Information structure without topic and focus

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 386-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavel Ozerov
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Content Management ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Information Packaging ◽  
Context Dependent ◽  
Object Marking

Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Burmese is usually analysed as directly related to the expression of information structure. Yet, this corpus-based study of DOM and the associated prosody finds that DOM is not based on information structure alone, but is also additionally motivated by discourse structure and content management. The suggested analysis proposes that DOM in Burmese provides a grammatical structure of information packaging: a system of separating information into units (packages) and establishing relations between them. Different configurations of packaging are employed to create an array of context-dependent interpretive effects related to information structure, discourse structure, and other factors. Hence, it is argued that information structure is not directly expressed in the language. Instead, it stems from an interpretation of the interplay between information packaging and various pragmatic-semantic factors, and is but one of the possible effects created by packaging.

Differential object marking in Catalan

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Alexandrina Irimia ◽  
Anna Pineda
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Theoretical Contribution ◽  
The Core ◽  
Nominal Structure ◽  
Comprehensive Picture ◽  
Widespread Phenomenon ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Case Feature

Abstract In this paper we provide a comprehensive picture of differential object marking in Catalan, focusing on both the empirical facts and their theoretical contribution. We support some important conclusions. First, Catalan differential object marking is quite a robust and widespread phenomenon, contrary to what prescriptive grammars assume. Second, we show that, from a formal perspective, Catalan differential object marking cannot be completely subsumed under hierarchical generalizations known as scales. The contribution of narrow syntax mechanisms and nominal structure is fundamental, supporting recent views by López (2012) or Ormazabal and Romero (2007, 2010, 2013a, b), a.o. Building on these works as well as on observations initially made by Cornilescu (2000) and Rodríguez-Mondoñedo (2007), a.o., we adopt an analysis under which canonical, animacy-based differential marking results from the presence of an additional (PERSON) feature, beyond Case. This structural make-up is not only at the core of differences marked objects exhibit from unmarked objects with a Case feature, but also derives the prominence of differential marking on (animates) under information-structure processes, in the high left (and right) periphery, in contexts of the type discussed by Escandell-Vidal (2007a, b, 2009).

The acquisition of differential object marking in Hindi as a foreign language

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaricia Ponnet ◽  
Kristof Baten ◽  
Saartje Verbeke
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Foreign Language Learners ◽  
Direct Objects ◽  
Object Marking

This article explores a grammatical structure — differential object marking (DOM) — that is particularly difficult for L2 learners to acquire. DOM is a phenomenon in which some direct objects are morphologically marked and others are not. In Hindi, animate direct objects are always marked with the objective case marker ko, whereas specific direct objects are only optionally marked with ko. Inanimate and non-specific direct objects are never marked with ko and take the unmarked nominative form. DOM in Hindi has been found to pose a problem to heritage speakers of Hindi. The present study investigates whether similar difficulties exist for foreign language learners. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 30 foreign language learners of Hindi completing an oral production task. The results suggest that the learners do not have difficulties with the concept of DOM in itself — they know that not every direct object needs to be marked —, but rather with the variable conditions under which DOM occurs. The study defines five developmental profiles, which reflect a gradual accumulation of contexts appropriately marked with the objective case.

scholarly journals Topicality and differential object marking

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Iemmolo
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Comparative Data ◽  
Romance Languages ◽  
Semantic Features ◽  
Personal Pronouns ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Left Dislocation ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
The Relationship

The present paper investigates the relationship between dislocation and differential object marking in some Romance languages. As in many languages that have a DOM system, it is usually also assumed that in Romance languages the phenomenon is regulated by the semantic features of the referents, such as animacy, definiteness, and specificity. In the languages under investigation, though, these features cannot explain the distribution and the emergence of DOM. After discussing the main theoretical approaches to the phenomenon, I will analyse DOM in four Romance languages. I will argue that DOM emerges in pragmatically and semantically marked contexts, namely with personal pronouns in dislocations. I will then show that in these languages the use of the DOM system is mainly motivated by the need to signal the markedness of these direct objects as a consequence of being used in (mainly left) dislocation as topics (cf. English “As for him, we didn’t see him”). Finally, the examination of comparative data from Persian and Amazonian languages lends further support to the advocated approach in terms of information structure

Topic, focus, and discourse structure

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 573-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dejan Matić
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Word Order Variation ◽  
Order Variation ◽  
Information Packaging ◽  
One To One ◽  
Free Word ◽  
Free Variation

It is commonly assumed that word order in free word order languages is determined by a simple topic – focus dichotomy. Analysis of data from Ancient Greek, a language with an extreme word order flexibility, reveals that matters are more complex: the parameters of discourse structure and semantics interact with information packaging and are thus indirectly also responsible for word order variation. Furthermore, Ancient Greek displays a number of synonymous word order patterns, which points to the co-existence of pragmatic determinedness and free variation in this language. The strict one-to-one correspondence between word order and information structure, assumed for the languages labelled discourse configurational, thus turns out to be only one of the possible relationships between form and pragmatic content.

Discourse motivations for pronominal and zero objects across registers in Vera'a

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Schnell ◽  
Danielle Barth
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Class Membership ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Object Agreement ◽  
Referential Choice ◽  
Significant Factors

AbstractThe choice between pronominal and zero form for objects in the Oceanic language Vera'a is investigated quantitatively in texts from two registers with discourse topics of three different ontological class memberships. Discourse topicality is found to predict best the choice between pronoun and zero, outranking the factors of ontological class membership, antecedent form, and antecedent function. Contrary to current models of referent tracking, antecedent distance does not show any effect at all. It is concluded that (a) discourse structure and activation are not universally the most significant factors in referential choice and (b) ontological class and discourse topicality can be teased apart through appropriate text sampling, and it is the latter that is most significant. This bears important implications for the grammaticalization of object agreement and the typology of differential object marking.

scholarly journals A Study of DOM in Asturian (‘Dialectu Vaqueiru’)

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-140
Author(s):  
Avelino Corral Esteban
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Ancestral Form ◽  
Northwestern Spain ◽  
Direct Objects ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
And Function

The present paper explores Differential Object Marking in a variety of Asturian (Western Iberian Romance) spoken in western Asturias (northwestern Spain). This ancestral form of speech stands out from Central Asturian and especially from Standard Spanish. For a number of reasons, ranging from profound changes in pronunciation, vocabulary, morphology and information structure to slight but very relevant effects on syntax. The main goal of this study is to examine the special marking of direct objects in order to find out what triggers the distribution of Differential Object Marking in this variety. To this aim, this paper will examine, from a variationist perspective, the influence of a number of semantic and discourse-pragmatic parameters on the marking of direct objects in this Western Asturian language as well as in Standard Spanish 1 and Central Asturian (which is generally considered the normative variety of Asturian). The results obtained from this comparison will allow us to outline the differences between these three varieties in terms of object marking, shedding more light on the origin and function of Differential Object Marking in Spanish.

scholarly journals The impact of information structure on the emergence of differential object marking: an experimental study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shira Tal ◽  
Kenny Smith ◽  
Jennifer Culbertson ◽  
Eitan Grossman ◽  
Inbal Arnon
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Language Typology ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
New Information ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
The Impact

Many languages exhibit differential object marking (DOM), where only certain types of grammatical objects are marked with morphological case. Traditionally, it has been claimed that DOM arises as a way to prevent ambiguity by marking objects that might otherwise be mistaken for subjects (e.g., animate objects). While some recent experimental work supports this account (Fedzechkina et al., 2012), research on language typology suggests at least one alternative hypothesis. In particular, DOM may instead arise as a way of marking objects that are atypical from the point of view of information structure. According to this account, rather than being marked to avoid ambiguity, objects are marked when they are given (already familiar in the discourse) rather than new. Here, we experimentally investigate this hypothesis using two artificial language learning experiments. We find that information structure impacts participants’ object-marking, but in an indirect way: atypical information structure leads to a change of word order, which then triggers increased object marking. Interestingly, this staged process of change is compatible with documented cases of DOM emergence (Iemmolo, 2013). We argue that this process is driven by two cognitive tendencies. First, a tendency to place discourse given information before new information, and second, a tendency to mark non-canonical word order. Taken together, our findings provide corroborating evidence for the role of information structure in the emergence of DOM systems.

scholarly journals Differential object marking and information structure: on the function of two different pronominal accusatives in Komi and Khanty dialects

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 343-372
Author(s):  
Gerson Klumpp
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Interesting Phenomenon ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Language Varieties ◽  
Object Marking

The present contribution calls attention to a marginal but interesting phenomenon of variation in grammar, namely the employment of two different accusative markings for pronominal objects encountered (i) in dialect texts from the Komi varieties of Upper Vym’ and Luza, and (ii) in varieties of Kazym-Khanty, i.e. in two different branches of Uralic (Permic and Ugric). Based on contextual observations an explanation in terms of information structure is achieved: as will be argued, in both language varieties, additional accusative forms of pronominal object expressions signal their focality resp. non-focality. The study contributes to the theory of differential object marking by establishing focality as one of its parameters

Non-canonical case marking on subjects in Russian and Lithuanian

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-196
Author(s):  
Marco Magnani
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Semantic Features ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
The Subject ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Role Of Information

Abstract In case-marking languages with nominative-accusative alignment the subject of a sentence is usually marked by nominative case. In some of these languages, however, the subject of a number of verbs is either consistently or alternately marked by another, non-nominative case. Such non-canonical case marking has often been approached in the linguistic literature as a phenomenon at the interface between syntax and semantics. Yet the predictions of this kind of approach seem more probabilistic than regular. This paper offers a new perspective to analyse the phenomenon, which encompasses the role of information structure in case marking. Drawing on Silverstein’s (1976) theory of differential subject marking and Dalrymple & Nikolaeva’s (2011) approach to differential object marking, it is argued that non-canonically case-marked subjects can be better analysed as instances of either non-topical subjects or subjects lacking one or more semantic features typical of topicality. The approach outlined in the paper is tested on a number of constructions in Russian and Lithuanian. It is shown how, in both languages, the analysed instances of non-canonically case-marked subjects exhibit a complex interplay among grammatical, semantic and discourse-pragmatic factors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document