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 morphology. 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
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00028.roe
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

Cited by 1 other publications

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. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 january 2023. 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.