35.3090, Disc: Request for Help: Exploring the Role of Language Contact in Differential Object Marking

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-35-3090. Tue Nov 05 2024. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 35.3090, Disc: Request for Help: Exploring the Role of Language Contact in Differential Object Marking

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Joel Jenkins, Daniel Swanson, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Joel Jenkins <joel at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 23-Oct-2024
From: Inbal Mayo [inbal.mayo at mail.huji.ac.il]
Subject: Request for Help: Exploring the Role of Language Contact in Differential Object Marking


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

Linguistic Field(s): Typology




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List to support the student editors:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Brill http://www.brill.com

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Edinburgh University Press https://edinburghuniversitypress.com

Elsevier Ltd http://www.elsevier.com/linguistics

Equinox Publishing Ltd http://www.equinoxpub.com/

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-35-3090
----------------------------------------------------------