Differential argument marking

Last updated

In linguistics, differential argument marking (DAM) is the phenomenon of a language's encoding a single grammatical function (e.g. subject or object) in different ways. [1] It includes non-uniform encoding of arguments in terms of case marking, but also in terms of the presence or absence of agreement on the verb. [2] The term differential marking – specifically differential object marking or DOM – was coined by Georg Bossong in relation to his work on Sardinian and New Iranian languages. [3] However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in the great variety of differential marking patterns across the world's languages in both formal and functional linguistics.

Contents

Types of differential marking

There are several sub-types of differential argument marking depending on the grammatical function and/or semantic role of the differentially-marked argument: [1]

The most widely studied are differential object marking, differential subject marking, [4] and optional ergative marking. [5]

Differential object marking

Differential subject marking

Case-marking is one of the formal guises of differential subject marking, along with agreement, inverse systems and voice alterations, which goes hand in hand with differential subject marking. The use of case marking on subject is to differentiate prominence in arguments. [6] It can be used on subjects of transitive verbs and intransitive verbs. The definiteness and animacy scale of differential subject marking has the same hierarchical structure exhibited in the section on differential object marking. The functional motivation for the implementation of differential subject and object marking is to avoid ambiguity as to what is subject and object in transitive clauses. The most natural hierarchy of animacy and definiteness places transitive subjects higher than transitive object. [6]

Optional vs alternating systems

Some people draw a distinction between optional and alternating systems of differential marking. [7] An optional system is one in which the case marker can be either present or absent. This can be illustrated from Persian: [8]

(1a)
Optional Case Marking

hasan

hasan:SG.NOM

ketab-râ

book-ACC

did

see:PST.3SG

hasan ketab-râ did

hasan:SG.NOM book-ACC see:PST.3SG

'Hasan saw the book'

(1b)

hasan

hasan:SG.NOM

ketab

book:NOM

did

see:PST.3SG

hasan ketab did

hasan:SG.NOM book:NOM see:PST.3SG

'Hasan saw a book'

An alternating system is one in which two different case markers alternate in marking the same argument. This can be illustrated from Finnish: [8]

(2a)
Alternating Case Marking

hän

he/she:SG.NOM

jo-i

drink-PST.3SG

maido-n

milk-ACC

hän jo-i maido-n

he/she:SG.NOM drink-PST.3SG milk-ACC

'He/she drank (all) the milk"

(2b)

hän

he/she:SG.NOM

jo-i

drink-PST.3SG

maito-a

milk-PART

hän jo-i maito-a

he/she:SG.NOM drink-PST.3SG milk-PART

'He/she drank (some of) the milk"

Patterns of differential marking

Differential marking is known to be affected by a range of semantic and information structure factors. [2] [1] These include semantic properties of the argument such as animacy, definiteness and referentiality. [9] It also includes properties related to the event semantics, such as the affectedness of arguments or the level of volitionality or control. [10] Finally, in many languages, differential marking is related to the status of arguments as either topical or focal. [2] There appear to be cross-linguistic differences in the triggering factors depending on whether the subject (agent) or object (patient) is differentially-marked. [1]

Person and animacy

In some cases, arguments are marked differential depending on their inherent properties. Examples of inherent properties that affect argument marking include the person, animacy and uniqueness features of a noun, which are often expressed as a hierarchy or scale. [1]

Inherent Semantic Properties of Arguments
Semantic CategoryHierarchy
Person [11] first/second person > third person > obviative/fourth person
Animacy [12] human > animate non-human (animals) > inanimate
Uniqueness [11] proper noun > common noun

In cases of differential marking, arguments that are higher on the scale tend to have one form of marking, whilst arguments lower on the scale have a different form of marking. [1] The cut off point may not be the same in all languages. An example is Hindi where the marking of objects is affected by animacy. Animate objects are marked with accusative case, irrespective of whether the argument is definite or not. In contrast, if an inanimate object is marked for the accusative case, the object must be definite. [13]

(3a)
Animate Object

लड़के-ने

lar̥ke-ne

boy:MASC.SG.ERG

बच्चे-को

bacce-ko

kid:MASC.SG-ACC

उठाया

uṭhāyā

lift:PRF.MASC.SG

लड़के-ने बच्चे-को उठाया

lar̥ke-ne bacce-ko uṭhāyā

boy:MASC.SG.ERG kid:MASC.SG-ACC lift:PRF.MASC.SG

'The boy lifted a/the kid up'

(3b)
Inanimate Object

लड़के-ने

lar̥ke-ne

boy:MASC.SG-ERG

हार

hār

necklace:MASC.SG.NOM

उठाया

uṭhāyā

lift:PRF.MASC.SG

लड़के-ने हार उठाया

lar̥ke-ne hār uṭhāyā

boy:MASC.SG-ERG necklace:MASC.SG.NOM lift:PRF.MASC.SG

'The boy lifted a/the necklace'

लड़के-ने

lar̥ke-ne

boy:MASC.SG-ERG

हार-को

hār-ko

necklace:MASC.SG-ACC

उठाया

uṭhāyā

lift:PRF.MASC.SG

लड़के-ने हार-को उठाया

lar̥ke-ne hār-ko uṭhāyā

boy:MASC.SG-ERG necklace:MASC.SG-ACC lift:PRF.MASC.SG

'The boy lifted the necklace'

Definiteness and specificity

Differential marking can also be affected by discourse-related semantic features, such as definiteness and specificity. [1] Like other semantic features, these can also be represented as a hierarchy.

Discourse-related Properties of Arguments
Semantic CategoryHierarchy
Definiteness [11] Definite > Indefinite (specific) > Indefinite (non-specific)

Information structure

Differential marking is also linked to information structure and the status of an argument as either topic or focus. [1] Like definiteness, this is related to the status of the argument in discourse and depends on the context. Differential marking of agents and patients appear to be affected by different information structure triggers. Differential object marking often signals the status of a patient as topical. [2] In contrast, differential agent marking often signals the status of an agent as being in focus. [5] [1]

An example of differential object marking that is affected by information structure is Neo-Aramaic. In the Neo-Aramaic dialect of Telkepe, objects can either be unmarked or marked with ta. Objects that are topical, such as (4a), are marked with ta. Objects that are not topical cannot be marked with ta, for example when they have argument focus as the answer to a question, as in (4b). [14]

(4a)
Topical Object

pəš-lə

become:PST.3SG.MASC

ham-āwu

also-he

ɀəl-lə

go.PST.3SG.MASC

pláxɒ

working

gebəd-malkɒ

chez-king

ta-t-qātəl-lə

for-that-kill.3SG.M.OBJ.3SG.MASC

ta

TOP

malkɒ

king

pəš-lə ham-āwu ɀəl-lə pláxɒ gebəd-malkɒ ta-t-qātəl-lə ta malkɒ

become:PST.3SG.MASC also-he go.PST.3SG.MASC working chez-king for-that-kill.3SG.M.OBJ.3SG.MASC TOP king

'He too went to work with the king, in order to kill the king'

(4b)
Non-topical Object

mán

who

xɀe-lux

see:PST.2SG.MASC

tā?

there

mán xɀe-lux tā?

who see:PST.2SG.MASC there

'Who did you see there?"

xɀe-li

see:PST.1SG

tómɒ

thomas

xɀe-li tómɒ

see:PST.1SG thomas

'I saw Thomas."

An example of differential agent marking that is affected by information structure is Tibetan. In Central Lhasa Tibetan, an agent in a transitive clause can either be marked with ergative marking or unmarked. [15] When the agent is a topic, which is the most common role for agents cross-linguistically, [1] it is normally unmarked, as in (5a). However, when the agent is contrasted, it will be marked with ergative case, as in (5b).

(5a)
Topical Agent

khōng

he.NOM

khāla’

food

so̱-kiyo:re’

make:IPFV.GNOM

khōng khāla’ so̱-kiyo:re’

he.NOM food make:IPFV.GNOM

'He makes food'

(5b)
Contrasted Agent

khōng-ki'

he-ERG

khāla’

food

so̱-kiyo:re’

make-IPFV.GNOM

khōng-ki' khāla’ so̱-kiyo:re’

he-ERG food make-IPFV.GNOM

'He makes food (and not someone else)'

Differential case marking vs differential agreement

It remains a matter of debate whether differential argument marking (i.e. the presence or absence of case markers) and differential argument indexing (i.e. the presence or absence of verbal agreement) are part of the same phenomenon or not. [1] [16] Some have argued that differential case marking and differential agreement should be treated as the same phenomenon on the basis that the share many functional similarities. [2] Others have argued that they are different, pointing to different functions, motivations and historical development. [4]

Related Research Articles

A grammatical case is a category of nouns and noun modifiers which corresponds to one or more potential grammatical functions for a nominal group in a wording. In various languages, nominal groups consisting of a noun and its modifiers belong to one of a few such categories. For instance, in English, one says I see them and they see me: the nominative pronouns I/they represent the perceiver and the accusative pronouns me/them represent the phenomenon perceived. Here, nominative and accusative are cases, that is, categories of pronouns corresponding to the functions they have in representation.

Animacy is a grammatical and semantic feature, existing in some languages, expressing how sentient or alive the referent of a noun is. Widely expressed, animacy is one of the most elementary principles in languages around the globe and is a distinction acquired as early as six months of age.

In linguistic typology, split ergativity is a feature of certain languages where some constructions use ergative syntax and morphology, but other constructions show another pattern, usually nominative–accusative. The conditions in which ergative constructions are used vary among different languages.

In linguistic typology, ergative–absolutive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the single argument ("subject") of an intransitive verb behaves like the object of a transitive verb, and differently from the agent ("subject") of a transitive verb. Examples include Basque, Georgian, Mayan, Tibetan, and certain Indo-European languages. It has also been attributed to the Semitic modern Aramaic languages. Ergative languages are classified into 2 groups: those that are morphologically ergative but syntactically behave as accusative and those that—on top of being ergative morphologically—also show ergativity in syntax. No language has been recorded in which both the morphological and syntactical ergative are present. Languages that belong to the former group are more numerous than those to the latter. Dyirbal is said to be the only representative of syntactic ergativity, yet it displays accusative alignment with certain pronouns.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nominative–accusative alignment</span> Concept of sentence structure in linguistics

In linguistic typology, nominative–accusative alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which subjects of intransitive verbs are treated like subjects of transitive verbs, and are distinguished from objects of transitive verbs in basic clause constructions. Nominative–accusative alignment can be coded by case-marking, verb agreement and/or word order. It has a wide global distribution and is the most common alignment system among the world's languages. Languages with nominative–accusative alignment are commonly called nominative–accusative languages.

In linguistic typology, tripartite alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the main argument ('subject') of an intransitive verb, the agent argument ('subject') of a transitive verb, and the patient argument of a transitive verb are each treated distinctly in the grammatical system of a language. This is in contrast with nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive alignment languages, in which the argument of an intransitive verb patterns with either the agent argument of the transitive or with the patient argument of the transitive. Thus, whereas in English, "she" in "she runs" patterns with "she" in "she finds it", and an ergative language would pattern "she" in "she runs" with "her" in "he likes her", a tripartite language would treat the "she" in "she runs" as morphologically and/or syntactically distinct from either argument in "he likes her".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alyutor language</span> Chukotkan language of Kamchatka, Russia

Alyutor or Alutor is a language of Russia that belongs to the Chukotkan branch of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages.

In linguistics, an unaccusative verb is an intransitive verb whose grammatical subject is not a semantic agent. In other words, the subject does not actively initiate, or is not actively responsible for, the action expressed by the verb. An unaccusative verb's subject is semantically similar to the direct object of a transitive verb or to the subject of a verb in the passive voice.

The dative construction is a grammatical way of constructing a sentence, using the dative case. A sentence is also said to be in dative construction if the subject and the object can switch their places for a given verb, without altering the verb's structure. The latter case is not to be confused with the passive voice, where only the direct object of a sentence becomes the subject of the passive-voiced sentence, and the verb's structure also changes to convey the meaning of the passive voice. The dative construction tends to occur when the verb indicates a state rather than an action.

The definition of a direct–inverse language is a matter under research, but it is widely understood to involve different grammar for transitive predications according to the relative positions of their "subject" and their "object" on a person hierarchy, which, in turn, is some combination of saliency and animacy specific to a given language. The direct construction is the unmarked one. The direct construction is used when the subject of the transitive clause outranks the object in the person hierarchy, and the inverse is used when the object outranks the subject.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hindustani grammar</span> Grammatical features of the Hindustani lingua franca

Hindustani, the lingua franca of Northern India and Pakistan, has two standardised registers: Hindi and Urdu. Grammatical differences between the two standards are minor but each uses its own script: Hindi uses Devanagari while Urdu uses an extended form of the Perso-Arabic script, typically in the Nastaʿlīq style.

In linguistic typology, a verb–object–subject or verb–object–agent language, which is commonly abbreviated VOS or VOA, is one in which most sentences arrange their elements in that order. That would be the equivalent in English to "Drank cocktail Sam." The relatively rare default word order accounts for only 3% of the world's languages. It is the fourth-most common default word order among the world's languages out of the six. It is a more common default permutation than OVS and OSV but is significantly rarer than SOV, SVO, and VSO. Families in which all or many of their languages are VOS include the following:

Symmetrical voice, also known as Austronesian alignment, the Philippine-type voice system or the Austronesian focus system, is a typologically unusual kind of morphosyntactic alignment in which "one argument can be marked as having a special relationship to the verb". This special relationship manifests itself as a voice affix on the verb that corresponds to the syntactic role of a noun within the clause, that is either marked for a particular grammatical case or is found in a privileged structural position within the clause or both.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wagiman language</span> Indigenous Australian language

Wagiman, also spelt Wageman, Wakiman, Wogeman, and other variants, is a near-extinct Aboriginal Australian language spoken by a small number of Wagiman people in and around Pine Creek, in the Katherine Region of the Northern Territory.

In linguistics, quirky subjects are a phenomenon where certain verbs specify that their subjects are to be in a case other than the nominative. These non-nominative subjects are determiner phrases that pass subjecthood tests such as subject-oriented anaphora binding, PRO control, reduced relative clause, conjunction reduction, subject-to-subject raising, and subject-to-object raising.

The grammar of the Marathi language shares similarities with other modern Indo-Aryan languages such as Odia, Gujarati or Punjabi. The first modern book exclusively about the grammar of Marathi was printed in 1805 by Willam Carey.

In linguistics, differential object marking (DOM) is the phenomenon in which certain objects of verbs are marked to reflect various syntactic and semantic factors. One form of the more general phenomenon of differential argument marking, DOM is present in more than 300 languages. The term "differential object marking" was coined by Georg Bossong.

In linguistics, a yes–no question, also known as a binary question, a polar question, or a general question, is a question whose expected answer is one of two choices, one that provides an affirmative answer to the question versus one that provides a negative answer to the question. Typically, in English, the choices are either "yes" or "no". Yes–no questions present an exclusive disjunction, namely a pair of alternatives of which only one is a felicitous answer. In English, such questions can be formed in both positive and negative forms

In grammar, the voice of a verb describes the relationship between the action that the verb expresses and the participants identified by its arguments. When the subject is the agent or doer of the action, the verb is in the active voice. When the subject is the patient, target or undergoer of the action, the verb is said to be in the passive voice. When the subject both performs and receives the action expressed by the verb, the verb is in the middle voice.

In generative linguistics, Burzio's generalization is the observation that a verb can assign a theta role to its subject position if and only if it can assign an accusative case to its object. Accordingly, if a verb does not assign a theta role to its subject, then it does not assign accusative case to its object. The generalization is named after Italian linguist Luigi Burzio, based on work published in the 1980s, but the seeds of the idea are found in earlier scholarship. The generalization can be logically written in the following equation:

    θ ↔ A  Where: θ = Subject Theta Role  A = Accusative Case

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Seržant, Ilja A.; Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena (2018). Seržant, Ilja; Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena (eds.). Diachrony of differential argument marking (pdf). Berlin: Language Science Press. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1219168 . ISBN   9783961100859.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Dalrymple, Mary; Nikolaeva, Irina (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   9780521199858. OCLC   711047863.
  3. Bossong, Georg (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung: differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. ISBN   978-3878083641. OCLC   13348020.
  4. 1 2 de Hoop, Helen; de Swart, Peter, eds. (2009). Differential Subject Marking. Vol. 72. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6497-5. ISBN   978-1-4020-6498-2. ISSN   0924-4670.{{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  5. 1 2 McGregor, William B. (2010). "Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective". Lingua. 120 (7): 1610–1636. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010. ISSN   0024-3841.
  6. 1 2 de Hoop, Helen; de Swart, Peter (2009). Differential Subject Marking. Springer. ISBN   978-1-4020-6497-5.
  7. Chappell, Hilary; Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (2019). "Optional and alternating case marking: Typology and diachrony". Language and Linguistics Compass. 13 (3): e12311. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12311. ISSN   1749-818X. S2CID   108332641.
  8. 1 2 Iemmolo, Giorgio (2014). "Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding" (PDF). STUF - Language Typology and Universals. 66 (4): 378–403. doi:10.1524/stuf.2013.0019. ISSN   2196-7148. S2CID   197670084.
  9. Aissen, Judith (2003). "Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 21 (3): 435–483. doi:10.1023/A:1024109008573. S2CID   170258629.
  10. Næss, Åshild (2004). "What markedness marks: the markedness problem with direct objects". Lingua. 114 (9–10): 1186–1212. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005. ISSN   0024-3841.
  11. 1 2 3 Croft, William (November 2002). Typology and Universals by William Croft. Cambridge Core. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840579. ISBN   9780511840579 . Retrieved 2019-01-21.
  12. Aissen, Judith (2003-08-01). "Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 21 (3): 435–483. doi:10.1023/A:1024109008573. ISSN   1573-0859. S2CID   170258629.
  13. Mohanan, Tara. 1990. Arguments in Hindi. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University. [p. 104]
  14. Iemmolo, Giorgio (2010-01-01). "Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond" (PDF). Studies in Language. International Journal Sponsored by the Foundation "Foundations of Language". 34 (2): 239–272. doi:10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem. ISSN   0378-4177. S2CID   51471322.
  15. Tournadre, Nicolas (1995-07-17). "Tibetan Ergativity and the Trajectory Model". Senri Ethnological Studies (in Japanese). 41: 261–275. doi:10.15021/00002998. ISSN   0387-6004.
  16. Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2011. Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. PhD Thesis, University of Pavia.