13.1129, Sum: Accusative-Dative Syncretism

Tue Apr 23 19:51:08 UTC 2002

LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-1129. Tue Apr 23 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 13.1129, Sum: Accusative-Dative Syncretism

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Consulting Editor:
        Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	James Yuells, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Heather Taylor-Loring, EMU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Richard John Harvey, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Marie Klopfenstein <marie at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:42:06 +0200
From:  Ashild Naess <A.Naess at let.kun.nl>
Subject:  Accusative-dative syncretism

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:42:06 +0200
From:  Ashild Naess <A.Naess at let.kun.nl>
Subject:  Accusative-dative syncretism

Dear linguists,

I recently posted a query on the list about languages which mark (some of)
their direct objects with the same case marker as indirect objects. I was
specifically interested in languages where only some objects are marked,
and where the marker of these objects is formally identical to the dative.
I also received some replies about languages with differential object
marking but without accusative-dative syncretism, and some comments and
references on differential object marking in general. All replies and
references are summarised below.

First of all, I would like to thank everyone who took the time to answer -
in no particular order: Susan M. Burt, Richard Laurent, Mark Donohue, Lidia
& Baruch, Ray Fabri, Frank Seifart, Eva Breindl, Katja Lyutikova, Jürgen
Bohnemeyer, Michaela Wenzlaff, Dieter Wunderlich, Leo Connolly, Martha
McGinnis, Albert Ortmann, Sharbani Banerji, Michael Daniel, Nina Sumbatova,
Bart Matthias, Mario van der Visser, Magnus Liw, Gabi Danon, and Ernest
McCarus.

It appears that this type of case syncretism is not uncommon, and that in
most cases where it occurs, the dative/accusative case marks objects which
are high in animacy (as well as indirect objects). In addition to Spanish
and Hindi, this is the case in some Italian dialects, Sardinian, Catalan, a
number of languages of the Indian subcontinent besides Hindi, Maltese,
Levantine and Iraqi Arabic, Aramaic, Bora-Miraña (Witotoan), some Papuan
languages (Foley 1986) - and in the English pronoun system. In Geez (Old
Ethiopic) the dative marks definite direct objects in one specific
construction. Russian has a similar pattern with the genitive rather than
the dative; the genitive marks animate objects in the masculine gender. In
Chuvash (Altaic), the situation appears to be somewhat more complex, some
verbs requiring the accusative marker (which is identical to the dative) to
be present on all objects while others allow its omission. Hawaiian marks
all human direct and indirect objects with the same marker.

Rumanian has differential object marking with human/animate NPs, but the
marker is apparently not identical to the dative. Hebrew case-marks only
definite direct object, but again the marker is distinct from that of the
dative.

A number of Kartvelian languages mark the direct object with the dative
case, but only in certain verbal tenses. Modern Greek and Quechua have
identity of accusative and dative case, but as far as I have understood can
use this for any objects, not only animate ones.

Finally, a number of languages, such as numerous Austronesian ones, extend
the dative case to objects which are low in affectedness or otherwise low
in transitivity properties.

I hope I have presented these facts accurately. Please do not hesitate to
correct me if I have misunderstood anything.

The following references were provided as sources on the languages
mentioned or for work on differential object marking in general:

Aissen, Judith (2000) Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy.
Ms., UC Santa Cruz (downloadable pdf.file, accessible from UCSC web-site)

Aronson, Howard I. 1982. Georgian: A reading grammar. Columbus, Ohio:
Slavica publishers.

Bossong, Georg (1985):
Empirische Universalienforschung : Differentielle Objektmarkierung in
den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr, 1985. (Ars Linguistica.14.)

Bossong, Georg (2001):
Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten für grammatische Relationen. In: Martin
Haspelmath & Ekkehard König & Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible
(eds.), Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalienforschung. Ein
internationales Handbuch. Berlin: de Gruyter, vol. 1, 1. Halbband, 657 -
668.

Bossong, Georg (1998):
Le marquage différentiel de l'objet dans les langues d'Europe, in: Jack
Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [EALT
EUROTYP 20-2], 193 - 258.

Bossong, Georg (1991):
Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond". In: Douglas
Kibbee & Dieter Wanner (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics,
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Bemjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory 69), 143 - 170.

Danon, Gabi (2001): Syntactic Definiteness in the Grammar of Modern
Hebrew. Linguistics 39.6, 1071-1116.

Fabri, Ray (1993) Kongruenz und die Grammatik des Maltesischen. Tübingen:
Niemeyer. (= Linguistische Arbeiten 292)

Foley, William. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Harris, Alice C. 1981. Georgian syntax: A study in relational grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ortmann, Albert (1998) The Role of [±animate] in Inflection. In: Ray Fabri,
Albert Ortmann & Teresa Parodi (eds.) Models of Inflection.
Tübingen:Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 388), 60-84.

Rohlfs, Gerhard:
Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten.
Bern: Francke (3 Bände)

Dieter Wunderlich & Renate Lakämper. 2001. On the interaction of structural
and semantic case. Lingua 111, 377-418.

Thanks again to everyone who replied - I hope I have not forgotten or
misinterpreted anyone.

Åshild Næss

University of Nijmegen
Erasmusplein 1
6525 GG Nijmegen
THE NETHERLANDS

+31 24 3616028

a.naess at let.kun.nl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-13-1129