Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=2zuhClBhttbpRoLVjUwi9pyKOK7_Gx866gLOmbX_UA4&_path=id%3D1213001%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Den%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Differential Object Marking and Nominal Licensing

Year 2023, Volume: 34 Issue: 1, 27 - 56, 20.06.2023

Ümit Atlamaz

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1213001

Abstract

Bu makale Değişken Nesne Belirlemeyi sözdizimde oluşturulmuş uyum ilişkilerinin Sözdizim sonrası bir işlem olan Uyum-Durum tarafından prop yerine hedef üzerinde belirtilmesi sonucunda ortaya çıkan durum olarak tanımlamaktadır. Bu bakımdan Nichols'un (1986) Baş-Belirleme ve Bağımlı-Belirleme ikileminin güncel bir yorumlamasıdır. Keşmircedeki Değişken Nesne Belirlemenin karmaşık detayları analiz edilerek, sadece bazı ad öbeklerinin sınırlı durumlarda izne tabi oldukları gösterilmektedir. Kalin'in (2018) Kişi Uyum Kısıtlaması ve Değişken Nesne Belirlemenin benzer yapılarda ortaya çıktığı gözleminden hareketle, Kişi Uyum Kısıtlamasının Uyum-Durum göstermeyen dillerde orataya çıktığı iddia edilmektedir.

Keywords

Differential Object Marking Nominal Licensing Split Ergativity Agree-Case

References

  • Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.
  • Arregi, K., & Nevins, A. (2012). Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout (Vol. 86). Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Atlamaz, Ü. (2019). Agreement, case, and nominal licensing (Doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University-School of Graduate Studies.
  • Atlamaz, Ü., & Baker, M. C. (2018). On partial agreement and oblique case. Syntax, 21(3), 195–237.
  • Baker, M., & Vinokurova, N. (2010). On tense and copular verbs in nonverbal predications in Sakha (tech. rep.). Rutgers University.
  • Baker, M. C. (1996). The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford University Press.
  • Baker, M. C. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge University Press.
  • Baker, M. C. (2015). Case: its principles and its parameters. Cambridge University Press.
  • Barány, A. (2017). Person, case, and agreement: The morphosyntax of inverse agreement and global case splits. Oxford University Press.
  • Béjar, S., & Rezac, M. (2003). Person licensing and the derivation of pcc effects. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Béjar, S., & Rezac, M. (2009). Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(1), 35–73. Bhatt, R. (2005). Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23(4), 757–807.
  • Bhatt, R., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1996). Object shift and specificity: Evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. Papers from the 32nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, 1122.
  • Bhatt, R., & Walkow, M. (2013). Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 31(4), 951–1013.
  • Bhatt, R. M. (2013). Verb movement and the syntax of Kashmiri (Vol. 46). Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Bobaljik, J. (1993). On ergativity and ergative unergatives. MIT Working papers in Linguistics, 19(4588), 334-385.
  • Bobaljik, J. (2008). Where is phi. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Béjar (Eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces: Phi-features across modules and interfaces. Oxford University Press.
  • Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische universalienforschung (Vol. 14). Narr. Bossong, G. (1991). Differential object marking in romance and beyond. New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170.
  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step. essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.
  • Comrie, B. (1979). Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana, 3, 13–21.
  • Croft, W. (1988). Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, 159–179.
  • de Hoop, H., & Malchukov, A. L. (2008). Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(4), 565–587.
  • Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 20. MIT Press.
  • Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic inquiry, 1–25.
  • Hiraiwa, K. (2005). Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.
  • Kalin, L. (2017). Dropping the f-bomb: An argument for valued features as derivational time-bombs. In A. Lamont & K. Tetzloff (Eds.), NELS 47: Proceedings of the forty-seventh annual meeting of the north east linguistic society (pp. 119–132). GLSA Publications.
  • Kalin, L. (2018). Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax, 21(2), 112–159.
  • Laka, I. (1996). A brief grammar of Euskara, the Basque language. Universidad del Pais Vasco, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Euskarazko Errektoreordetza.
  • Levin, T. (2018). On the nature of differential object marking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 1–47.
  • Levin, T., & Preminger, O. (2015). Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 33(1), 231–250.
  • Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8).
  • Marusšič, F., Nevins, A., & Badecker, W. (2015). The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax, 18(1), 39–77.
  • Massam, D. (2001). Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 153–197.
  • Næss, Å. (2004). What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua, 114 (9), 1186–1212.
  • Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 56–119.
  • Preminger, O. (2011). Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s scopa. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(4), 917–937.
  • Preminger, O. (2014). Agreement and its failures (Vol. 68). MIT Press.
  • Richards, M. (2008). Defective agree, case alternations, and the prominence of person. In M. Richards & A. L. Malchukov (Eds.), Scales (pp. 137–162). Institut für Linguistik Universität Leipzig.
  • Richards, N. W. (1997). What moves where when in which languages? (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Ritter, E., & Wiltschko, M. (2014). The composition of infl. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32(4), 1331–1386.
  • Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. The MIT Press.
  • Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (112-171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
  • Torrego, E. (1998). The dependencies of objects (Vol. 34). MIT Press.
  • van Koppen, M. (2007). Agreement with coordinated subjects: A comparative perspective. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 7(1), 121–161.
  • Verbeke, S. (2013). Alignment and ergativity in new Indo-Aryan languages. Mouton De Gruyter.
  • Vergnaud, J. (2008). Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on Filters and Control, April 17, 1977. Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 45, 3.
  • Wali, K., & Koul, O. N. (1997). Kashmiri: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. Psychology Press.

Differential Object Marking and Nominal Licensing

Year 2023, Volume: 34 Issue: 1, 27 - 56, 20.06.2023

Ümit Atlamaz

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1213001

Abstract

This paper presents a novel account of Differential Object Marking as an instance of case assigned by a post-syntactic Agree-Case operation that transduces agreement relations established in the syntax by marking the goal rather than the probe. In this sense, it is a modern interpretation of Nichols' (1986) Head-Marking and Dependent Marking dichotomy. Analyzing the intricate details of Differential Object Markin in Kashmiri, I show that not all but some nominals need licensing under well defined syntactic configurations. Expanding on Kalin's (2018) observation that Person Case Constraint (PCC) and Differential Object Marking occur in similar configurations, I argue that PCC is observed in languages that do not have an Agree-Case mechanism.

Keywords

Differential Object Marking Nominal Licensing Split Ergativity Agree-Case

Thanks

Heartfelt thanks to my Kashmiri consultant Aijaz Ahmad. I am grateful to Mark Baker, Ken Safir, Jonathan Bobaljik, Jose Camacho, András Bárány, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Laura Kalin, Hazel Mitchley, Natalie DelBusso, and Ted Levin for insightful comments and discussion at various stages of this work. Special thanks to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. All errors are mine.

References

  • Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.
  • Arregi, K., & Nevins, A. (2012). Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout (Vol. 86). Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Atlamaz, Ü. (2019). Agreement, case, and nominal licensing (Doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University-School of Graduate Studies.
  • Atlamaz, Ü., & Baker, M. C. (2018). On partial agreement and oblique case. Syntax, 21(3), 195–237.
  • Baker, M., & Vinokurova, N. (2010). On tense and copular verbs in nonverbal predications in Sakha (tech. rep.). Rutgers University.
  • Baker, M. C. (1996). The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford University Press.
  • Baker, M. C. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge University Press.
  • Baker, M. C. (2015). Case: its principles and its parameters. Cambridge University Press.
  • Barány, A. (2017). Person, case, and agreement: The morphosyntax of inverse agreement and global case splits. Oxford University Press.
  • Béjar, S., & Rezac, M. (2003). Person licensing and the derivation of pcc effects. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Béjar, S., & Rezac, M. (2009). Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(1), 35–73. Bhatt, R. (2005). Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23(4), 757–807.
  • Bhatt, R., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1996). Object shift and specificity: Evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. Papers from the 32nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, 1122.
  • Bhatt, R., & Walkow, M. (2013). Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 31(4), 951–1013.
  • Bhatt, R. M. (2013). Verb movement and the syntax of Kashmiri (Vol. 46). Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Bobaljik, J. (1993). On ergativity and ergative unergatives. MIT Working papers in Linguistics, 19(4588), 334-385.
  • Bobaljik, J. (2008). Where is phi. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Béjar (Eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces: Phi-features across modules and interfaces. Oxford University Press.
  • Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische universalienforschung (Vol. 14). Narr. Bossong, G. (1991). Differential object marking in romance and beyond. New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170.
  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step. essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.
  • Comrie, B. (1979). Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana, 3, 13–21.
  • Croft, W. (1988). Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, 159–179.
  • de Hoop, H., & Malchukov, A. L. (2008). Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(4), 565–587.
  • Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 20. MIT Press.
  • Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic inquiry, 1–25.
  • Hiraiwa, K. (2005). Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.
  • Kalin, L. (2017). Dropping the f-bomb: An argument for valued features as derivational time-bombs. In A. Lamont & K. Tetzloff (Eds.), NELS 47: Proceedings of the forty-seventh annual meeting of the north east linguistic society (pp. 119–132). GLSA Publications.
  • Kalin, L. (2018). Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax, 21(2), 112–159.
  • Laka, I. (1996). A brief grammar of Euskara, the Basque language. Universidad del Pais Vasco, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Euskarazko Errektoreordetza.
  • Levin, T. (2018). On the nature of differential object marking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 1–47.
  • Levin, T., & Preminger, O. (2015). Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 33(1), 231–250.
  • Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8).
  • Marusšič, F., Nevins, A., & Badecker, W. (2015). The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax, 18(1), 39–77.
  • Massam, D. (2001). Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 153–197.
  • Næss, Å. (2004). What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua, 114 (9), 1186–1212.
  • Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 56–119.
  • Preminger, O. (2011). Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s scopa. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(4), 917–937.
  • Preminger, O. (2014). Agreement and its failures (Vol. 68). MIT Press.
  • Richards, M. (2008). Defective agree, case alternations, and the prominence of person. In M. Richards & A. L. Malchukov (Eds.), Scales (pp. 137–162). Institut für Linguistik Universität Leipzig.
  • Richards, N. W. (1997). What moves where when in which languages? (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Ritter, E., & Wiltschko, M. (2014). The composition of infl. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32(4), 1331–1386.
  • Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. The MIT Press.
  • Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (112-171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
  • Torrego, E. (1998). The dependencies of objects (Vol. 34). MIT Press.
  • van Koppen, M. (2007). Agreement with coordinated subjects: A comparative perspective. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 7(1), 121–161.
  • Verbeke, S. (2013). Alignment and ergativity in new Indo-Aryan languages. Mouton De Gruyter.
  • Vergnaud, J. (2008). Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on Filters and Control, April 17, 1977. Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 45, 3.
  • Wali, K., & Koul, O. N. (1997). Kashmiri: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. Psychology Press.
There are 47 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Linguistics, Linguistic Structures (Incl. Phonology, Morphology and Syntax)
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Ümit Atlamaz 0000-0003-1657-9654

Publication Date June 20, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 34 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Atlamaz, Ü. (2023). Differential Object Marking and Nominal Licensing. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 34(1), 27-56. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1213001

88x31.png

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) International License.


Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad