Cover not available
Article published In:
Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?
Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Anna Pineda
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 42:1] 2019
► pp. 31–55

Differential object marking and object scrambling in the Guaraní language cluster

| University of Minho (Braga, Portugal)
The parallel data discussed in this article suggest that in Guaraní languages differential objects seem far from being exclusively highlighted in morpho-​logy. Instead, the Guaraní dom systems exhibit a differential treatment of certain direct objects within narrow syntax. Focusing on [+animate] direct objects, I supply evidence that [+dom] direct objects scramble out of their base position into a higher, vP-internal, projection, namely αP (following López 2012). This short DO scrambling is derived including data from simple transitive, ditransitive, and applicative constructions as well as from object conjunction. The short scrambling within vP is followed by further direct object dislocation into a higher functional domain, an operation described in literature as triggered by φ-feature under T° and targeting a specifier in an expanded functional domain (Freitas 2011b). DOs that move out of their base position may be marked with the overt case marker, homophonous with dat case. The homophony between dat and dom is conceived as morphological opacity in the Guaraní case. Syntactically, however, [+dom] DOs pattern together with their zero-marked acc counterparts, rather than with indirect objects.
Keywords: differential object marking, object scrambling, person hierarchy, direct/inverse alignment, Guaraní language cluster
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Pronouns, verbal agreement and word order
    • 2.1Free pronominal forms
    • 2.2Bound agreement marking
    • 2.3Direct/inverse marking system
    • 2.4Agreement, p-hierarchy and word-order
  • 3.DP features and dom
    • 3.1The basic dom system
    • 3.2Pronominal differential objects
    • 3.3[dom] and DP-feature based theory
  • 4.Syntactic treatment of direct objects
    • 4.1Previous work on Guaraní word order
    • 4.2Evidence for short scrambling of DO+dom
    • 4.3[dom] and syntactic theory
    • 4.4Further evidence for “3-Step” object scrambling
  • 5.Accusative-dative homophony in Guaraní
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 10 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00028.roe
References (45)
References
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bárány, A. 2018. DOM and Dative Case. Glossa, A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G. 1985a. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1985b. Markierung von Aktantenfunktionen im Guaraní. In F. Plank (Ed.), Relational Typology, 1–29. Berlin: Gruyter, Mounton de. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond. In D. Kibbee, & D. Wanner (Eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, V. F. 2008. Aspectos Morfosintácticos da Língua Kaiowá (Guarani). Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin et al. (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001. Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz, & K. Hale (Eds.), A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dietrich, W. 1990. More evidence for an internal classification of Tupi-Guarani languages. Indiana. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.Google Scholar
2009. Cambio del orden de palabras en lenguas tupí-guaraníes. Cadernos de Etnolingüística, 1(3).Google Scholar
Dooley, R. 1982. Options in the Pragmatic Structuring of Guaraní Sentences. Language, 58(2), pp. 307–331.Google Scholar
2006. Léxico Guarani, Dialeto Mbyá e Introdução: Informações Gerais, Esboço Gramatical e Refererências. Working Paper SIL.Google Scholar
Freitas, M. L. 2011a. Hierarquia de Pessoa em Avá-Guarani – Considerações a partir da Morfologia Distribuída. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.Google Scholar
2011b. Hierarquia de pessoa em Avá Guarani: aspectos sintáticos e morfológicos. LLAMES, 111, 7–33.Google Scholar
Freitas, M. L. D. A. & Roessler, E.-M. 2013. On Null-Arguments in Aché and Guaraní. In CILLA VI – 6th Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America, Panel 6A – Syntax. Austin: Austin University.Google Scholar
García, M. 2007. Differential Object Marking in Inanimate Objects. In G. Kaiser, & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop ’Definetness, Specificty and Animacy in Ibero Romance Languages, University Konstanz, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft. Konstanz.Google Scholar
Gregores, E. & Suaréz, J. 1967. A Description of Colloquial Guaraní. Den Haag; Paris: Mounton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guasch, A. 1981. Diccionário Castellano-Guaraní y Guaraní-Castellano. Asunción: Ediciones Loyola.Google Scholar
Irimia, M. A. 2018. Differential Objects and other Structural Objects. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 3(50), 1–15.Google Scholar
Jelinek, E. 1993. Ergative “Splits” and Argument Type. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, (18), 15–42.Google Scholar
Jelinek, E. & Carnie, A. 2003. Argument Hierarchies and the Mapping Principle. In A. Carnie et al. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar – In honor of Eloise Jelinek. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, C. 1990. Cross-referencing changes in some Tupí-Guaraní languages. In D. Payne (Ed.), Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American Languages, 117–158. Austin: Austin University.Google Scholar
1998. The use of coreferential and reflexive markers in Tupi-Guarani languages. Journal of Amazonian Languages, I(2).Google Scholar
Keine, S. & Müller, G. 2008. Differential Argument Encoding by Impoverishment. In M. Richards, & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86, 83–136. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K. 1988. On Double Object Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 191, 335–391.Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite Objects: Scrambling, Choice Functions, and Differential Marking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martins, M. F. 2003. Descrição e Análise de Aspectos da Garmática do Guaraní Mbyá. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. & Sandalo, F. 2011. Markedness and morphotactics in Kadiwéu [+participant] agreement. Morphology, 211, 351–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford, W. 2014. Microparameters of agreement: A diachronic perspective on Algonquian verb in ection by A diachronic perspective on Algonquian verb in ection. Dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
2015. Variation in Multiple Agree: A syntactic connection between portmanteau agreement and inverse marking. pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
2017. Inverse Marking as Impoverishment. In A. Kaplan et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Cost Conference on Formal Linguistics, 413–422. Cascadilla. Somerville.Google Scholar
Payne, D. 1994. The Tupí-Guaraní Inverse. In B. Fox, & P. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: Form and Function, 313–340. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 201, 365–340.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, A. 1990. You and I = neither you nor I: the personal system of Tupinamabá. In Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American Languages, 393–405. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Roessler, E.-M. 2015. Inflectional Morphology Restructuring in Ache – Discussing Grammatical Change and Language Contact in Tupí-Guaraní Subgroup–1. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 371–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Syntactic Effects of Inflectional Morphology Restructuring – On Language Change and Language Contact in Tupi-Guaraní Subgroup-1. Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.Google Scholar
Roessler, E.-M., Gasparini, N. & Danielsen, S. 2014. ‘The Southern Clade of Tupi-Guarani Languages: Adpositional Issues’. Belem do Pará.Google Scholar
Sandalo, F. 2009. Person Hierarchy and Inverse Voice in Kadiwéu. LLAMES, 91(Primavera), 27–40.Google Scholar
Seki, L. 2000. Gramática do Kamaiura. Campinas: Impresensa Oficial / Editora Unicamp.Google Scholar
Shain, C. A. 2009. The Distribution of Differential Object Marking in Paraguayan Guaraní. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Shain, C. & Tonhauser, J. 2011. The Synchrony and Diachrony of Differential Object Marking in Paraguayan Guaraní. Language Variation and Change, 221, 321–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, J. 2014. Null Arguments in Paraguayan Guaraní. In B. Estigarribia (Ed.), Guaraní Linguistics in the 21st Century (submitted manuscript), 1–43.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. & Colijn, E. 2010. Word Order in Paraguayan Guaraní. International Journal of American Linguistics, 76 (2), 255–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (19)

Cited by 19 other publications

Baker, Mark C.
2022. Agree without agreement in object clitic doubling constructions. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Bhattacharya, Tanmoy & Jyoti Sharma
2022. A morphosyntactic account of agreement in Mara. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Carstens, Vicki
2022. Addressee agreement and clitic raising in Kiunguja Swahili. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 56 ff. DOI logo
De Cia, Simone
2022. Topicality and object–past participle agreement in Friulian. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 295 ff. DOI logo
Devos, Maud & Rozenn Guérois
2022. Micro-variation in object marking in North Mozambican Bantu languages. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 164 ff. DOI logo
Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina
2022. Agreement in Turkish relative clauses. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 340 ff. DOI logo
Hauck, Jan David
2022. Grammaticalization, Language Contact, and the Emergence of a Hortative in Guaraché, a New Mixed Language in Paraguay. Languages 7:3 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina & Eva-Maria Roessler
2022. DOM and other object-marking strategies. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Milković, Marina & Ronnie Wilbur
2022. Agreement marking in Croatian Sign Language. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Andrew Nevins, Anita Peti-Stantic, Mark de Vos & Jana Willer-Gold
2022. Angles of Object Agreement, DOI logo
Overfelt, Jason
2022. Asymmetric symmetry in Tigrinya object marking. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Riedel, Kristina
2022. Object marking in Bantu. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Sonnenhauser, Barbara & Paul Widmer
2022. Object clause indexing in Albanian. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 327 ff. DOI logo
Steinbach, Markus
2022. Differential object marking in sign languages?. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Willer-Gold, Jana
2022. Introduction. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Willer-Gold, Jana & Anita Peti-Stantić
2022. A multiple-agreement approach to auxiliary clitic drop in Croatian. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. General preface. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. vii ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Copyright Page. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of abbreviations. In Angles of Object Agreement, ► pp. viii ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.