I propose a novel analysis of differential object marking (DOM) that revolves around nominal licensing and, unlike most previous accounts, does not appeal to object visibility (e.g., Danon 2006, Lyutikova & Pereltsvaig 2015), object raising (e.g., Bhatt & Anagnostopoulou 1996, Baker & Vinokurova 2010), or object differentiation or identification (e.g., Aissen 2003, De Hoop & Malchukov 2008). I argue (i) that not all nominals need abstract licensing (following Massam 2001, Danon 2006, Ormazabal & Romero 2013), but also that all nominals have the potential to be licensed, that is, all nominals are visible to case and agreement processes; (ii) that the set of objects that are overtly marked (e.g., by case or agreement) can reveal the set of nominals that require licensing in a language, and (iii) that clauses typically have one obligatory nominal licenser, with secondary licensers merging only when needed for convergence (following Levin & Massam 1985; Bobaljik 1993; Laka 1993,2000; Rezac 2011). Taken together, I show that variation in the types of nominals that need licensing and the location/identity of obligatory and secondary licensers can derive crosslinguistic differences in case, agreement, and DOM patterns. This unified account simplifies our understanding of nominal licensing within and across languages, as it does not require objects to have special properties as compared to subjects, nor does it fundamentally differentiate DOM languages from non‐DOM languages. The motivating data come largely from the Neo‐Aramaic language Senaya, which clearly illustrates that certain nominals can occupy a position where abstract licensing is unavailable.

中文翻译：

---

许可和差异对象标记：新阿拉姆语的观点

我提出了一种关于差异对象标记（DOM）的新颖分析方法，该方法围绕名义许可进行，并且与大多数以前的帐户不同，它不吸引对象可见性（例如Danon 2006，Lyutikova＆Pereltsvaig 2015），对象提出（例如Bhatt和Anagnostopoulou）1996年，贝克和Vinokurova 2010年），或对象的区分或识别（例如，Aissen 2003年，De Hoop＆Malchukov 2008年）。我认为（i）并非所有名词都需要抽象许可（紧随Massam 2001，Danon 2006，Ormazabal ＆Romero 2013之后），而且所有名词都具有潜力要获得许可，即所有标称物对于案件和协议流程都是可见的；（ii）带有明显标记的一组对象（例如，通过案例或协议）可以揭示一组需要用某种语言进行许可的名词，以及（iii）条款中通常有一个强制性的名义许可人，而第二个许可人会合并仅在需要时进行收敛（以下莱＆Massam 1985 ; Bobaljik 1993 ;拉卡1993,2000 ;雷扎克2011）。综上所述，我表明，需要许可的名词类型的变化以及强制性和次级许可人的位置/身份可以导致案例，协议和DOM模式的跨语言差异。该统一帐户简化了我们对语言内部和语言之间的名义许可的理解，因为与主题相比，它不需要对象具有特殊的属性，也没有从根本上将DOM语言与非DOM语言区分开。激励数据主要来自新亚拉姆语的Senaya，它清楚地表明，某些名词可能占据无法获得抽象许可的位置。