, Morfoloji ve Sözdizimi dahil)</subject>
                                                    </subj-group>
                                    </article-categories>
                                                                                                                                                        <title-group>
                                                                                                                        <trans-title-group xml:lang="tr">
                                    <trans-title>Differential Object Marking and Nominal Licensing</trans-title>
                                </trans-title-group>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <article-title>Differential Object Marking and Nominal Licensing</article-title>
                                                                                                    </title-group>
            
                                                    <contrib-group content-type="authors">
                                                                        <contrib contrib-type="author">
                                                                    <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">
                                        https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1657-9654</contrib-id>
                                                                <name>
                                    <surname>Atlamaz</surname>
                                    <given-names>Ümit</given-names>
                                </name>
                                                                    <aff>BOĞAZİÇİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ</aff>
                                                            </contrib>
                                                                                </contrib-group>
                        
                                        <pub-date pub-type="pub" iso-8601-date="20230620">
                    <day>06</day>
                    <month>20</month>
                    <year>2023</year>
                </pub-date>
                                        <volume>34</volume>
                                        <issue>1</issue>
                                        <fpage>27</fpage>
                                        <lpage>56</lpage>
                        
                        <history>
                                    <date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="20221201">
                        <day>12</day>
                        <month>01</month>
                        <year>2022</year>
                    </date>
                                                    <date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="20230220">
                        <day>02</day>
                        <month>20</month>
                        <year>2023</year>
                    </date>
                            </history>
                                        <permissions>
                    <copyright-statement>Copyright © 1990, Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi</copyright-statement>
                    <copyright-year>1990</copyright-year>
                    <copyright-holder>Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi</copyright-holder>
                </permissions>
            
                                                                                                <trans-abstract xml:lang="tr">
                            <p>Bu makale Değişken Nesne Belirlemeyi sözdizimde oluşturulmuş uyum ilişkilerinin Sözdizim sonrası bir işlem olan Uyum-Durum tarafından prop yerine hedef üzerinde belirtilmesi sonucunda ortaya çıkan durum olarak tanımlamaktadır. Bu bakımdan Nichols&#039;un (1986) Baş-Belirleme ve Bağımlı-Belirleme ikileminin güncel bir yorumlamasıdır. Keşmircedeki Değişken Nesne Belirlemenin karmaşık detayları analiz edilerek, sadece bazı ad öbeklerinin sınırlı durumlarda izne tabi oldukları gösterilmektedir. Kalin&#039;in (2018) Kişi Uyum Kısıtlaması ve Değişken Nesne Belirlemenin benzer yapılarda ortaya çıktığı gözleminden hareketle, Kişi Uyum Kısıtlamasının Uyum-Durum göstermeyen dillerde orataya çıktığı iddia edilmektedir.</p></trans-abstract>
                                                                                                                                    <abstract><p>This paper presents a novel account of Differential Object Marking as an instance of case assigned by a post-syntactic Agree-Case operation that transduces agreement relations established in the syntax by marking the goal rather than the probe. In this sense, it is a modern interpretation of Nichols&#039; (1986) Head-Marking and Dependent Marking dichotomy. Analyzing the intricate details of Differential Object Markin in Kashmiri, I show that not all but some nominals need licensing under well defined syntactic configurations. Expanding on Kalin&#039;s (2018) observation that Person Case Constraint (PCC) and Differential Object Marking occur in similar configurations, I argue that PCC is observed in languages that do not have an Agree-Case mechanism.</p></abstract>
                                                            
            
                                                                                        <kwd-group>
                                                    <kwd>Differential Object Marking</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Nominal Licensing</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Split Ergativity</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Agree-Case</kwd>
                                            </kwd-group>
                            
                                                <kwd-group xml:lang="tr">
                                                    <kwd>Differential Object Marking</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Nominal Licensing</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Split Ergativity</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Agree-Case</kwd>
                                            </kwd-group>
                                                                                                                                        </article-meta>
    </front>
    <back>
                            <ref-list>
                                    <ref id="ref1">
                        <label>1</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref2">
                        <label>2</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Arregi, K., &amp; Nevins, A. (2012). Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout (Vol. 86). Springer Science &amp; Business Media.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref3">
                        <label>3</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Atlamaz, Ü. (2019). Agreement, case, and nominal licensing (Doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University-School of Graduate Studies.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref4">
                        <label>4</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Atlamaz, Ü., &amp; Baker, M. C. (2018). On partial agreement and oblique case. Syntax, 21(3), 195–237.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref5">
                        <label>5</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Baker, M., &amp; Vinokurova, N. (2010). On tense and copular verbs in nonverbal predications in Sakha (tech. rep.). Rutgers University.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref6">
                        <label>6</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Baker, M. C. (1996). The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford University Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref7">
                        <label>7</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Baker, M. C. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge University Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref8">
                        <label>8</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Baker, M. C. (2015). Case: its principles and its parameters. Cambridge University Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref9">
                        <label>9</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Barány, A. (2017). Person, case, and agreement: The morphosyntax of inverse agreement and global case splits. Oxford University Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref10">
                        <label>10</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Béjar, S., &amp; Rezac, M. (2003). Person licensing and the derivation of pcc effects. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux &amp; Y. Roberge (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition. John Benjamins Publishing.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref11">
                        <label>11</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Béjar, S., &amp; Rezac, M. (2009). Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(1), 35–73. Bhatt, R. (2005). Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory, 23(4), 757–807.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref12">
                        <label>12</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bhatt, R., &amp; Anagnostopoulou, E. (1996). Object shift and specificity: Evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. Papers from the 32nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, 1122.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref13">
                        <label>13</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bhatt, R., &amp; Walkow, M. (2013). Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory, 31(4), 951–1013.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref14">
                        <label>14</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bhatt, R. M. (2013). Verb movement and the syntax of Kashmiri (Vol. 46). Springer Science &amp; Business Media.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref15">
                        <label>15</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bobaljik, J. (1993). On ergativity and ergative unergatives. MIT Working papers in Linguistics, 19(4588), 334-385.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref16">
                        <label>16</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bobaljik, J. (2008). Where is phi. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, &amp; S. Béjar (Eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces: Phi-features across modules and interfaces. Oxford University Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref17">
                        <label>17</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische universalienforschung (Vol. 14). Narr. Bossong, G. (1991). Differential object marking in romance and beyond. New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref18">
                        <label>18</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, &amp; J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step. essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). MIT Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref19">
                        <label>19</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref20">
                        <label>20</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Comrie, B. (1979). Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana, 3, 13–21.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref21">
                        <label>21</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Croft, W. (1988). Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, 159–179.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref22">
                        <label>22</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">de Hoop, H., &amp; Malchukov, A. L. (2008). Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(4), 565–587.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref23">
                        <label>23</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 20. MIT Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref24">
                        <label>24</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic inquiry, 1–25.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref25">
                        <label>25</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Hiraiwa, K. (2005). Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref26">
                        <label>26</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Kalin, L. (2017). Dropping the f-bomb: An argument for valued features as derivational time-bombs. In A. Lamont &amp; K. Tetzloff (Eds.), NELS 47: Proceedings of the forty-seventh annual meeting of the north east linguistic society (pp. 119–132). GLSA Publications.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref27">
                        <label>27</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Kalin, L. (2018). Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax, 21(2), 112–159.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref28">
                        <label>28</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Laka, I. (1996). A brief grammar of Euskara, the Basque language. Universidad del Pais Vasco, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Euskarazko Errektoreordetza.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref29">
                        <label>29</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Levin, T. (2018). On the nature of differential object marking. Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory, 1–47.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref30">
                        <label>30</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Levin, T., &amp; Preminger, O. (2015). Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary? Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory, 33(1), 231–250.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref31">
                        <label>31</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8).</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref32">
                        <label>32</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Marusšič, F., Nevins, A., &amp; Badecker, W. (2015). The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax, 18(1), 39–77.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref33">
                        <label>33</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Massam, D. (2001). Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 153–197.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref34">
                        <label>34</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Næss, Å. (2004). What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua, 114 (9), 1186–1212.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref35">
                        <label>35</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 56–119.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref36">
                        <label>36</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Preminger, O. (2011). Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s scopa. Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory, 29(4), 917–937.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref37">
                        <label>37</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Preminger, O. (2014). Agreement and its failures (Vol. 68). MIT Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref38">
                        <label>38</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Richards, M. (2008). Defective agree, case alternations, and the prominence of person. In M. Richards &amp; A. L. 
Malchukov (Eds.), Scales (pp. 137–162). Institut für Linguistik Universität Leipzig.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref39">
                        <label>39</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Richards, N. W. (1997). What moves where when in which languages? (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref40">
                        <label>40</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Ritter, E., &amp; Wiltschko, M. (2014). The composition of infl. Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory, 32(4), 1331–1386.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref41">
                        <label>41</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. The MIT Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref42">
                        <label>42</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (112-171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref43">
                        <label>43</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Torrego, E. (1998). The dependencies of objects (Vol. 34). MIT Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref44">
                        <label>44</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">van Koppen, M. (2007). Agreement with coordinated subjects: A comparative perspective. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 7(1), 121–161.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref45">
                        <label>45</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Verbeke, S. (2013). Alignment and ergativity in new Indo-Aryan languages. Mouton De Gruyter.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref46">
                        <label>46</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Vergnaud, J. (2008). Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on Filters and Control, April 17, 1977. Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 45, 3.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref47">
                        <label>47</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Wali, K., &amp; Koul, O. N. (1997). Kashmiri: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. Psychology Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                            </ref-list>
                    </back>
    </article>
