Differenzielle Objektmarkierung ist nicht einheitlich: Beflaggung versus Indexierung

The non-unity of differential object marking: Flagging versus indexing In this talk, I compare differential object flagging (DOF), as in (1), with differential object indexing (DOI), as in (2), as well as with two kinds of differential subject marking (DSF and DSI, analogously to DOF and DOI). I observe that the behaviour of two types of differential marking are more different in the world’s languages than has sometimes been suggested, and I propose (following Comrie 1979; Just 2024) that different explanations should be given for differential flagging and differential indexing. (1) Persian (Lazard 1998: 82): differential object flagging (DOF) a. Ân ketâb =râ xând-am. that book =acc read.pst-1sg ‘I read that book.’ b. Ketâb xând-am. book read.pst-1sg ‘I read a book.’ (2) Mauwake (Trans-New Guinea; Berghäll 2015: 97; 216): differential object indexing (DOI) a. Emeria wia=amukar-e-k. woman 3pl.acc=scold-pst-3sg ‘She scolded the women.’ b. Bom=iya kateres=iya fuurk-a-mik. bomb=com cartridge=com drop-pst-3pl ‘They dropped bombs and cartridges.’ The term “differential object marking” has been very widely used in the literature (e.g. Bossong 1991; Aissen 2003; Witzlack-Makarevich & Seržant 2018), and it stereotypically refers to differential object flagging (adpositional marking as in Persian, or case marking as in Russian). Differential object indexing was often discussed under different labels (e.g. “clitic doubling”), but since Iemmolo’s (2011) Pavia dissertation, the term DOI has become more widely known (though recently another related term, “conditional indexing”, has been coined; Walker 2024). This leads us to distinguish adposition-/case-marked DOF from DOI, as two special cases of DOM. DOM, and more specifically DOF, has long been explained in highly general terms, e.g. with reference to deviation from the expected association between role and referential properties (Comrie 1989: 128; Bossong 1991: 163), or with reference to the interplay of iconicity and economy constraints (Aissen 2003). Over the last two decades, DOI has sometimes been lumped together with DOF in general explanatory accounts, e.g. by Morimoto (2002: 294), Dalrymple & Nikolaeva (2011: 1-2), and Kalin (2018: 113). Here I suggest, by contrast, that DOF and DOI should be explained differently, as they appear to obey different cross-linguistic regularities (or “universals”). Both are typically sensitive to referential scales (especially animacy, definiteness, topicality), but in opposite ways: (3) The flagging universal Lower-ranked roles (P, T) tend to get extra flagging when the nominal is referentially prominent (definite, animate, topical, …), and higher-ranked roles (A, R) tend to get extra flagging when the nominal is non-prominent (indefinite, inanimate, focal, …) (4) The indexing universal All arguments tend to get extra indexing when the nominal is referentially prominent. In object-marking situations, the two behave quite similarly, because objects (P-arguments) are lower-ranked than subjects (A-arguments). However, differential subject flagging tends to affect non-prominent arguments (e.g. indefinite subjects), while differential subject indexing affects prominent arguments (e.g. animate subjects, just like DOI; cf. Haspelmath 2021). Similarly, differential T-flagging (in ditransitive constructions) tends to affect non-prominent arguments, showing a mirror-image pattern compared to the R-argument. Thus, there is fairly good evidence that flagging and indexing conform to different patterns of differential marking, suggesting different explanations. References Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. Berghäll, Liisa. 2015. A grammar of Mauwake (Studies in Diversity Linguistics). Berlin: Language Science Press. (http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/67) Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Kibbee, Douglas & Wanner, Dieter (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (https://www.rose.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-c23e-37d9-0000-00006e1a9200/Bossong_80.pdf) Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana 3. 3–31. Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell. Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 2021b. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. Linguistics 59(1). 123–174. (doi:10.1515/ling-2020-0252) Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2011. Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. University of Pavia. (PhD dissertation.) (https://zenodo.org/record/4388380) Just, Erika. 2024. A structural and functional comparison of differential A and P indexing. Linguistics 62(2). 295–321. (doi:10.1515/ling-2021-0124) Kalin, Laura. 2018. Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax 21(2). 112–159. (doi:10.1111/synt.12153) Lazard, Gilbert. 1998. Actancy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Morimoto, Yukiko. 2002. Prominence mismatches and Differential Object Marking in Bantu. Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, 292–314. Stanford: CSLI Publications. (http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/) Walker, Katherine. 2024. Conditional indexing. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. (PhD dissertation.) (https://www.lotpublications.nl/conditional-indexing) Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Seržant, Ilja A. 2018. Differential argument marking: An introduction. In Seržant, Ilja & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena (eds.), The diachronic typology of differential argument marking (Studies in Diversity Linguistics). Berlin: Language Science Press.