Differential argument marking: Semantics, morphology, syntax

 
PIIS0373658X0001068-3-1
DOI10.31857/S0373658X0001068-3
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Affiliation:
Moscow State University of Education
Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow, 119991; 125009
Affiliation:
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Moscow State University of Education
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow, 119991
Affiliation:
Moscow State University of Education
Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow, 119991; 125009
Journal nameVoprosy Jazykoznanija
EditionIssue 6
Pages113-127
Abstract

The paper presents an overview of the current issues and tendencies in studies of differential argument marking (DAM). This research area is of topical interest in modern descriptive and theoretical linguistics, primarily in the context of the general methodological problem of modeling linguistic variation. Therefore, along with traditional issues such as studies of DAM in specific languages and structural positions, modern research addresses the issues of the universality of mechanisms of DAM, its diachronic emergence and development, statistical analysis and multivariate models in typological and language-specific investigations of DAM.

Keywordsagreement, argument structure, case assignment, differential argument marking, linguistic typology, morphosyntactic alignment
Received05.12.2016
Publication date05.12.2016
Number of characters788
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной
1 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

views: 753

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Arutyunova 1983 — Arutyunova N. D. Communicative forms of existential sentences. Arutyunova N. D., Shiryaev E. N. Russkoe predlozhenie. Bytiinyi tip. Moscow: Nauka, 1983. Pp. 53—93.

2. Borik 1995 — Borik O. M. Sintaksicheskii priznak neakkuzativnosti glagola (na materiale russkogo yazyka). Diplomnaya rabota [The syntactic marker of the verb unaccusativity (based on the Russian linguistic material). Diploma paper]. Moscow: Moscow State Univ., 1995.

3. Zaliznyak 1967 — Zaliznyak A. A. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie [Russian noun inflexion]. Moscow: Nauka, 1967.

4. Kibrik 1999 — Kibrik A. E. (ed.). Elementy tsakhurskogo yazyka v tipologicheskom osveshchenii [Elements of Tsakhur from the typological perspective]. Moscow: Nasledie, 1999.

5. Kibrik 2001 — Kibrik A. E. (ed.). Bagvalinskii yazyk. Grammatika, teksty, slovari [Bagvalal. Grammar, texts, dictionaries]. Moscow: Institute of the World Literature, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2001.

6. Lyutikova, Pereltsvaig 2015 — Lyutikova E. A, Pereltsvaig A. M. Noun phrase structure in articleless languages: Universality and variation. Voprosy jazykoznanija. 2015. No. 3. Pp. 52—69.

7. Padučeva 1997 — Padučeva E. V. The genitive case of the subject: syntax or semantics? Voprosy jazykoznanija. 1997. No. 2. Pp. 101—116.

8. Padučeva 2006 — Padučeva E. V. Genitive of the object in negative sentences. Voprosy jazykoznanija. 2006. No. 6. Pp. 21—43.

9. Rakhilina 2008 — Rakhilina E. V. (ed.). Ob’’ektnyi genitiv pri otritsanii v russkom yazyke [The genitive of object with negation in Russian]. Moscow: Probel-2000, 2008.

10. Ronko 2016 — Ronko R. V. Differential direct object marking in infinitive clauses in Old Russian. Russkij yazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii. 2016. No. 1 (31). С. 158—181.

11. Ronko, Zimmerling 2015 — Ronko R. V., Zimmerling A. V. The parameter of nominative object and the syntax of infinitive clauses in the dialects of the Russian North and in Old Russian. Vestnik MGGU imeni M. A. Sholokhova. Ser. Filologicheskie nauki. 2015. No. 1. Pp. 57—66.

12. Zimmerling 2002 — Zimmerling A. V. Tipologicheskii sintaksis skandinavskikh yazykov [Typological syntax of the Scandinavian languages]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2002.

13. Zimmerling 2016 — Zimmerling A. V. [Rev. of:] Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Malchukov A. L., Richards M. (eds.). Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2015. Voprosy jazykoznanija. 2016. No. 4. Pp. 144—151.

14. Aissen 2003 — Aissen J. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural language and linguistic theory. 2003. Vol. 21. Pp. 435—483.

15. Ariel 1990 — Ariel M. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge, 1990.

16. Baker 2015 — Baker M. C. Case: Its principles and its parameters. (Cambridge studies in linguistics 146). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015.

17. Baker, Vinokurova 2010 — Baker M. C., Vinokurova N. Two modalities of Case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 2010. Vol. 28. Pp. 593—642.

18. Bornkessel-Schlesewky et al. 2015 — Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Malchukov A. L., Richards M. (eds.). Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2015.

19. Borschev et al. 2008 — Borschev V., Paducheva E. V., Partee B. H., Testelets Y. G., Yanovich I. Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type hypothesis. Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics. Proceedings of FASL 16. Antonenko A., Bailyn J. F, Bethin C. Y. (eds.). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 2008. Pp. 48—67.

20. Bossong 1985 — Bossong G. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in — neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr, 1985.

21. Brown 1999 — Brown S. The syntax of negation in Russian: A minimalist approach. Stanford (CA): CSLI. Publ., 1999.

22. Chomsky 2000 — Chomsky N. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Martin R., Michaels D., Uriagereka J. (eds.). Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Pp. 89—155.

23. Comrie 1975 — Comrie B. Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana. 1975. Vol. 3. Pp. 13—21.

24. Coon 2013 — Coon J. TAM split ergativity (parts 1—2). Language and Linguistics Compass. 2013. Vol. 7. Pp. 171—200.

25. Dalrymple, Nikolaeva 2011 — Dalrymple M., Nikolaeva I. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011.

26. DeLancey 1981 — DeLancey S. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language. 1981. Vol. 57. No. 3. Pp. 626—657.

27. Dixon 1979 — Dixon R. M. W. Ergativity. Language. 1979.Vol. 55. Pp. 59—138.

28. Firbas 1975 — Firbas J. On «existence / appearance on the scene» in functional sentence perspective. Prague studies in English. 1975. Vol. 16. Pp. 47—70.

29. Haiman 1983 — Haiman J. Iconic and economic motivation. Language. 1983. Vol. 59. Pp. 781—819.

30. De Hoop, de Swart 2008 — de Hoop H., de Swart P. (eds.). Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008.

31. Jäger 2007 — Jäger G. Evolutionary game theory and typology: A case study. Language. 2007. Vol. 83. No. 1. Pp. 74—109.

32. Kazenin 1998 — Kazenin K. On patient demotion in Lak. Typology of verbal categories. Kulikov L., Vater H. (eds.). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pp. 95—115.

33. Kornfilt 2008 — Kornfilt J. DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish. Differential Subject Marking. De Hoop H, de Swart P. (eds.). Dordrecht: Springer, 2008. Pp. 79—111.

34. Lyutikova 2016 — Lyutikova E. Formal modeling of case variation: A parametric approach. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii: Po materialam ezhegodnoi Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog’2016» (Moscow, June 1—4, 2016). No. 15 (22). Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2016. Pp. 455—470.

35. Lyutikova, Ibatullina 2015 — Lyutikova E., Ibatullina D. Case theory and case variation in Tatar. Tipologiya morfosintaksicheskikh parametrov. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «TMP-2015». No. 2. Lyutikova E. A., Zimmerling A. V., Konoshenko M. B. (ed.). Moscow: Moscow State Pedagogical Univ., 2015. Pp. 228—244.

36. Lyutikova, Pereltsvaig 2015 — Lyutikova E., Pereltsvaig A. The Tatar DP. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 2015. Vol. 60. № 3. Pp. 289—325.

37. Malchukov 2008 — Malchukov A. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua. 2008. Vol. 118. Pp. 203—221.

38. Marantz 1991 — Marantz A. Case and licensing. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Westphal G., Ao B., Chae H.-R. (eds.). Ithaca (NY): CLC Publications, 1991. Pp. 234—253.

39. Mel’čuk 2014 — Mel’čuk I. Syntactic subject: Syntactic relations, once again. Yazyk. Konstanty. Peremennye. Pamyati Aleksandra Evgen’evicha Kibrika. Plungian V. A., Daniel’ M. A., Lyutikova E. A., Tatevosov S. G., Fedorova O. V. (eds.). St. Petersburg: Aleteiya, 2014. Pp. 169—216.

40. Payne, Barshi 1999 — Payne D., Barshi I. (eds.). External possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.

41. Pesetsky 1982 — Pesetsky D. Paths and categories. Doct. diss. Cambridge (MA): MIT. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, 1982.

42. Seržant, Kulikov 2013 — Seržant I., Kulikov L. (eds.). The diachrony of non-canonical subjects. SLCS 140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2013.

43. Seržant, Witzlack-Makarevich (forthcoming) a — Seržant I., Witzlack-Makarevich A. Differential argument marking: An introduction. The diachronic typology of differential argument marking. Seržant I. A., Witzlack-Makarevich A., Mann K. (eds.). Berlin: Language Science Press. (forthcoming) Seržant, Witzlack-Makarevich (forthcoming) b — Seržant I., Witzlack-Makarevich A. Diachronic typology of differential argument marking. The diachronic typology of differential argument marking. Seržant I. A., Witzlack-Makarevich A., Mann K. (eds.). Berlin: Language Science Press. (forthcoming)

44. Shibatani 1994 — Shibatani M. An integrated approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and adversative passives. Proceedings of the Twentieth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. Berkeley (CA): University of California, 1994. Pp. 461—487.

45. Silverstein 1976 — Silverstein M. Hierarchies of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Dixon R. M. W. (ed.). New Jersey (NJ): Humanities Press, 1976. Pp. 112—171.

46. de Swart 2007 — de Swart P. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Doct. diss. Nijmegen: Univ. of Nijmegen, 2007.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up