LISSIM 6

June 1-15, 2012@ Kangra

Selected Essays

Gurmeet Kaur
MPhil, Hyderabad Central University

DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING AND SPECIFICITY

 Section 1- INTRODUCTION

Differential Object Marking (DOM) is a linguistic phenomenon wherein languages overtly case mark some direct objects but not others. The factors that determine DOM range from semantic/formal properties of the argument (animacy, referential type) to formal features of the clause (word order).(cf. Comrie (1979); Aissen (2003); Malchukov (2008))[1].There are several examples explaining the case alternations on objects in literature. These include instances like the accusative/nominative alternation of objects in Turkish, for specificity reasons (Enc¸ 1991) and the distribution of the Finnish partitiveassociated with aspect in Finnish (Kiparsky 1998, 2001).

Hindi is one such language that shows nominative/accusative alternation on the direct object (Blake 2001, T. Mohanan 1994, Butt and King 1991, 2001). This casealternation depends on the semantic properties of the argument as in most South Asian languages. The accusative marker in Hindi is –ko. According to Bhatt and Anagnostopoulou (1996), when -ko appears on direct objects, it marks specificity/animacy. DOM is attested only when the verb realizes a perfective marker and the subject is ergative. When these conditions are met, an animate item can be interpreted as specific if it carries the accusative marking, else it has a nonspecific reading.

1.      manoj-ne   cuuhe-ko/cuuhaa         dekhaa

 

manoj-erg  rat-acc            /rat       see.perf.

    ‘Manoj saw a particular/nonspecific rat’

Similarly, the observation regarding specificity in (1) also holds for bare plural NPs in the object position. The use of the accusative marker -ko is obligatory with pronouns, human entities and proper names. Its omission in such instances leads to ungrammaticality, as shown in (2).

2.      rohan-ne                ravi-ko/ *ravi               dekhaa

rohan-erg               ravi-acc/ *ravi              see.perf.

‘Rohan saw Ravi’

There has been some work on the ‘NP-related function’[2] of DOM in Hindi. However, there remain unresolved issues related to animacy/specificity properties attached with the accusative marker both in Hindi and Punjabi, which merit investigation.Foursuch issues have been discussed below. They form my basic premise for research. How they lead to bigger theoretical issues has been outlined in Section-3.

Section 2- ISSUES RELATED TO DOM

§  Specificity and Referentiality

3.      manoj-ne   aisii                  kisi       bhii      laRkii-ko          nahii    cahaa 

manoj-erg        like.this            any     also      girl-acc            neg      desire.perf.M  

jo                     uske-desh-se                            nafrat   kartii                thii

who                 3.sg.gen-country- dat              hatred  do.prog.f         be.pst.f.sg

 ‘Manoj did not love any such girl who hated his/her country’

From a standard view of quantified expressions as non-referentials (as argued for indefinite quantifiers by Fodor and Sag (1982)), we can assume that QNPs are nonspecific, when interpreted distributively. This being the case, one would expect to see QNPs in object position to be zero marked in DOM environments, but this is not what the Hindi data shows as can be seen in example (3) above where the QNP binds a singular pronoun, is coindexed with it and crucially, is marked by –ko. The fact that a non-referential (and hence nonspecific) item obtains accusative marking does not fit with the standard view about specificity.

§  Inanimate NPs and specificity

In (4), the direct object, which can be a zero case marked inanimate NP, has a definite and specificinterpretation.

4.         ram-ne               kursii               toRii

ram-erg            chair.f              break.perf.F.sg

            ‘Ram broke the chair’

Here, the inanimate nominal in the object position can undergo DOM but the accusative marker does not determine a different reading. As a consequence, the claim regarding the accusative case resulting in specificity of the direct object should be reconsidered and further tested with different categories of inanimate NPs.

§  Count and mass readings

Case alterations of the type (1) observed in Hindi are also observed in Punjabi, another Indo-Aryan language. The accusative marker -nuũseems to mark specificity in this language.

5.   billii-ne            murgaa            / murge- nuũ                            khadda

cat-erg                   chicken(mass/count)/   chicken-acc(count)                   eat.perf

‘Cat ate chicken’

As is evident, Punjabi uses one lexical item for chicken, whether referring to the meat or the animal itself. When this lexical item is used without the accusative case marking it is ambiguous between the mass and the count reading.The lexical item then refers to the count noun alone. The question that arises is: “Is then the accusative case also related to count/mass distinction apart from the semantic properties like animacy and specificity? If yes, how is this link established?”

§  Obliques

Another issue that needs further research is the presence of what is commonly called the oblique marking. Consider the following:

           6.ram-ne           ess                   munde-nuũ                  vekhyaa

            ram-erg            this.prox.obl    boy.obl.sg-acc             see.perf

            ‘Ram saw this boy’                                 (Punjabi)

In both Hindi and Punjabi, all the non-nominative NPs bear the oblique marking. The influence of oblique marking on specific and definite readings related to DOM has not been extensively discussed. This is especially interesting if we reformulate the problem in a cartographic perspective[3]. As a matter of fact what oblique marking might realize is a functional head like D, determining the definiteness of case marked nominal. This would imply that the non-nominative markers are merely case particles that realize another functional projection, namely KP. However, such an approximation leaves open the issue of how a Nominative NP is definite without the oblique marking. This proposition thereby needs further investigation.

Section 3- RELEVANCE OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION

The problems raised aboveare indicative of certain theoretical concerns. With regard to the cartography of the DP in Indo Aryan languages like Hindi, Punjabi and Bangla all of which have DOM, the data hints at three issues, first among them being the status and the function of the oblique within the DP. Assuming with Giusti (1993) that D only hosts articles, but no quantifiers, demonstratives or possessives, the realization of a DP in languages like ours without articles becomes questionable. Realization of a DP thus is the second issue. The third issue deals with the possible links between DOM, specificity/definiteness and presence/absence of classifiers.

The second question that needs to be looked into is the relation between aspect and DOM. Given that DOM is observed when the verb is perfective in Hindi and Punjabi, it would be interesting to look into the Aspectual function (in Kiparsky’s 1998 terms) of the accusative case.

Generally, this research, while dwelling on the cartography of the DP and VP is expected to provide new insights into the way semantics interfaces with syntax by throwing light on the issues of specificity and definiteness. I believe LISSIM 6 with its expert faculty would be a great platform for me to polish and shape up the research question in a manner consistent with the recent developments.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Aissen, J. (2000). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy.Natural language and linguistic theory 21, 435–483

Alexiadou, A; Haegeman,L. &Stavrou,M. (2007) Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bhatt, R. &Anagnostopoulou , E.(1996) Object Shift and Specificity: Evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi, in Papers from the Main Session of CLS 32, ed. LiseDobrin, Kora Singer, and Lisa McNair, CLS32.1 11-22.

Butt, M. & King, T. (1991) Semantic Case in Urdu. In Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of CLS, ed. Lisa Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodriguez,  31–45.

Butt, M. &King,T.(2001)Case Systems: Beyond Structural Distinctions.InNew Perspectives on Case Theory, ed. Ellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister.Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.

Butt, M.; King, T & Varghese, A. (2004) A Computational Treatment of Differential Case Marking in Malayalam. In Proceedings of ICON 2004, Hyderabad.

Coene,M. &D’hulst,Y. (eds.) (2003) From NP to DP Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company

Fodor,J. & Sag, I (1982) Referential and Quantificational Indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355-398

Kiparsky, P.(1998). Partitive Case and Aspect. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, ed. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder. 265–308. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.

Von Heusinger,K; Klein, U. & de Swart, P (2008), Variation in Direct Object Marking. Paper presented in the Workshop on Case Variation, Stuttgart, June 2008.

 

[1] As quoted in von Heusinger,K ; Klein, U. & de Swart, P (2008),

[2]Term due to Kiparsky (1998)

[3]Giusti (1993) and Longobardi (1994)


For enquiries, write to secretary@fosssil.in

bullet Skype Interview
bullet Interview List
bullet Latest News
bullet LISSIM 6 Page
bullet Home