A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking

Linguistics

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 281-313

  Sinnemäki, Kaius ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Animacy; Areality; Case marking; Definiteness; Differential Object Marking; Economy; Stability; Typology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925271310     PISSN: 00243949     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/ling-2013-0063     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & R. M. W. Dixon. 1998. Dependencies between grammatical systems. Language 74(1). 56-80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/417565 (accessed 6 October 2009).
2. Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(4). 673-711. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006335629372 (accessed 12 April 2012).
3. Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435-483. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024109008573 (accessed 22 August 2012).
4. Appleyard, David L. 1988. Gender in the inflexion of the noun in Agaw. In Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst & Fritz Serzisko (eds.), Cushitic-Omotic: Papers from the international symposium on Cushitic and Omotic languages, Cologne, January 6-9, 1986, 357-375. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
5. Bhatt, Rakesh Mohan. 1999. Verb movement and the syntax of Kashmiri. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
6. Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11(1). 239-251. DOI: 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.018 (accessed 25 October 2010).
7. Bickel, Balthasar. 2008a. A refined sampling procedure for genealogical control. Language Typology and Universals 61(3). 221-233. http://www.atypon-link.com/AV/doi/pdf/10.1524/stuf.2008.0022 (accessed 14 August 2009).
8. Bickel, Balthasar. 2008b. A general method for the statistical evaluation of typological distributions. Ms., University of Leipzig. http://www.spw.uzh.ch/bickel-files/papers/(accessed 30 March 2012).
9. Bickel, Balthasar. 2013. Distributional biases in language families. In Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson & Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency: In honor of Johanna Nichols, 415-444. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. http://www.spw.uzh.ch/bickel-files/papers/ (accessed 30 March 2012).
10. Bickel, Balthasar & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2008. Referential scales and case alignment: Reviewing the typological evidence. In Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Scales, 1-37. Leipzig: University of Leipzig. http://www.spw.uzh.ch/bickel-files/papers/(accessed 30 March 2012).
11. Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2009. The geography of case. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 479-493. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Bielec, Dana. 1998. Polish: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.
13. Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Boeckx, Cedric & Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2004. Left dislocation in Germanic. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic typology, 139-152. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. http://www.punksinscience.org/kleanthes/papers/fgt-bg.pdf (accessed 2 May 2010).
15. Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
16. Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XVIII, Urbana-Champaign, April 7-9, 1988, 143-170. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. http://www.rose.uzh.ch/seminar/personen/bossong/Bossong-80.pdf (accessed 27 March 2009).
17. Bybee, Joan L. & Sandra A. Thompson. 2000. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society [BLS] 23. 65-85.
18. Cole, Peter. 1985. Imbabura Quechua. London: Croom Helm.
19. Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
20. Comrie, Bernard. 2011. Alignment of case marking. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 98. http://wals.info/chapter/98 (accessed April 2012).
21. Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23. Dahl, Östen. 2009. Two pathways of grammatical evolution. In Talmy Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 239-248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2010. Differential object marking in Nilo-Saharan. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 31(1). 13-46. DOI: 10.1515/JALL.2010.003 (accessed 2 April 2012).
25. Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68(1). 81-138. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/417563.pdf (accessed 19 June 2007).
26. Dryer, Matthew S. 2011. Order of subject, object, and verb. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 81. http://wals.info/chapter/81 (accessed April 2012).
27. Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2011. The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wals.info (accessed April 2012).
28. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1). 1-26.
29. Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.
30. Gerner, Matthias. 2007. Ambiguity-driven differential object marking in Yongren Lolo. Lingua 118(3). 296-331. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.06.002 (accessed 22 August 2012).
31. Harris, Alice C. 1981. Georgian syntax: A study in Relational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Harris, Alice C. 2008. On the explanation of typologically unusual structures. In Jeff Good (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 54-77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Haspelmath, Martin. 2008a. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1-33. DOI: 10.1515/COG.2008.001 (accessed 14 November 2008).
35. Haspelmath, Martin. 2008b. Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, 75-107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/staff/haspelmath/ (accessed 23 April 2012).
36. Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3). 535-567. DOI: 10.1515/LITY.2011.035 (accessed 1 April 2012).
37. Havas, Ferenc. 2008. Unmarked object in the Uralic languages: A diachronic typological approach. Linguistica Uralica 44(1). 1-33. DOI: 10.3176/lu.2008.1.01 (accessed 2 March 2010).
38. Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. von Heusinger, Klaus. 2008. Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish. Probus 20. 1-31. http://www.ilg.uni-stuttgart.de/vonHeusinger/pub/index.php (accessed 28 September 2012).
40. von Heusinger, Klaus & Jaklin Kornfilt. 2005. The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages 9. 3-44. http://www.ilg.uni-stuttgart.de/vonheusinger/pub/inhalt/turk-lang.pdf (accessed 22 August 2012).
41. von Heusinger, Klaus & Edgar Onea Gáspár. 2008. Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian. Probus 20. 67-110. http://www.ilg.uni-stuttgart.de/vonHeusinger/pub/index.php (accessed 28 September 2012).
42. de Hoop, Helen & Andrej L. Malchukov. 2007. On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117(9). 1636-1656. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.010 (accessed 2 October 2009).
43. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251-299. http://www.jstor.org/stable/413757 (accessed 20 August 2012).
44. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34(2). 239-272. DOI: 10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem (accessed 30 March 2012).
46. Janssen, Dirk, Balthasar Bickel & Fernando Zúñiga. 2007. Randomization tests in language typology. Linguistic Typology 10(3). 419-440. DOI: 10.1515/LINGTY.2006.013 (accessed 1 April 2012).
47. Jäger, Gerhard. 2003. Learning constraint subhierarchies: The bidirectional gradual learning algorithm. In Reinhard Blutner & Henk Zeevat (eds.), Optimality theory and pragmatics, 251-287. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://www.blutner.de/Optimal/dat/jager03gradualLearning.pdf (accessed 28 September 2012).
48. Jäger, Gerhard. 2007. Evolutionary game theory and typology: A case study. Language 83(1). 74-109. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/language/v083/83.1jager.pdf (accessed 19 October 2009).
49. Kiefer, Ferenc. 1990. Noun incorporation in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 40(1/2). 149-177.
50. Kõnig, Christa. 2008. Case in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Malchukov, Andrej L. & Helen de Hoop. 2010. Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua 121(1). 35-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.003 (accessed 30 March 2012).
52. Maslova, Elena. 2009. A dynamic approach to the verification of distributional universals. Linguistic Typology 4(3). 307-333. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2000.4.3.307 (accessed 11 November 2009).
53. Meyer, David, Achim Zeileis & Kurt Hornik. 2006. The strucplot framework: Visualizing multi-way contingency tables with vcd. Journal of Statistical Software 17(3). 1-48. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v17/i03/paper (accessed 6 March 2010).
54. Meyer, David, Achim Zeileis & Kurt Hornik. 2011. Vcd: Visualizing categorical data (R package version 1.2-12). http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vcd/vcd.pdf (accessed 24 November 2011).
55. Mithun, Marianne. 2012. Core argument patterns and deep genetic relations: Hierarchical systems in Northern California. In Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie & Valery Solovyev (eds.), Argument structure and grammatical relations: A crosslinguistic typology, 257-294. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/mithun/publications.html (accessed 23 April 2012).
56. Moravcsik, Edith A. 2003. Inflectional morphology in the Hungarian noun phrase: A typological assessment. In Frans Plank (ed.), Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe, 113-276. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
57. Næss, Åshild. 2003. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 114(9-10). 1186-1212. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005 (accessed 16 November 2006).
58. Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59. Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Richard D. Janda & Brian D. Joseph (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 283-310. Oxford: Blackwell.
60. Nichols, Johanna. 2007. What, if anything, is typology? Linguistic Typology 11(1). 231-238. DOI: 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.017 (accessed 11 February 2010).
61. Nichols, Johanna & Balthasar Bickel. 2009. The autotyp genealogy and geography database: 2009 release. http://www.spw.uzh.ch/autotyp/available.html (accessed 22 August 2012).
62. Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2007. Contact in the prehistory of the Sakha (Yakuts): Linguistic and genetic perspectives. Leiden: University of Leiden dissertation. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/12492 (accessed 11 April 2012).
63. Perkins, Revere D. 1989. Statistical techniques for determining language sample size. Studies in Language 13(2). 293-315.
64. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R version 2.14.0). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org (accessed 24 November 2011).
65. Reh, Mechthild. 1986. Where have all the case prefixes gone? Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 5. 121-134.
66. Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112-171. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
67. Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2010. Word order in zero-marking languages. Studies in Language 34(4). 869-912. DOI: 10.1075/sl.34.4.04sin (accessed 24 February 2011).
68. de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen dissertation. http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/issues/Swart-de/index.html (accessed 25 February 2009).
69. Thurgood, Graham & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.). 2003. The Sino-Tibetan languages. London: Routledge.
70. Tosco, Mauro. 1994. On case marking in the Ethiopian language area (with special reference to the subject marking in East Cushitic). In Vermondo Brugnatelli (ed.), Sem, Cam, Iafet Atti della 7a Giornata di Studi Camito-Semitica e Indeuropei, 225-244. Milano: Centro Studi Camito-Semitici.
71. Wali, Kashi & Omkar M. Koul. 1997. Kashmiri: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. London: Routledge.
72. Wichmann, Søren & Eric W. Holman. 2009. Assessing temporal stability for linguistic typological features. Munich: LINCOM Europa. http://email.eva.mpg.de/~wichmann(accessed 21 October 2009).
73. Wiese, Bernd. 2011. Optimal specifications: On case marking in Polish. In Andreas Nolda & Oliver Teuber (eds.), Syntax and morphology multi-dimensional, 101-128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.