Topic markers on direct objects
Wolfgang Schulze
W.Schulze at LRZ.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE
Thu Aug 4 09:18:08 UTC 2005
Dear Claire, dear Irina, dear Typologists,
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
(1) c^ocuk et-i ye-di
child meat-ACC eat-PAST:3sg
'The child ate the meat'
should better be glossed:
(2) c^ocuk et-i ye-di
child meat-gTOP:O eat-PAST:3sg
[gTOP = Given Topic and/or Typicality]
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]:
(3) ga"d-in-en eq'-ne uk-sa
child-SA-ERG meat-3sg:A eat-pres
'The child eats meat.'
(4) ga"d-in-en eq'-n-ux u-ne-k-sa
child-SA-ERG meat-SA-gTOP:O eat-3sg:A-$-PRES
'The child eats the meat [you know which I mean].'
[SA = stem augment, DAT2 = gTOP:O-marker < Allative, $ = second part of
discontinuous lexical stem]
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.
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:
(5) ac^a-sen-e ta^mran yapala-sem
tu-ni-n-e ka^tart
child-PL-DAT ceramics thing-PL make-INF-3sg:POSS-DAT
show:IMP:2sg
'Show the children how to produce ceramics!'
(6) xe^vel-e te s'i-me e^nt^e v^apa^r
sun-DAT TOP eat-NEG:FUT:3sg now vampire
'Now, the vampire will no longer eat the sun.'
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].
Best wishes [and hoping that what I have said at least modestly
contributes to Irina's question]
Wolfgang
> Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues, I have been asked to forward the following message
>> on behalf of Irina Nikolaeva.
>> Best wishes,
>> Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Dear Typologists,
>>
>> 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
>>
>> irina_a_nikolaeva at yahoo.com
>>
>> Thank you in advance.
>>
>
--
#############################
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze
Institut für Allgemeine und Typologische Sprachwissenschaft (IATS)
[General Linguistics and Language Typology]
Department für Kommunikation und Sprachen / F 13.14
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
D-80539 München
Tel.: ++49-(0)89-2180 2486 (secretary)
++49-(0)89-2180 5343 (office)
Fax: ++49-(0)89-2180 5345
E-mail: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de
Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.php
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20050804/7754b220/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list