DOM and verb semantics
SFB 732: Incremental Specification in Context
Project C2: Kasus und referentieller Kontext
Ljudmila Geist, Dolgor Guntsetseg, Udo Klein, Edgar Onea, Klaus von Heusinger
22.01.2007
1. Theoretical background
There are two main types of case marking patterns:
S
S
NOM
ACC
A
IT: intransitive verb
TV: transitive verb
ABS
IV
P
ERG
TV
S: argument of intransitive verb
A: agent-like argument of transitive verb
P: patient-like argument of transitive verb
A
P
NOM: nominative
ACC: accusative
ERG: ergative
ABS: absolutive
In NOM-ACC languages it is often the case that S and A are morphologically
unmarked, whereas in ERG-ABS languages it is often the case that S and P are
unmarked.
Differential object marking (DOM): only P arguments high on the animacy/referential
scales are marked as ACC.
Competing explanations for DOM:
1.
The function of DOM is to distinguish P from A, if P can be misunderstood as A.
2.
The function of DOM is to identify strong arguments as P.
de Hoop and Narasimhan (2005) distinguish:
- A:
strong A argument
- a:
weak A argument
- P:
strong P argument
1
-
p:
weak P argument
The strength of an argument depends on its discourse prominence (see e.g. Legendre
et. al 1993), on its prototypicality (see e.g. Dowty 1991), and on the transitivity of the
verb (see Hopper
and Thompson 1980).
Arguments are ordered with respect to their strength:
A>a>P>p
Marking of A:
identifies the role of a strong argument as A.
Marking of a:
distinguishes a from P.
Marking of P: (i) distinguishes P from a, or (ii) identifies the role of a strong
argument as P.
4. Marking of p: identifies the role of a weak argument as P.
1.
2.
3.
If a language has differential marking of P and differential marking of a, then the
function of case marking is to distinguish A from P where ambiguity is likely.
If a language has differential marking of P and differential marking of A, then the
function of case marking is to identify strong arguments as P or as A.
Challenge: DOM depends not only on the semantic and pragmatic properties of direct
object referent, but also on the verb semantics as will be shown below with Hindi,
Mongolian, Spanish, and Russian.
Claim: DOM identifies the “strength” of the relation between the P role and an
argument. If a verb requires animate DOs the relation between the role and the
argument is stronger than if the verb requires inanimate DOs. The more
animate/referential an argument, the stronger its relation to P. This accounts for the
dependence of DOM on both the strength of the argument and the properties of the
particular P role of a verb meaning.
2. Hindi
If a verb is perfective, then the subject is marked with ERG suffix ne. In most other
cases the subject is unmarked. The marking of a DO with ACC suffix ko depends not
only on the semantic and pragmatic properties of the DO referent, but also on the
selectional properties of the verb. The examples are all from Mohanan (1994).
If the verb requires the DO referent to be animate, then the DO must be marked with
ko.
(1)
raam ravii*(-ko)
Raam Ravi-ACC
piiṭtaahai.
beat.IMPRF be.PRS
2
Raam beats Ravi.
If the verb is neutral with respect to the animacy of the DO referent, then ACC suffix
ko is obligatory if DO referent is human (2), ungrammatical with inanimate indefinite
DOs (3), and optional for inanimate definite DOs (3,4):
(2)
ilaa-ne
bacce*(-ko) uṭhaayaa.
Ila-ERG
child-ACC lift.PERF
Ila lifted the/a child.
(3)
ilaa-ne
haar-ko
Ila-ERG
necklace-ACC
Ila lifted the/*a necklace.
(4)
ilaa-ne
haar
uṭhaayaa.
Ila-ERG
necklace
lift.PERF
Ila lifted the/a necklace.
uṭhaayaa.
lift.PERF
Verbs which select only inanimate direct objects cannot be marked
with ko even if the referent is identifiable by the speaker.
(5)
ilaa-ne is khat(*-ko) likhaa.
Ila-ERG this.NN letter-ACC write.PERF
Ila wrote this letter.
Summary: dependence of DOM on selectional properties of verb.
ko marking of DOs
V selects DO [+anim]
[+hum]
V selects DO [±anim]
obligatory
V selects DO [-anim]
[-anim]
obligatory
Def. NP: optional
Indef. NP: ungrammatical
ungrammatical
The distribution of the ACC suffix ko in Hindi depends not only on the strength of the
DO referent, but also on the selectional properties of the verb, and thus on the
relation between verb semantics and argument strength.
Are there other properties of verbs that may play a role for DOM?
3. Mongolian
In Mongolian DOM also depends on the relation between verbs semantics and
argument strength. But in addition, DOM also depends on whether the verb is
intensional or not.
If the verb select only DOs with animate referents, then in the context where the
referent is discourse new and known by the speaker, the ACC suffix is optional.
(6)
Ter
neg
jolooch(-iig) al-san.
3
3SG one driver-ACC kill-PST
He/she killed a driver.
For most verbs which are neutral as to the animacy of the DO, the ACC suffix is also
optional in this context.
(7)
Ter neg jolooch(-iig) har-san.
3SG one driver-ACC sehen-PST
He/she saw a driver.
If a verbs which only selects DOs with inanimate referents, then in the same context
as above (i.e. DO referent is discourse new and known by speaker) the ACC suffix is
ungrammatical.
(8)
Ter neg nom(*-iig)
3SG one book-ACC
He/she read a book.
unsh-san.
read-PST
The intensional verb hai- (to look for) is also neutral as to the animacy of the DO
referent. But in the same context (referent of DO is discourse new and known by
speaker) the ACC suffix is not always optional as with other neutral verbs:
- If the argument is human, then ACC is optional.
(9)
Bi
neg bagsh(-iig) hai-san.
1SG one teacher-ACClook.for-PST
I looked for a particular teacher.
- If the argument is inanimate, then ACC is ungrammatical.
(10)
Bi
neg nom(*-iig) hai-san.
1SG one book-ACC look.for-PST
I looked for a particular book.
iig marking of DO
V selects DO [+anim]
V selects DO
[±anim]
hai- (look for)
V selects DO [-anim]
[+anim]
optional
[-anim]
optional
optional
ungrammatical
ungrammatical
4. The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish
4.1. Theoretical background of the diachronic perspective
4
-
In the typological literature (Bossong, Comrie etc.) it has been observed that
DOM usually starts out on the left of the referentiality and animacy scale and
gradually extends to the right.
o Animacy scale (Bossong 1985: 6) :
[±deix] > [±propr] > [±hum] > [ ±pers] > [±anim] > [ ±discr] >
[±concr]
o Refrentiality scale (Aissen: 2003, 437: “definiteness scale”):
pers.pron. > propr.noun > def.NP > indef.spec. NP > indef.non-spec.NP
> incorp.
-
It also has been assumed that in the historic evolution of DOM every step on the
referentiality scale is intermediated by a more fine-graded category such as
topicality for definite NPs and specificity for indefinite NPs:
o Evolution of DOM from Old Spanish to Modern Spanish for animate
objects (von Heusinger & Kaiser 2005)
Strong Pro >
Definite
+top
transition point between ±top for
definite direct objects
Strong Pro >
PN >
Definite
+top
neutralization for ±top
Strong Pro >
PN >
PN >
Definite –
top
Indefinite
Definite –
top
Indefinite
Definite
transition point between ±spec for
indefinite direct objects
Strong Pro >
PN >
Definite
transition point between an unknow feature
for non-specific indefintite direct objects
Strong Pro >
PN >
Definite
-
Indefinite
Indefinite
+spec
Indefinite
+spec
Indefinite
–spec
Indef
–spec
+ Arg
The diachronic study of such intermediating factors is crucial for the
understanding of the factors triggering DOM cross-linguistically
In the project C2 the diachronic evolution of DOM has been analysed in
Romanian and Spanish, today we only present the influence of different verb
classes on differential object marking in Spanish:
4.2. DOM in Spanish
(1)
Indef
–spec
–Arg
Only [+human] direct objects get the direct object marker a:
[+human], [±definite], [+specific]:
Vi
*(a) la / una mujer.
‘I saw the / a woman.’
5
(2)
[–human], [±definite], [+specific]:
Vi
(*a) la / una mesa.
see.past-1.sg
the a
table
‘I saw the / a table.’
-
Some aspects of verb-semantic play a role in synchronic a-marking:
o Individuation:
Estaba dibujando a una niña (Leonetti 2003, 80)
was drawing
A a
child
'(S)he was portraying a child'
Estaba dibujando una niña (Leonetti 2003, 80)
was drawing
a
child
'(S)he was drawing a child'
(4)
(5)
o Telicity (Torrego Salcedo 1999, 1786):
Marta insultó
*(a) un compañero.
Marta insult.PAST-3.SG A a collegue
'Marta insulted a collegue'
(6)
(7)
some verbs require a-marking (group a.) while a-marking is optional (depending
on other factors) with other verbs (group b.)
a. {odiar/ admirar/ despreciar/ amar/ aborrecer/ soportar} *(a) una persona
‘to hate/ admire/ despise/ love/ detest/ put up with… a person’
b. {llevar/ curar/ contratar/ describir/ encontrar / ver}(a) una persona
‘to take/ cure/ hire/ describe/ find/ see a person’
4.3. Diachronic Data
+ animate
Old Spanish
(Cid)
Evolution
Modern (Standard)
Spanish
-
personal
pronoun >
+
proper
noun >
+
> definite
NP
±
(30%)
> indefinite
spec. NP
–
(< 8%)
> indefinite
non spec. NP
–
+
+
+
+
±
Bible translations
o A: 14th century: Biblias medievales romanceadas. Biblia medieval
romanceada judio-cristiana. Versión del Antiguo Testamento en el siglo XIV,
sobre los textos hebreo y latino.Vol. I: Genesis-Reyes. Edicón y estudio
introductorio por el P. José LLamas. Madrid.
o B: 16th / 17th century: Reina Valera Antigua. Published 1569, revised
1602. http://www.biblegateway.com
o C: 20th century: Europa Reina Valera 1995 (United Bible Societies)
-
http://www.biblegateway.com/
o D: 20th century: Americas La Biblia de las Américas (The Lockman
Foundation) Published 1986. Latin American completely new translation on
original texts.
Statistical results for 1 Sam 1-10: Definite and indefinite descriptive NPs
6
1 Sam
1-10
±a
A
BC
D
Definite
+ top
(preverbal / clitic
doubling)
+a
–a
4
2
-
Indefinite
– top
(postverbal)
+a
14
18
26
26
–a
12
10
3
2
+a
1
4
6
10
–a
13
15
6
3
4.4. Correlation between Verb Type and DOM with definite descriptive
NPs
Group A: DO tend. [+ human]
- matar (to kill)
- herir/plagar (to hurt)
- honrar (to praise)
- bendicir (to bless)
Matar
(to kill)
A
B
C
D
def
+a
19
23
26
27
–a
13
4
1
indef
+a
–a
1
13
1
6
7
1
9
Group B: DO [± human]
- ver (to see)
- hallar (to find)
- tomar (to take)
Tomar
(to take)
A
B
C
D
Group C: DO tend. [– human]
- leer (to read)
- escriber (to write)
- formar (to form)
No direct object marking due to animacy
restriction.
def
+a
6
4
15
17
–a
13
13
9
8
indef
+a
–a
8
14
1
4
2
5
Matar (to kill)
1: Kings 11
15
E estando gauid en
edom, en subiendo
joab, capitán de la
hueste, para soterrar
los matados mató Ø
todo macho en edom,
[ + def]
15
Porque cuando
David estaba en Edom,
y subió Joab el general
del ejército á enterrar
los muertos, y mató á
todos los varones de
Edom,
15
Porque cuando
David estaba en
Edom,[i] Joab, el
general del ejército, al
subir a enterrar los
muertos, mató a todos
los hombres de Edom
7
15
Sucedió que
cuando David estaba en
Edom, y Joab, el jefe
del ejército, subió a
enterrar a los muertos
y mató a todos los
varones de Edom
Earlier when David was fighting with Edom, Joab the commander of the army, who had gone up to
bury the dead, had struck down all the men in Edom.
1 Kings 20
29
[ – def]
29
29
Siete días
Siete días
Acamparon unos
tuvieron asentado
estuvieron acampados frente a otros por siete
campo los unos
los unos frente a los
días. Y sucedió que al
delante de los otros, y otros, y al séptimo día séptimo día comenzó la
al séptimo día se dió
se dio la batalla. Los
batalla, y los hijos de
la batalla: y mataron hijos de Israel
Israel mataron de los
los hijos de Israel de
mataron de los sirios
arameos a cien mil
los Siros en un día Ø
en un solo día a cien
hombres de a pie en un
cien mil hombres de á mil hombres de a pie.
solo día.
pie.
The two armies camped opposite each other for seven days, and on the seventh day the battle
began. The Israelites killed 100,000 Aramean foot soldiers in one day.
E posaron unos
enfruente de otros
siete sías e en el día
seteno allegose la
batalla, e mataron los
fijos de ysrrael de
aram Ø en çient mill
peones un día,
29
Tomar (to take)
2: Samuel 10
[ + def]
4
4
4
Entonces Hanún
Entonces Hanún
Entonces Hanún
E tomó hadon Ø los
syeruos de dauid e
tomó Ø los siervos de
tomó a los siervos de
tomó a los siervos de
trasquiló la meytad de David, y rapóles la
David, les rapó la
David, les rasuró la
sus baruas e cortó sus mitad de la barba, y
mitad de la barba, les
mitad de la barba, les
paños por medio fasta cortóles los vestidos por cortó los vestidos por
cortó los vestidos por
sus posaderos e
la mitad hasta las
la mitad hasta las
la mitad hasta las
enbiolos.
nalgas, y despachólos.
nalgas, y los despidió. caderas, y los despidió.
So Hanun took David's servants and shaved off half of their beards, and cut off their garments in
the middle as far as their hips, and sent them away.
4
1: Samuel 24
[ – def]
2
Entonces
Saúl
Tomó entonces
Saúl Ø tres mil
tomó de todo Israel Ø
hombres escogi-dos de tres
mil
hombres
todo Israel y salió en
escogidos, y fue en
busca de David y de
busca de David y de sus
sus hombres por las
hombres
por
los
cumbres de los
peñascos de las cabras
peñascos de las cabras monteses.
monteses.
So Saul took three thousand chosen men from all Israel and set out to look for David and his
men near the Crags of the Wild Goats.
E tomó saul Ø tres
mill omnes escogidos
de todo ysrrael e fue a
buscar a dauid e a sus
omnes por la fas de las
peñas ásperas.
2
Y tomando Saúl
Ø tres mil hombres
escogi-dos de todo
Israel, fué en busca de
David y de los suyos,
por las cumbres de los
peñascos de las cabras
monteses.
2(24-3)
2
5. Russian
5.1.Two models of differential Case Marking (De Hoop & Narasimhan
2005)
Model I
The Case marking applies to both arguments indepentendly.
Identifying function of case
Subject
Object
8
What is marked:
strong A
strong P
Model II
Case-marking applies to the relation between the subject and the object.
Distinguishing function of case
Subject
Object
Prototype
strong A
weak p
What is marked
weak a
strong P
Russian presents a serious problem for the theory of differential case marking because
it doesn’t follow the existing models of case marking. Russian marks „weak“ patiens,
irrespective of their syntactic function as „Subject“ or as „Object“.
5.2. The „Russian“ model of case marking
In affirmative sentences the subject commonly bears Nominative case, and the object
of transitive verbs bears Accusative case. However, under two conditions (sentence
negation and intentional verbs) the NP can alternatively be marked with the Genitive.
Since Genitive marking is restricted to these two conditions Genitive has to be
assumed a marked case whereas Nominativ and Accusative are unmarked cases.
Condition 1: sentence Negation
• Genitive alternation with direct objects
(1)
•
a. Ivan ne poluchil otvet.
Ivan NEG received answer-ACC.M.SG
‘Ivan didn’t receive an/the answer.’
b. Ivan ne poluchil otveta.
Ivan NEG received answer-GEN.M.SG
‘Ivan received no answer.’ ‘He didn’t receive an/the answer.’
Genitive alternation with Subjects of unaccusative verbs:
(2)
a. Otvet
ne
prishel.
answer-NOM.M.SG NEG arrived-M.SG
‘The answer has not arrived.’
b. Otveta
ne
prishlo.
answer-GEN.M.SG NEG arrived-N.SG
‘There was no answer.’ / ‘The answer has not arrived.’
Condition 2: intensional verbs
(3)
a. Sergej zhdet otvet.
Sergej waits answer-ACC
‘Sergej was waiting for the/an answer.’
b. Sergej
zhdal otveta .
9
Sergej
waits answer-GEN.
‘Sergej is waiting for the/an answer.'’
On many approaches, Subject and Object Gen Neg involves demotion of the argument and
some kind of reduced referentiality or non-specificity. The NP in Genitive has been usually
assumed to be a „weak NP“ wereas NPs in Akkusative or in Nominative are assumed to be
strong NPs.
•
(3)
What does the „weakness“ of NPGEN mean?
Otvet
ne
prishel
v srok.
answer-NOM.M.SG NEG arrived-M.SG in time
‘The answer has not arrived in time.’
b. # Otveta
ne
prishlo
v srok.
Answer-GEN.M.SG NEG arrived-M.SG in time
a.
 “weakness of the NPGEN” means “non-existence of the referent at some
location” (Partee & Borschev 2002, 2004)
(4)
a. Sergej zhdet
otvet.
On byl poslan emu v ponedel’nik.
Sergej waits
answer-ACC
It was sent him on Monday.
‘Sergej is waiting for the/an answer.
It was sent to him on Monday’
b. Sergej zhdet
otveta.
#On byl poslan emu v
ponedel’nik.
Sergej waits answer-GEN
It was sent him on Monday
‘Sergej is waiting for the/an answer.
It was sent to him on Monday’
 “weakness of the NPGEN” means “non-specificity” (Geist 2006)
To sum up: Genitive marks weak patients (e.g. patiens which are not existentially
presuppoed or which are non-specific). Thus, the Russian case marking pattern
represents a third model of case marking:
Model III for case marking (Russian)
Identifying function of case
What is marked:
Subject
Object
weak p as subject weak p as object
Issues for further research
• What is the motivation for Model III?
•
Which languages follow Model III? (Finnish, others ?)
•
Why is alternative case marking possible only in some contexts (negation,
intentional verbs) and is excluded in others?
10
6. Conclusion and questions
Differential marking of direct objects depends not only on the properties of the direct
object referent, but also on some properties of the verb, e.g. the selectional properties
of the verb, whether or not the verb is intensional, and on the polarity of the verb.
DOM identifies the “strength” of the relation between the P role and an argument. If
a verb requires animate DOs the relation between the role and the argument is
stronger than if the verb requires inanimate DOs. The more animate/referential an
argument, the stronger its relation to P. This accounts for the dependence of DOM on
both the strength of the argument and the properties of the particular P role of a verb
meaning.
What other properties of verbs are relevant for DOM?
References:
Aissen, J. (2003): Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language
& Linguistic Theory 21:435-483.
Bossong, G. (1985): Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle
Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: G. Narr (AL, 14).
Comrie, B. (1989): Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd edition. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
Dowty, D. (1991): Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547-619.
De Hoop, H. and Narasimhan, B. (2005): Differential Case-Marking in Hindi, in Competition
and Variation in Natural Languages, eds. M. Amberber and H. de Hoop, Elsevier,
Nijmegen
Geist, L. (2006): „Genitive Case in Russian and Specificity” Paper presented at the Workshop
on Specificity, Stuttgart, August 2006.
Heusinger, Klaus von & Kaiser, Georg A. (2005): The evolution of differential object
marking in Spanish. In: K. von Heusinger, G.A. Kaiser & E. Stark (eds.),
Proceedings of the Workshop Specificity and the Evolution / Emergence of Nominal
Determination Systems in Romance. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft
der Universität Konstanz (= Arbeitspapier, 119), 33-69
Hopper P.J. and Thompson, S.A. (1980): Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language,
56(2), 251-299.
Legendre, G. and Raymond, W. and Smolensky, P. (1993): An optimality-theoretic typology of
case and grammatical voice systems, Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley.
11
Leonetti, M. (2003): Specificity and object marking: The case of Spanish a. In:
Arbeitspapier Nr. 113. Proceedings of the Workshop "Semantic and Syntactic
Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages". Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft,
Universitat Konstanz, 67-101.
Mohanan, T. (1994): Argument structure in Hindi, CSLI Publications, Stanford.
Partee, B. H., and Borschev, V. (2002): Genitive of Negation and Scope of Negation in Russian
Existential Sentences. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics:
the Second Ann Arbor Meeting 2001.
Partee, B. & Borshev, V. (2004): The Russian Genitive of Negation: Integration of Lexical and
Compositional Semantics. NSF Grant Proposal Project Description, Jan 2004.
Torrego Salcedo, E. (1999): El complemento directo preposicional. In: Ignacio Bosque
y Violeta Demonte (eds.): Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española. Madrid:
Espasa. 1779-1805. [Vol. 2]
12