Differential Argument Marking in Two-term Case Systems and its Implications for the General Theory of Case Marking

  • Peter M. Arkadiev
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 72)

In this paper I present a view of case marking that explicitly rejects a commonly assumed position that its primary function is to merely distinguish arguments from one another (cf. Comrie 1978, 1989; Dixon 1979, 1994), while marking them according to their specific semantic or pragmatic functions is a secondary phenomenon. In order to show that such a view (which has already been challenged by many linguists, see section 2) is untenable, I will investigate data from argumentencoding variations in languages which possess only two cases, and will compare them with similar phenomena from languages with richer case systems. As it will be seen, ‘nondiscriminative’ coding strategies found in two-term case systems, though typologically unusual, can be easily accounted for under the assumption that case marking of a particular argument is subject to ‘local’ ‘indexing’ rules and constraints dealing rather with this particular argument, than with the overall ‘global’ relational structure of the clause. The ‘discriminatory’ function, though retaining its importance, is, in this view, no more than just one of the constraints relevant for argument marking, whose ranking with regards to other such constraints is not always and not necessarily high.


Embed Clause John Benjamin Subordinate Clause CSLI Publication Case Inventory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackerman, F. and J. Moore (2001). Proto-Properties and Grammatical Encoding. A Correspondence Theory of Argument Selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 673-711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435-483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aissen, J. and J. Bresnan (2002). Optimality and functionality: Objections and refutations. Natural language and linguistic theory 20, 81-95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bossong, G. (1985) Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  6. Butt, M. and T.H. King (2002a). Case systems: Beyond structural distinctions. New Perspectives on Case Theory. Ed. by E. Brandner, H. Zinmeister. Stanford (CA): CSLI Publications, 53-87.Google Scholar
  7. Butt, M. and T.H. King (2002b). The status of case. Unpublished manuscript, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
  8. Comrie, B. (1978). Ergativity. Syntactic Typology. Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Ed. by W.P. Lehmann. Austin: The University of Texas Press, 329-394.Google Scholar
  9. Comrie, B. (1979). Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana, 3, 13-21.Google Scholar
  10. Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. DeLancey, S. (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57, 626-567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon, R.M.W. (1979). Ergativity. Language 55, 59-138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon, R.M.W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Du Bois, J.W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63, 805-855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gil, D. (1994). The structure of Riau Indonesian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17, 179-200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gil, D. (1999). Riau Indonesian as a pivotless language. Tipologija i teorija jazyka: Ot opisanija k objasneniju [Typology and Linguistic Theory. From Description to Explanation]. Festschrift for Alexander E. Kibrik. Ed. by E.V. Rakhilina, and J.G. Testelec. Moscow: Jazyki Russkoj Kul’tury, 187-211.Google Scholar
  17. Givón, T. (1984). Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. de Hoop, H. and B. Narasimhan (2005), Differential case-marking in Hindi. Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case. Ed. by M. Amberber and H. de Hoop. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishers, 321-345.Google Scholar
  19. Hoop, H and B. Narasimhan (this volume). Ergative case-marking in Hindi.Google Scholar
  20. de Hoop, H. and M. Lamers (2006). Incremental distinguishability of subject and object. Case, Valency, and Transitivity. Ed. by L.I. Kulikov, A.L. Malchukov and P. de Swart. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 269-287.Google Scholar
  21. Keenan, E.L. (1985). Relative clauses. Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. II. Complex Constructions. Ed. by T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 141-170.Google Scholar
  22. Kibrik, A.E. (1979). Canonical ergativity and Daghestan languages. Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. Ed. by F. Plank. London: Academic Press, 61-78.Google Scholar
  23. Kibrik, A.E. (1997). Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology 1, 279-346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lazard, G. (1984), Actance variations and categories of the object. Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. Ed. by F. Plank. London: Academic Press, 269-292.Google Scholar
  25. Lazard, G. (1994). L’actance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, H. (2003). Parallel optimization in case systems. Nominals: Inside and Out. Ed. by M. Butt and T.H. King. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 15-58.Google Scholar
  27. Legendre, G., W. Raynold and P. Smolensky (1993). An Optimality-Theoretic typology of case and grammatical voice systems. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 464-478.Google Scholar
  28. Lehmann, C. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Ed. by J. Haiman and S.A. Thompson, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181-226.Google Scholar
  29. Lehmann, C. (1995). Thoughts on Grammaticalization. LINCOM Europa, München and Newcastle. (Appeared as ms. in 1982)Google Scholar
  30. Lindenfeld, J. (1973). Yaqui Syntax. Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Malchukov, A.L. (2005), Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case. Ed. by M. Amberber and H. de Hoop. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishers, 73-118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malchukov, A.L. (2006), Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Considering co-variation. Case, Valency and Transitivity. Ed. by L.I. Kulikov, A.L. Malchukov, P. de Swart. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 329-357.Google Scholar
  33. Mallinson, G. and B.J. Blake (1981). Language Typology. Cross-linguistic Studies in Syntax. Amsterdam, North Holland.Google Scholar
  34. Masica, C. (1991). The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. McCarthy, J. and A. Prince (1994). The emergence of the unmarked. Optimality in Prosodic Morphology. Proceedings of NELS-24. 333-379.Google Scholar
  36. Mohanan, T. (1994). Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Moravcsik, E.A. (1978a). On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45, 233-279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moravcsik, E.A. (1978b). On the limits of subject-object ambiguity tolerance. Papers in Linguistics 11, 255-259.Google Scholar
  39. Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Payne, J.R. (1979). Transitivity and intransitivity in the Iranian languages of the U.S.S.R. The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, Including Papers from the Conference on Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR (The 15th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society). Ed. by P.R. Clyne, W.F. Hanks and C.L. Hofbauer. Chicago, 436-447.Google Scholar
  41. Payne, J.R. (1980). The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua 51, 147-186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Payne, J.R. (1989). Pāmir languages. Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Ed. by R. Schmitt. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 417-444.Google Scholar
  43. Plank, F. (1980). Encoding grammatical relations: Acceptable and unacceptable non-distinctness. Historical morphology. Ed. by J. Fisiak. The Hague: Mouton, 289-325.Google Scholar
  44. Press, M.L. (1979). Chemehuevi: A Grammar and Lexicon. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  45. Primus, B. (1999). Cases and Thematic Roles. Ergative, Accusative and Active. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  46. Primus, B. (2003). Proto-roles and case selection in Optimality Theory. Arbeiten des SFB 282 “Theorie des Lexikons” 122.Google Scholar
  47. Selcan, Z. (1998). Grammatik der Zaza-Sprache. Nord-Dialekt (Dersim-Dialekt). Berlin: Wissenschaft und Technik.Google Scholar
  48. Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Ed. by R.M.W. Dixon. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies, 112-171.Google Scholar
  49. Skalmowski, W. (1974). Transitive verb constructions in the Pamir and Dardic languages. Studia Indoeuropejskie, Polska Akademia Nauk - Oddział w Krakowie. Prace Komisji Językoznawstwa 37, 205-212.Google Scholar
  50. Song, J. (2001). Linguistic Typology. Morphology and Syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  51. Stilo, D.L. (2004). Vafsi Folk Tales. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
  52. Swart, P. (2003). The Case Mirror. MA Thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  53. Testelec, J.G. (2003). Grammaticheskie ierarxii i tipologija predlozhenija. [Grammatical Hierarchies and the Typology of the Clause] Doctoral dissertation. Russian State University of Humanities, Moscow.Google Scholar
  54. Tsunoda, T. (1981). Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19, 389-438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wierzbicka, A. 1980). The Case for Surface Case. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
  56. Wierzbicka, A. (1981). Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1, 43-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wierzbicka, A. (1983). The semantics of case marking. Studies in Language 7, 247-275.Google Scholar
  58. Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  59. Woolford, E. (2001). Case patterns. Optimality-theoretic Syntax. Ed. by G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw, S. Vikner. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 509-543.Google Scholar
  60. Wunderlich, D. and R. Lakämper (2001). On the interaction of structural and semantic case. Lingua 111, Special Issue on the Effects of Morphological Case. Ed. by Helen de Hoop et al., 377-418.Google Scholar
  61. Yar-Shater, E. (1969). A Grammar of Southern Tati Dialects. The Hague/Paris, Mouton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter M. Arkadiev
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Typology and Comparative LinguisticsRussian Academy of SciencesRussia

Personalised recommendations