[Lingtyp] Differential Object Marking and Language Contact

Thu Nov 7 02:14:10 UTC 2024

Hi folks –

I’d be cautious around the idea of DOM in TB being “acquired” through IA contact. While it may be that DOM on referentiality per se is more common in IA-adjacent zones (I’m not entirely sure of this, but it seems possible), and that at least some markers look like they could be cognate across families – though most don’t – DOM on semantic construal (degree of (expected) agency, and/or position on the nominal hierarchy) is widespread outside of historical IA contact areas, and tends to persist in IA contact areas. So while I don’t doubt that there is evidence for convergence in some lgs, acquisition per se may be too strong.

Mark

LaPolla, Randy J. 1992. “‘Anti-Ergative’ Marking in Tibeto-Burman.” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 15 (1): 1–9. (identifies widespread semantically-based O marking in TB, incl. MSEA)

Watters, David E. 2002. A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (nice summary of a complex system, some IA-like features, some not, some uncertain, pp. 67-69)

Lidz, Liberty A. 2011. “Agentive Marking in Yongning Na (Mosuo).” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34 (2): 49–71. (nice discussion of seemingly diachronically recent semantically-based DOM in a lg of SW China deriving from directional adpositions)

Modi, Yankee, and Mark W. Post. 2022. “Applicatives in Macro-Tani Languages (Trans-Himalayan, Eastern Himalaya): Forms, Functions and Historical Origins.” In Applicative Morphology: Neglected Syntactic and Non-Syntactic Functions, edited by Sara Pacchiarotti and Fernando Zúñiga, 299–328. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110777949-011. (brief account of DOM in Macro-Tani pp. 302-305, discussing both referentiality and agentivity)

(among many others)

From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Jussi Ylikoski via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Date: Thursday, 7 November 2024 at 9:17 am
To: Inbal Mayo <inbal.mayo at mail.huji.ac.il>, lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Differential Object Marking and Language Contact

Dear Inbal,

A recent study by Jukka Mettovaara (2023), "Syntax in transition: Emergence of differential argument marking in Aanaar Saami" (https://doi.org/10.61197/fjl.113917<https://url.au.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/asDzCP7LAXf53xZ5vIzf0HxvDlX?domain=doi.org>), describes the ongoing restructuring of subject and object marking in Aanaar Saami under the influence of Finnish (with similar influence on North Saami and Skolt Saami spoken in Finland).

Best regards,

Jussi

________________________________
Frá: Inbal Mayo via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Sent: miðvikudagur, 6. nóvember 2024 22:03
Til: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Efni: [Lingtyp] Differential Object Marking and Language Contact

Dear colleagues,

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to request your assistance with a survey I am conducting as part of my MA thesis on languages that have acquired Differential Object Marking (DOM) due to language contact.
So far, I have identified a few well-attested cases, for example in the Tibeto-Burman language family, particularly the Kiranti languages (Ebert 2003; Bickel 2003, etc.), as well as a few other cases such as Afrikaans (den Besten 2000), Basque (Rodríguez-Ordóñez 2020), and Paraguayan Guaraní (Bittar 2023). However, I have also encountered some cases that are less clear. For instance, in the Semitic language family (specifically Maltese (Döhla 2016)) DOM has been proposed as a contact-induced feature, though this relies on the  assumption that the language’s ancestors did not originally have DOM. From what I understand, this assumption is under some contention.
Additional problematic cases are found in the Indo-Iranian languages. For example, DOM systems in Hindi and Persian are hypothesized to be due to language contact (Montaut 2018 and Paul 2018 respectively), but according to other sources DOM is extremely widespread in Indo-Aryan languages (Schikowski 2013, which focuses on Nepali and relies on additional descriptions of Indo-Aryan languages), which would make it is less likely that this feature is contact-induced.

I would greatly appreciate any additional references or insights that could shed light on these case studies, as well as information on other languages where DOM is theorized to have developed due to language contact.

Thank you very much for your time!
Best regards,
Inbal Mayo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20241107/22ec7bfa/attachment.htm>