Differential argument marking

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.

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]

Differential Subject Marking
Differential Object Marking
Differential Agent Marking/Optional Ergative Marking
Differential Recipient Marking
Differential Theme Marking

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 saw the book'

(1b)

hasan

hasan:SG.NOM

ketab

book:NOM

did

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

'He/she drank (all) the milk"

(2b)

hän

he/she:SG.NOM

jo-i

drink-PST.3SG

maito-a

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 Category	Hierarchy
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

'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

'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

'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 Category	Hierarchy
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

'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

'Who did you see there?"

xɀe-li

see:PST.1SG

tómɒ

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

'He makes food'

(5b)

Contrasted Agent

khōng-ki'

he-ERG

khāla’

food

so̱-kiyo:re’

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]

References

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.
Dalrymple, Mary; Nikolaeva, Irina (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521199858. OCLC 711047863.
Bossong, Georg (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung: differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. ISBN 978-3878083641. OCLC 13348020.
de Hoop, Helen; de Swart, Peter, eds. (2009). Differential Subject Marking. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6497-5. ISBN 978-1-4020-6498-2. ISSN 0924-4670. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
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.
de Hoop, Helen; de Swart, Peter (2009). Differential Subject Marking. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-6497-5.
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.
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.
Aissen, Judith (2003). "Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 21 (3): 435–483. doi:10.1023/A:1024109008573. S2CID 170258629.
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.
Croft, William (November 2002). Typology and Universals by William Croft. Cambridge Core. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840579. ISBN 9780511840579. Retrieved 2019-01-21.
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.
Mohanan, Tara. 1990. Arguments in Hindi. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University. [p. 104]
Iemmolo, Giorgio (2010-01-01). "Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond". 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.
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.
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2011. Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. PhD Thesis, University of Pavia.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[:0-1] 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.

[:1-2] 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.

[:5-4] Hoop, Helen; de Swart, Peter, eds. (2009). Differential Subject Marking. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6497-5. ISBN 978-1-4020-6498-2. ISSN 0924-4670. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)

[:4-5] 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.

[hoopswart-6] 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.

[:6-8] 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.

[:2-11] 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.

[:3-13] Mohanan, Tara. 1990. Arguments in Hindi. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University. [p. 104]

[:7-14] Iemmolo, Giorgio (2010-01-01). "Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond". 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.

[:8-15] 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.