“Differential argument marking”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

Differential argument marking (DAM) is a cover term for when languages encode the same grammatical function (e.g. subject or object) in different ways.^[1] It includes non-uniform encoding of arguments in terms of case marking, but also in terms of the presence or absence of agreement on the verb.^[2] The term differential marking – specifically differential object marking or DOM – was coined by Georg Bossong in relation to his work on Sardinian and New Iranian languages.^[3] However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in the great variety of differential marking patterns across the world's languages in both formal and functional linguistics.

Types of differential marking

There are several sub-types of differential argument marking depending on the grammatical function and/or semantic role of the differentially-marked argument:^[1]

The most widely studied are differential object marking, differential subject marking,^[4] and optional ergative marking.^[5]

Patterns of differential marking

Differential marking is known to be affected by a range of semantic and information structure factors.^[2]^[1] These include semantic properties of the argument such as animacy, definiteness and referentiality.^[6] It also includes properties related to the event semantics, such as the affectedness of arguments or the level of volitionality or control.^[7] Finally, in many languages, differential marking is related to the status of arguments as either topical or focal.^[2] There appear to be cross-linguistic differences in the triggering factors depending on whether the subject (agent) or object (patient) is differentially-marked.^[1]

Person and Animacy

In some cases, arguments are marked differential depending on their inherent properties. Examples of inherent properties that affect argument marking include the person, animacy and uniqueness features of a noun, which are often expressed as a hierarchy or scale.^[1]

In cases of differential marking, arguments that are higher on the scale tend to have one form of marking, whilst arguments lower on the scale have a different form of marking.^[1] The cut off point may not be the same in all languages. An example is Hindi where the marking of objects is affected by animacy. Animate objects are marked with accusative case, whether the argument is definite or not. In contrast, inanimate objects are not marked with accusative case unless they are definite:

Definiteness and Specificity

Differential marking can also be affected by discourse-related semantic features, such as definiteness and specificity.^[1] Like other semantic features, these can also be represented as a hierarchy.

References

1. ^¹²³⁴⁵⁶{{Cite book|veditors = Seržant I, Witzlack-Makarevich A|date=2018|title=Diachrony of differential argument marking|url = http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/173|publisher = Language Science Press| place = Berlin|doi=10.5281/zenodo.1219168|doi-access=free|format=pdf|last1=Seržant|first1=Ilja A.|last2=Witzlack-Makarevich|first2=Alena}}
2. ^¹²{{Cite book|title=Objects and information structure|last=Dalrymple|first=Mary|last2=Nikolaeva|first2=Irina|date=2011|publisher=Cambridge University Press|others=|isbn=9780521199858|location=Cambridge|pages=|oclc=711047863}}
3. ^{{Cite book|title=Empirische Universalienforschung : differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen|last=Georg.|first=Bossong|date=1985|publisher=Narr|isbn=978-3878083641|location=Tübingen|oclc=13348020}}
4. ^{{Cite book|date=2009|editor-last=de Hoop|editor-first=Helen|editor2-last=de Swart|editor2-first=Peter|title=Differential Subject Marking|journal=Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory|volume=72|doi=10.1007/978-1-4020-6497-5|issn=0924-4670|isbn=978-1-4020-6498-2}}
5. ^{{Cite journal|last=McGregor|first=William B.|date=2010|title=Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective|journal=Lingua|volume=120|issue=7|pages=1610–1636|doi=10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010|issn=0024-3841}}
6. ^{{Cite journal|last=Aissen|first=Judith|date=2003|title=Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy|url=|journal=Natural Language & Linguistic Theory|volume=21|pages=435–483|via=}}
7. ^{{Cite journal|last=Næss|first=Åshild|date=2004|title=What markedness marks: the markedness problem with direct objects|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0024384103001189|journal=Lingua|volume=114|issue=9–10|pages=1186–1212|doi=10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005|issn=0024-3841}}
8. ^¹²{{Cite book|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/typology-and-universals/D09986F35C708113378BD1B76073E258|title=Typology and Universals by William Croft|last=Croft|first=William|date=November 2002|website=Cambridge Core|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511840579|access-date=2019-01-21|isbn=9780511840579}}
9. ^{{Cite journal|last=Aissen|first=Judith|date=2003-08-01|title=Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy|journal=Natural Language & Linguistic Theory|volume=21|issue=3|pages=435–483|doi=10.1023/A:1024109008573|issn=1573-0859}}
10. ^¹²Mohanan, Tara. 1990. Arguments in Hindi. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University. [p. 104]