Topicality and differential object marking

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

[1]  Jae Jung Song,et al.  Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax , 2000 .

[2]  Bernard Comrie,et al.  The ergative: Variations on a theme , 1973 .

[3]  Jack Feuillet,et al.  Le marquage différentiel de l'objet dans les langues d'Europe , 1998 .

[4]  T. Givon.  Topic Continuity in Discourse , 1983 .

[5]  Anna Siewierska,et al.  Case and Alternative Strategies , 2008 .

[6]  T. Givón,et al.  Topic continuity in discourse : a quantitative cross-language study , 1983 .

[7]  M. Mithun.  The evolution of noun incorporation , 1984 .

[8]  Georg Bossong.  Empirische Universalienforschung : differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen , 1985 .

[9]  G. Bossong.  Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond , 1991 .

[10]  T. Givón.  Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction , 1983 .

[11]  S. Thompson,et al.  Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse , 1980 .

[12]  Giorgio Iemmolo.  La marcatura differenziale dell'oggetto in siciliano antico , 2009 .

[13]  C. Lehmann.  Thoughts on Grammaticalization , 2015 .

[14]  Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald,et al.  Grammatical Relations in Tariana , 1994, Nordic Journal of Linguistics.

[15]  Michelle L. Gregory,et al.  Topicalization and left-dislocation: a functional opposition revisited☆ , 2001 .

[16]  Christa König,et al.  Case in Africa , 2008 .

[17]  Joseph H. Greenberg,et al.  Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies , 1966 .

[18]  Pompeu Fabra.  Gramática de la lengua catalana , 1977 .

[19]  Åshild Næss,et al.  What markedness marks: the markedness problem with direct objects , 2004 .

[20]  Mohammad Dabir-Moghaddam.  On the (In)dependence of syntax and pragmatics: Evidence from the postposition -rá in Persian , 1992 .

[21]  John W. Du Bois.  Argument structure: Grammar in use , 2003 .

[22]  Henri Ramirez,et al.  A fala Tukano dos Ye'pa Masa : Tomo I : Gramática , 1997 .

[23]  Knud Lambrecht,et al.  Information structure and sentence form , 1994 .

[24]  Irina Nikolaeva,et al.  Secondary topic as a relation in information structure , 2001 .

[25]  Thomas Givon,et al.  Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Volume I , 1984 .

[26]  Talmy Givón,et al.  Iconicity, isomorphism, and non-arbitrary coding in syntax , 1985 .

[27]  Le marquage différentiel de l'objet , 2001 .

[28]  E. C. Hills.  The Accusative "A" , 1920 .

[29]  A. Duranti,et al.  Left-dislocation in Italian conversation , 1979 .

[30]  Dieter Wanner,et al.  New analyses in Romance linguistics : selected papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Urbana-Champaign, April 7-9, 1988 , 1991 .

[31]  Andrej L. Malchukov,et al.  Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking , 2008 .

[32]  Ignazio Efisio Putzu.  Per uno studio dell’accusativo preposizionale in sardo antico: emergenze dallo spoglio del Condaghe di San Pietro di Silki , 2008 .

[33]  Joachim Jacobs,et al.  The dimensions of topiccomment , 2001 .

[34]  W. Chafe.  Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view , 1976 .

[35]  Bernard Comrie,et al.  When agreement gets trigger‐happy , 2003 .

[36]  S. Thompson,et al.  Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation , 2001 .