<br><font size=2 face="Arial">I’m afraid I have to disagree with my friend
Wolfgang’s characterization of Udi. First, regarding Irina’s original
question, Udi does not have a particle or affixal topic marker, let alone
one used exclusively on direct objects. Second, the clitics that
Wolfgang refers to as “floating agreement clitics” do not mark new topics,
but focus. These clitics are the subject of an entire book (my <i>Endoclitics
and the Origins of Udi Morphosyntax</i>, CUP, 2002), and chapter 3 explicitly
establishes that the markers in question indicate focus, not new topic
or any other discourse function. It is true, as Wolfgang notes, that
these clitics are infrequent with subjects of transitive or intransitive
verbs; they occur frequently with direct objects and with NPs in various
adjunct functions. This is entirely in keeping with their being markers
of focus, not of topic. Third, use of the dative case for a direct
object in Udi is also not topic marking, but indicates instead definite
direct objects, as shown in section 11.1 of the work referenced above.
It is true that definiteness is related to topicality, but a definite
direct object need not be topic. In sum, Udi does not have explicit
marking of any kind for topics; in particular, “floating agreement clitics”
and dative case have been shown to have other, very specific, discourse
functions.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Alice C. Harris<br>
Professor <br>
Department of Linguistics<br>
SUNY Stony Brook<br>
Stony Brook, NY 11794-4376<br>
Phone: 631-632-7758, 631-632-7777<br>
Fax: 631-632-9789<br>
e-mail: alice.harris@stonybrook.edu</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Wolfgang Schulze <W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de></b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: Discussion List for ALT <LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG></font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">08/04/2005 05:18 AM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: Topic markers on direct objects</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#3333ff face="Arial Unicode MS">Dear Claire, dear
Irina, dear Typologists,<br>
<br>
maybe that I didn't get Irina's question right, still let me add the following:
Among the many functions of O-Split paradigms (traditionally called Differentiated
Object Marking, DOM (Bossong)), there is one type related to what can be
termed Fluid-O: A referent in O-function is marked for case (or agreement
etc.), if the speaker wants to add a pragmatic 'comment' (be it definiteness,
be it topicalization etc.). Taking up the standard definition of Fluid-S,
we can say that Fluid-O is governed by the speaker's pragmatic 'intention'
rather than by semantic (categorial) properties of the referent in O-function
(which would give us a typical Split-O, as in Slavic) [I have summarized
the Split-Typology of S, A, and O functions in my 2000 paper in General
Linguistics (the Accusative Ergative Continuum, GL 37,71-155)]. Contrary
to referents in S/A function, the O domain is prototypically marked for
pragmatic motives (S/A are prototypically liable to semantic splits). This
prototypical motivation accounts for the fact that most (if not all) 'lexical'
Split-O procedures can be derived from pragmatic patterns. Now, as I have
said above, one of the pragmatic features of Fluid-O is that of topicality.
Usually (but far from always), the marked variant of O in a Fluid-O system
refers to some kind of Given Topic, anchored either in a preceding textual
pragmatic 'head' or in the frame/script/kwoledge system of the speaker/hearer
(e.g. typicality). In this sense, many Fluid-O paradigms would not entail
a true 'case' marker or so (horribile dictu: 'accusative'), but a pragmatic
marker (> 'Given Topic, Typicality' etc.) restricted to referents in
O-function. Hence, a Turkish phrase like <br>
<br>
(1) c^ocuk et-i
ye-di<br>
child meat-ACC eat-PAST:3sg<br>
'The child ate the meat'<br>
<br>
should better be glossed:<br>
<br>
(2) c^ocuk et-i
ye-di<br>
child meat-gTOP:O eat-PAST:3sg<br>
[gTOP = Given Topic and/or Typicality]<br>
<br>
In this respect it is interesting to ask whether languages with a Fluid-O
pattern also know a complementary way of marking NewTopic in O-function.
One of the many options would be to use some kind of indefinite marker,
derived e.g. from the numeral 'one'. However, I am not sure whether there
are languages which use such an 'indefinite articel' with referents in
O-function exclusively: Most often, the domain seems to be extended to
the Subjective resulting in an 'ergative-patterned' cluster {S/O} [indefinite
referents in A-function seem to be extremely rare in discourse]. In Udi
[South East Caucasian], there is an interesting distribution of Fluid-O
marking that also involves the notion of NewTopic, compare the follwing
two phrases [Vartashen dialect]:<br>
<br>
(3) ga"d-in-en eq'-ne
uk-sa<br>
child-SA-ERG meat-3sg:A eat-pres<br>
'The child eats meat.'<br>
<br>
(4) ga"d-in-en eq'-n-ux
u-ne-k-sa<br>
child-SA-ERG meat-SA-gTOP:O eat-3sg:A-$-PRES<br>
'The child eats the meat [you know which I mean].'<br>
[SA = stem augment, DAT2 = gTOP:O-marker < Allative, $ = second part
of discontinuous lexical stem] <br>
<br>
The alternative pattern of (4) ( ga"dinen eq'nuxne uksa) is possible,
however judged odd by many speakers [(3') 'ga"dinen eq' uneksa' would
have the reading 'the child EATs meat']. Although the floating clitic -ne
(3sg:A) can be occasionally be added to referents in S-function (and even
in A-function), these two usages are extremely rare. Hence, we can safely
claim that in Udi, the adding of a floating agreement clitic to a referent
is strongly coupled with the NewTOP-function, whereas the case marker DAT2
signals gTOP of a referent in O-function. <br>
<br>
Naturally, the Fluid-O type (as illustrated in the examples above) calls
for further parametrization. For instance, it is crucial whether the gTOP-marker
is also used for other functions, compare the Chuvash pair:<br>
<br>
(5) ac^a-sen-e ta^mran yapala-sem tu-ni-n-e
ka^tart<br>
child-PL-DAT ceramics thing-PL
make-INF-3sg:POSS-DAT show:IMP:2sg<br>
'Show the children how to produce ceramics!'<br>
<br>
(6) xe^vel-e te s'i-me
e^nt^e
v^apa^r<br>
sun-DAT TOP eat-NEG:FUT:3sg now
vampire<br>
'Now, the vampire will no longer eat the sun.' <br>
<br>
Here, the DATIVE case (-e) encodes both IO (Indirect Objective) and gTOP:O.
This Fluid-O type comes close to Split-O procedures as known for instance
from Spanish. Hence, we can assume that topicalization strategies of referents
in O-function often are coupled with (or metaphorically derived from) other
functional domains. It would be interesting to draw in more details a picture
of the grammaticalization paths leading to the pragmatic Fluid-O pattern
illustrated above [unfortunately, Heine/Kuteva (World Lexicon of Grammaticalization]
do not (as far as I can see) mention such paths]. <br>
<br>
Best wishes [and hoping that what I have said at least modestly contributes
to Irina's question]<br>
Wolfgang<br>
</font>
<br><font size=3 color=#3333ff>Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm wrote: </font>
<br><font size=3 color=#3333ff>Dear colleagues, I have been asked to forward
the following message on behalf of Irina Nikolaeva. <br>
Best wishes, <br>
Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm <br>
<br>
----------------------------------------- <br>
Dear Typologists, <br>
<br>
If anyone knows of a language that has a topic marker (a dependent marker:
particle or case affix) used exclusively on direct objects, please let
me know at <br>
</font><font size=3 color=blue><u><br>
</u></font><a href=mailto:irina_a_nikolaeva@yahoo.com><font size=3 color=blue><u>irina_a_nikolaeva@yahoo.com</u></font></a><font size=3 color=#3333ff>
<br>
<br>
Thank you in advance. <br>
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#3333ff>-- </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#3333ff face="Arial Unicode MS">#############################<b><br>
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze </b><i><br>
Institut für Allgemeine und Typologische Sprachwissenschaft </i>(IATS)<br>
[General Linguistics and Language Typology] <br>
Department für Kommunikation und Sprachen / F 13.14 <br>
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München <br>
Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 <br>
D-80539 München <br>
Tel.: ++49-(0)89-2180 2486 (secretary) <br>
++49-(0)89-2180 5343 (office)
<br>
Fax: ++49-(0)89-2180 5345 <br>
E-mail: </font><a href="mailto:W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de"><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial Unicode MS"><u>W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de</u></font></a><font size=2 color=#3333ff face="Arial Unicode MS">
<br>
Web: </font><a href=http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.php><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial Unicode MS"><u>http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.php</u></font></a><font size=3 color=#3333ff>
</font>
<br>