What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects

Lingua

Volumn 114, Issue 9-10, 2004, Pages 1186-1212

  Næss, Åshilda ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Accusative case; Affectedness; Differential object marking; Markedness; Markedness reversal; Transitivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042555868     PISSN: 00243841     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aissen J. 2000. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Draft online: http://ling.ucsc.edu/∼aissen/.
2. GAmberber M. 2002. Quirky alternations of transitivity: the case of ingestive predicates. In: Amberber, Mengistu, Collins, P. (Eds.), Language Universals and Variation. Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 1-20.
3. Andrews E. 1990. Markedness Theory: The Union of Asymmetry and Semiosis in Language. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
4. Barodal J. 2001. Case in Icelandic-a synchronic, diachronic, and comparative approach. Lundastudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap 57. Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.
5. Bashir E. 1986. Beyond split-ergativity: subject marking in Wakhi. Papers from the 22nd regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. CLS, Chicago, pp. 14-35.
6. Battistella E.L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
7. Caughley R.C. 1982. The syntax and morphology of the verb in Chepang. Pacific Linguistics Series B No. 84. Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.
8. Chelliah S.L. 1997. A Grammar of Meithei. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
9. Comrie B. 1975. The antiergative: Finland's answer to Basque. Papers from the 11th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. CLS, Chicago, pp. 112-121.
10. Comrie B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd ed. Blackwell, Cambridge.
11. Croft W. 1988. Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In: Barlow, M., Charles A.F. (Eds.), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. CSLI, Stanford.
12. Croft W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
13. DeLancey S. 1985. Agentivity and syntax. In: Papers from the Parasession on causatives and agentivity at the 21st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. CLS, Chicago, pp. 1-12.
14. DeLancey S. 1987. Transitivity in grammar and cognition. In: Tomlin, R.S. (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Typological Studies in Language, vol. 11. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
15. Dixon R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, vol. 69. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. Dowty D. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection Language 67 1991 547-619
17. Fillmore C.J. 1977. The case for Case reopened. In: Cole, P., Jerrold, M.S. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations. Academic Press, New York, pp. 59-81.
18. Gair J.W. Paolillo J.C. 1997. Sinhala. Languages of the World/Materials, vol. 34. LINCOM Europa, München.
19. Genetti C. Object relations and dative case in Dolakha Newari Studies in Language 21 1 1997 37-68
20. Givón T. 1979. On understanding grammar. Academic Press, New York.
21. Givón T.2001. Syntax: An Introduction, vol. I. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
22. Guirardello R. 1999. Trumai. In: Dixon, R.M.W., Aikhenvald, A. (Eds.), The Amazonian Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
23. Halliday M.A.K. Notes on transitivity and theme in English Part 3 Journal of Linguistics 4 1968 179-215
24. Hopper P.J. Thompson S.A. Transitivity in grammar and discourse Language 56 1980 251-299
25. Hualde J.I. 1992. Catalan. Routledge, London.
26. Jakobson R. 1932. Structure of the Russian verb. In: Waugh, L.R., Halle, M. (Eds.), Russian and Slavic Grammar. Studies 1931-1981. Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 106 (1984). Mouton, Berlin, pp. 1-14.
27. Kittilä S. Remarks on the basic transitive sentence Language Sciences 24 2 2002 107-130
28. Lakoff G. 1977. Linguistic gestalts. In: Papers from the 13th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. CLS, Chicago, pp. 236-287.
29. Masica C.P. 1976. Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
30. Mithun M. The evolution of noun incorporation Language 60 1984 847-894
31. Mithun M. Active/agentive marking and its motivations Language 67 1991 510-546
32. Mohanan T. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. CSLI, Stanford
33. Moravcsik E.A. 1978. On the case marking of objects. In: Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 249-289.
34. Roberts J.R. 1987. Amele. Croom Helm: London.
35. Ross M. Paol J.N. 1978. A Waskia grammar sketch and vocabulary. Pacific Linguistics Series B No. 56. The Australian National University, Canberra.
36. Sasse H.-J. 1984. The pragmatics of noun incorporation in Eastern Cushitic languages. In: Plank F. (Ed.), Objects. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. Academic Press, London, pp. 243-268
37. Shapiro M. 1983. The Sense of Grammar: Language as Semeiotic. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
38. Testelec Y.G. 1998. On two parameters of transitivity. In: Kulikov, L., Vater, H. (Eds.), Typology of Verbal Categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Max Niemeyer, Tübingen.
39. Topping D.M. 1973. Chamorro Reference Grammar. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.
40. Trubetzkoy N.S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie, transl. by Baltaxe, C.A.M. (1969), Principles of Phonology. University of California Press, Berkeley.
41. Williams C.J. 1980. A grammar of Yuwaalaraay. Pacific Linguistics Series B No. 74. Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.