<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#3333ff" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Arial Unicode MS">Dear Alice, dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
as Alice has posted her response to my modest contribution to the
O-Topic issue to this list, I'd like to briefly answer using the same
way. Basically, Alice is right when claiming that</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midOF26C1FE86.35B91410-ON85257054.004DE3CB-85257054.004E26C7@notes.cc.sunysb.edu"><font
size="2" face="Arial Unicode MS"> Udi does not have a particle or
affixal topic marker, let alone
one used exclusively on direct objects. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial Unicode MS">and<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midOF26C1FE86.35B91410-ON85257054.004DE3CB-85257054.004E26C7@notes.cc.sunysb.edu"><font
size="2" face="Arial Unicode MS">Second, the clitics that
Wolfgang refers to as “floating agreement clitics” do not mark new
topics,
but focus. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial Unicode MS">However, I think that, here, we face a
definitory problem. In my eyes, Focus and Topic do not constitute
distinct categorial domains (at least in Udi), but are structurally
coupled forming a functional cluster of pragmatic marking. Accordingly,
a language may (!) use a single strategy to encode the pragmatic
'interest' of the speaker in multiple facettes. It would then show up
as some marker to indicate topic features, in case it is occurs with
topic sensitive referents. In this sense, the Udi dative (in the Nizh
dialect) or Dative2 (in the Vartashen dialect) serve to encode just
what Alice describes:<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midOF26C1FE86.35B91410-ON85257054.004DE3CB-85257054.004E26C7@notes.cc.sunysb.edu"><font
size="2" face="Arial Unicode MS">(...) use of the dative case for a
direct
object in Udi is also not topic marking, but indicates instead definite
direct objects (...)
It is true that definiteness is related to topicality, but a definite
direct object need not be topic. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial Unicode MS">I'm not sure whether the distinction
'(in)definitenes' vs. degrees of topicality always is useful. Let me
quote from a private mail that I have sent to Claire Bowern on the same
topic (concerning Turkish). I wrote</font><font face="Arial Unicode MS">:
"I'm not quite
sure whether there really is a pronounced difference between the notion
of (in)definiteness and grades of topicality. As far as I know, the
Turkish 'accusative' (-yI) is used to mark referents that have either
been mentioned previously in the conversation or are otherwise clearly
identified by the context (to use Underhill's wordings in his Turkish
Grammar). In my eyes, the first feature clearly refers to Given Topic,
which (in Turkish) remains unmarked in S/A function but which is marked
for the -yI form in O function. The second feature refers to what I had
in mind when talking about frames, scripts, and knowledge states (>
typicality = what can be expected to be relevant or typical in a given
situation, frame etc.). As far as I know, differences in knowledge
states are directly linked to what is linguistically called
'(in)definiteness'. Personally, I define TOPIC as a pragmatic function
used to relate a bit of information to the knowledge state of the
speaker/hearer (be it textual or contextual). And this is exactly what
Turkish -yI (according to my
data and informants) does: It subcategorizes the TOPIC function
according to the notion of giveness (> known) vs. non-giveness (>
'new')". <br>
<br>
I have the impression that Udi works at least in parts in analogy with
Turkish. However contrary to Turkish (but with amazing parallels in
some Northwestern Iranian languages), a functional blend occurs in case
a referential entity (liable for topicalization) and a focusing
strategy collide: The 'normal' (prototypical) interpretation of this
blend would be that of newness and relevance especially in case the
referent is marked for a function typical for the newness domain (e.g.
the O-function). This does not exclude that with other types of
constituents, the 'Focus' function prevails. Maybe that - as [for the
first time] shown by Alice in her wonderful book on endoclitics - the
Focus function of Udi floating agreement clitics represents the
original functional domain - however, in contemporary Udi the
constructional type 'Referent:O [zero-marked] + AGR' very often
reflects features of 'New Topic'. <br>
<br>
As for the reverse issue, namely the use of the dative(2) to encode -
as I claim - a Given Topic in O-function, I stick to what I have quoted
above. Note that I use the term Given Topic also in the context of
typicality: Accordingly, a referent functions as a Given Topic also if
it relates to a certain (typically expectable) knowledge state, as in
the following Udi phrase: A person says, that "if we know beforehand
that the general director will come....":<br>
<br>
mu"t'la"q' c'oy-a xam-p-sun-e laze^m<br>
absolutely face-DAT shaving-LV-MASD-3sg necessary<br>
'...it is absolutely necessary to shave one's face.' [Nizh dialect]<br>
<br>
Here, the dative marked term c'oya is (in my terms) a Given Topic
because it refers to a referent in a typical and known situation (of
shaving). The story goes on: <br>
<br>
te-ne-sa s^o-t'in yaxun mo"hk'a"m
dava-ne b-esa<br>
NEG-3sg-if he-SA-ERG we:COM strong quarrel-3sg do-PRES<br>
'Otherwise, he strongly quarrels with us.'<br>
<br>
Here, the term 'dava' (quarrel) introduces a New Topic of high
pragmatic relevgance (zero-marked O + AGR). There are many instances in
Udi tales, where a referent in O-function is marked for the dative(2)
even though it is not 'definite' in the strict sense of the term,
compare (taken from the same tale):<br>
<br>
zu ta-ze^-sa k'oy-a s'um-a
u-ze^-k-sa o%s'a% c^'e-ze^-sa<br>
I go-1sg-$:PRES house-DAT bread-DAT eat-1sg-$-PRES
then go=out-1sg-$:PRES<br>
'I go home, have supper and then I go away.' <br>
<br>
Here, the speaker surely does not have in mind a specific (definite)
kind of 'bread' (> meal), but again a typical situation of having
supper. All this does not exclude that the dative(2) is also used to
encode 'true' definite referents, but that's probably not the primary
(original) function of the case metaphorized from the allative (note
that in Old Udi (the language of a Palimpsest recently found in the Mt.
Sinai monastery, 6/7th century AD), the dative(2) competes with a
'true' definite article: Here, definiteness is normally encoded with
the help of an article, whereas the dative(2) functions independently
(again (in my eyes) to encode a Given Topic (in the broader sense))....<br>
<br>
In sum, I think that Alice looks at the same phenomenon from just a
different perspective. A (massive) corpus-based analysis of dative(2)
and zero-O + AGR constructions will perhaps tell more about which
perspective makes more sense with respect to the Udi patterns (I
currently prepare such an analysis for my Function Grammar of Udi
project). For the time being, I have the impression that both
perspectives can be taken. All depends from which theoretical approach
is chosen. Still, one point should be stressed: Without Alice's
pioneering work (her Endoclitics book), such a discussion wouldn't have
been possible. Thanks for this! <br>
<br>
Very best wishes and many thanks for the stimulating comments,<br>
Wolfgang<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title>schulze adr</title>
<small><font face="Arial Unicode MS">#############################<br>
<small><span style="font-weight: bold;"><big>Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze
</big></span></small><br style="font-weight: bold;">
<span style="font-style: italic;">Institut für Allgemeine
und Typologische Sprachwissenschaft
</span>(IATS)<br style="font-style: italic;">
[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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de">W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de</a>
<br>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.php">http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.php</a></font></small>
</div>
</body>
</html>