Search

This paper investigates object marking strategies in Circum-Baltic languages and beyond, using a sample of 103 predicates from 30 Western Eurasian languages from the BivalTyp database. The study aims to identify areal clusters in object marking and evaluate the relevance of the Circum-Baltic linguistic area in this context. It finds that while most Circum-Baltic languages dissolve into larger, genealogy-driven clusters, areal signals are present, particularly with Lithuanian merging with Slavic languages due to genitive-taking predicates. German deviates from the larger Germanic cluster, merging with Latvian and Hungarian without a specific marking strategy driving this alignment. The results suggest that the concept of a linguistic area is less effective for describing object marking relationships around the Baltic Sea, in contrast to the Balkan linguistic area, where cross-linguistic clusters of object marking strategies do align with the linguistic area. Additionally, the paper discusses large-scale trends, such as comitativity prominence and the comparison of observed object marking strategy distributions with the predicted Zipf distribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we investigate how verum is realized in Xhosa and Zulu, two Southern Bantu languages belonging to the Nguni group. The data for our study were collected through interviews with native speakers who were prompted to produce sentences in discourse contexts that typically license utterances with verum. We found that the main grammatical strategy for the expression of verum in Xhosa and Zulu involves the removal of phrasal constituents from the focus domain (the VP). This leaves the verb as the sole remaining focus host, and allows auxiliary features of the verb, such as polarity, to be marked as focus. Consequently, we analyse verum in Xhosa and Zulu as polarity focus, which is expressed indirectly, via the backgrounding of potentially focusable phrasal material. We also examined the prosodic properties of verum utterances in Xhosa. Based on findings from previous studies on Nguni intonation, we expected to observe lengthening of the penultimate vowels of phrase-final verbs and utterance-final words in our data. However, contrary to expectation, we did not find evidence of penultimate vowel lengthening in Xhosa sentences with verum, a (preliminary) result which suggests that the expression of verum may have an effect on prosody in Nguni languages.

This paper investigates emphatic interpretations of object marking in various Bantu languages. We focus on Lubukusu (spoken in Kenya) and Cinyungwe (spoken in Mozambique) in particular, but we also report initial evidence from other Bantu languages (mainly Tiriki, Wanga, and Ikalanga). In these languages, OM-doubling—the co-occurrence of an object marker with a lexical DP object—is infelicitous in neutral pragmatic contexts. However, we show that certain contexts make OM-doubling possible. In these contexts, OM-doubling constructions receive particular emphatic interpretations that are very different from interpretations of non-doubling object marking constructions. We identify at least four types of these interpretations: verum, mirativity, exhaustivity, and intensity. We show that emphatic interpretations of OM-doubling are widespread among Bantu languages, and we provide strategies for identifying and analyzing them. While this paper is primarily descriptive, we discuss a possible analysis of these interpretations as conventional implicatures, influenced by recent work on a similar range of emphatic interpretations arising from focus fronting in Indo-European languages.

Within the context of microvariation in Bantu, three processes are examined in Setswana – object marking, inversion constructions and diminutive marking. Setswana morpho-syntactic structures for these constructions present instances that distinguish Setswana from Eastern Bantu languages and yet also cases of similarity with patterns more commonly attested in Eastern rather than Southern Bantu languages. Using a comparative-parametric approach Setswana is shown to pattern with Southern Bantu in its default agreement and diminutive marking patterns while its flexibility in allowing multiple object markers with free ordering is more closely related to Eastern Bantu, suggesting complex historical patterns of contact.

We describe and analyze a novel pattern of locative inversion, passivization, and object clitics in Xitsonga, a Bantu language of South Africa. We note that, unlike in most Bantu languages, locative inversion can take place with intransitives, transitives with active voice, and transitives with passive voice. While subject marking is obligatory, object marking is optional and indicates emphasis, although the semantic details are unclear. An interesting pattern emerges with locative inversion. Object marking is possible only with passive voice. We present an analysis in which the subject and object markers are clitics that are inserted postsyntactically. The subject clitic is triggered by agreement between T and the grammatical subject. The object clitic is triggered by theta assignment by V (which raises to Asp) to the thematic object. In locative inversion, the external argument remains in situ and serves as an intervenor between V (housed on Asp) and the object. In the passive, the external argument is suppressed or appears in a by-phrase, and the object can trigger the appearance of the object clitic on Asp. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a number of Bantu languages, object marking is correlated with a definite or specific interpretation of the agreeing object DP, and similar claims about the semantic effects of object marking have also been made for Zulu (Nguni; S42). This paper examines these claims by applying a range of diagnostic tests for (in)definiteness and (non-)specificity to sentences with object-marked objects in Zulu. The paper's first finding is that agreeing objects in Zulu can violate the uniqueness requirement that holds for definite expressions, and can therefore appear in contexts in which definite DPs are not tolerated. The second finding is that object-marked objects in Zulu can take narrow scope in relation to intensional verbs and negation, in which case they are interpreted as (scopally) non-specific. Object marking in Zulu therefore cannot be regarded as a morphosyntactic device to mark definiteness or specificity. Rather, it is suggested that the interpretative effects of object marking follow from information structure: agreeing DPs in Zulu are obligatorily dislocated and hence appear outside the focus domain (the vP). Consequently, an agreeing object in Zulu is incompatible with semantic focus, which implies that it can (but crucially, does not have to) be interpreted as denoting a discourse-familiar referent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the case-marking system of Khengkha, an East Bodish language spoken in Bhutan, which employs case markers for a variety of functions. A monologue, a conversation among three native Khengkha speakers (two males, aged 27 and 41, and one female, aged 58) and an interview were audio recorded to gather data. The study found that the A argument is primarily marked with ergative markers while the S argument is unmarked. But some S arguments which are associated with emphasis and contrastive focus are seen marked. With regard to the O argument, there is one set of bivalent verbs that requires the O argument to be unmarked and there is another set of verbs which always mark the O argument. Similarly, the case marker of the instrumental, genitive, locative, allative and ablative are also discussed, followed by a detailed discussion on the case marking of the dative subject, which follows a similar process to Indo-Aryan languages. The translation of Khengkha examples into Dzongkha is intended for Bhutanese readers, and to facilitate the comparative study of Dzongkha and Khengkha. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses differential object marking and object shift in German Sign Language (DGS). Although there is already some literature discussing the existence of differential object marking in sign languages, this article provides the first in-depth description of the phenomenon in a visual language. It will be shown that the sign PAM, previously categorized as an agreement auxiliary, is in fact a differential object marker with adposition-like properties—at least in the Southern variant of DGS with which this article is concerned. Additionally, it will be shown that definite objects move into a structurally higher position in DGS. This behavior is well-known from spoken languages, but is not well-documented for sign languages.

Copyright of Pedagogy Studies / Pedagogika is the property of Vytautas Magnus University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

There is an ongoing debate about whether there exists a grammatical distinction between first-person and non-first person in signed languages, namely American Sign Language (ASL). The debate has been based largely on different analyses of pointing signs but minimally on the person-marking of directional verbs for object. We present an analysis of 95 unique first-person object forms of directional verbs from a combination of elicited and naturalistic data. We test the hypothesis that there is a default first-person object location at the center of the chest. Although we report evidence consistent with that hypothesis, we also find that some first-person verb forms are irregular with respect to the following dimensions of morphological properties in which they are lexically specified for: (1) final place of articulation; (2) height; (3) facing; and (4) body contact. Furthermore, a handful of directional verbs do not have first-person object forms. We interpret the findings to constitute evidence for the distinction between first-person and non-first person in ASL.

Object markers (OMs) in Bantu languages have long been argued to be either incorporated pronouns or agreement morphemes, distinguished mainly by their ability (or not) to co-occur with (i.e. double) in situ objects. Lubukusu appears to be an instance of OMs-as-incorporated pronouns, as OMs in neutral discourse contexts cannot double in situ objects in a broad range of syntactic contexts. As we show, however, certain pragmatic contexts in fact do license OM-doubling; we demonstrate that OM-doubling in Lubukusu is licit only on a verum (focus) interpretation. We analyze OM-doubling within a Minimalist framework as the result of an Agree relation between the object and a verum-triggering Emphasis head (Emph°). The non-doubling OM results from an incorporation operation. We therefore claim that Lubukusu displays two distinct syntactic derivations of OMs (generating doubling and non-doubling) with the interpretive effects of OM-doubling arising from the semantic/pragmatic properties of Emph°. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ezekiel 2:6 contains several perplexing elements. The word אוֹתָךְ has the form of a 2ms object pronoun but cannot be read that way in the clause. Moreover, in the context of a prophetic call narrative one might expect the כִּי clause at the center of the verse to provide the motivation for divine reassurance, but instead the reader finds three hostile images--briars, thorns, and scorpions. In recent years, S. Garfinkel and M. Odell have suggested creative explanations for these interpretive challenges, but analysis of the non-standard uses of אֵת and a close reading of the literary context of Ezek 2:6 do not support their conclusions. In this article, we argue that many of the problematic aspects of the verse reflect a literary agenda and serve to produce a sense of defamiliarization by subverting the reader's expectations for form on multiple levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Respecto de la Marcación Diferenciada de Objeto en español se han dado diversas explicaciones. Estas constituyen generalizaciones basadas en aspectos semánticos, sintácticos o pragmáticos. No obstante, en los trabajos es posible encontrar ejemplos con o sin marca, los cuales no se corresponden con las tendencias generalmente observadas. En otras palabras, no se puede dar una explicación categórica que determine cuándo un objeto debe marcarse con a. Aquí se presenta un estudio de variación gramatical que tiene por objeto establecer qué rasgos semánticos, sintácticos o pragmáticos marcan la tendencia de un objeto directo a aparecer con a. De esta manera, se distinguirán, dentro de un conjunto de rasgos, cuáles tienen mayor importancia que otros. Para este estudio se utiliza un corpus de habla mexicana espontánea. Aunque hoy día existe una gran cantidad de trabajos que intentan dar una explicación contundente del fenómeno en cuestión, ninguno lo hace desde un enfoque variacionista.Concerning the Differential Object Marking in Spanish various explanations have been given. These are generalizations based on semantic, syntactic or pragmatic aspects. However, in case studies it is possible to find examples with or without a mark, which do not correspond to the general trends. In other words, there is not a categorical explanation for stating when a direct object must be marked with a ('to'). This paper presents a grammatical variation study whose objective is to establish what semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic features show the tendency for a direct object to be marked with a. In this way, we distinguish, within a set of features, which are more important than others. The corpus for this case study has been taken from Mexican spontaneous speech. Although there are now many papers aiming to give a convincing explanation of this phenomenon, none of them does so from a variationist perspective.

This article provides an overview of the numerous exceptional morphosyntactic and phonological properties of the reflexive compared to other object prefixes in Bantu languages. These properties are considered in light of Marlo's (2014, 2015, to appear) micro-typological studies of Bantu object marking, and the proposal that the 1sg object prefix and the reflexive may be in a position closer to the verb stem than other object prefixes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the morphosyntactic diversity among Bantu languages in the number of pre-stem and post-stem object markers (OMs) that are allowed and discusses the factors responsible for this diversity. The number of OMs is sometimes highly restricted and sometimes seemingly unrestricted. Some languages have only pre-stem marking of objects; some have only post-stem marking; and some have both pre-stem and post-stem marking. Person-number, animacy, and locative noun classes are the basis for a number of morphosyntactic asymmetries in individual systems in whether objects are marked before or after the stem, though other factors such as grammatical relations are also involved. A handful of types of OMs, including locatives and the 1sg and reflexive markers, commonly allow languages to circumvent restrictions on object marking, allowing one more OM than usual. The number of OMs is also restricted by certain syntactic configurations such as passivization. A number of other issues that are important general considerations in the syntax of Bantu languages are shown to have at most a secondary role in determining the number of OMs that are allowed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In generative grammar, locative inversion in Bantu languages is typically analyzed in terms of A-movement of the locative from a VP-internal position to the subject position. I present an alternative analysis, according to which the locative subject-DP is introduced above the νP/VP, in the specifier of a functional category whose head selects the νP/VP as its complement. I suggest that this category is Pr (for 'predication'), i.e., the same category that also introduces the subject argument of adjectival or nominal predicates in non-verbal predication constructions (see Bowers 1993, and especially Baker 2003a for Bantu). In locative inversion, Pr establishes a non-canonical predication relation between a νP/VP that expresses a state or event, and a DP that denotes the location of which this state/event is predicated as a property. My analysis is developed on the basis of a detailed discussion of 'semantic' locative inversion in the Bantu language Zulu (Buell 2007), a construction in which the inverted subject-DP is not formally marked as a locative, but receives its interpretation solely by virtue of the locative semantics of its head noun. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Referential expressions are used to introduce and continue reference to entities with particular referential properties, but also with particular discourse properties. In this paper we investigate the referential and discourse properties of pe-marked indefinite direct objects in Romanian, which are an instance of Diff erential Object Marking (DOM). Pe-marking is generally obligatory for definite noun phrases but optional for indefinite ones. The optionality of pe marking with indefinite descriptions constitutes the focus of the present article. We will show that, on the one hand, pe with indefinite descriptions allows the realization of referential properties such as specific or wide scope readings, but that on the other hand, pe also signals discourse prominence, in particular in such contexts where referential properties are neutralized. We assume three parameters for discourse prominence, namely referential persistence, the topic-shift potential and the type of anaphoric referring expressions. We used these three parameters in a web-based story continuation experiment. The findings of the experiment revealed several interesting patterns: (i) that pe -marked direct objects are referentially more persistent than their unmarked counterparts, (ii) that pe -marked direct objects show a systematic preference to become topics two or three sentences after being introduced in the discourse, and (iii) that (modified) definite NPs were chosen to refer back to the referent of the marked as well as to the referent of the unmarked direct object. On the basis of the first two parameters we conclude that the relevant discourse contribution of pe is to signal to the hearer that subsequent information about that referent will follow, whereas the third parameter indicates that the referent of the pe -marked indefinite is not necessarily associated with a high level of activation. The general findings of the experiment support Kehler et al.'s (2008) intuition to differentiate between referential persistence and the activation level of the referent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of the preposition a with direct objects in Spanish is a well known instance of the general phenomenon of Differential Object Marking (DOM). In Spanish grammars the insertion of a is usually presented as dependent on two basic factors: animacy and referentiality/specificity. The correlation between the object marker and specificity is not systematic, basically because animacy —and not specificity— is the dominant trigger for DOM in Spanish, but a number of facts still indicate that the presence of a tends to be associated with specific readings. In order to account for these facts without positing any [+specific] feature in the linguistic meaning of a, I try to show that it contributes to utterance interpretation as an internal topic marker. This seems to be the simplest way to derive «specificity effects», and to account for the crosslinguistic similarities between DOM and other grammatical phenomena (topicalization, clitic doubling, scrambling).