Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 45:4 (2021) ► pp.791–839

Differential object marking in P’orhépecha

Split case and fluid case alternations

ORCID logo | Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa

This paper analyzes Differential Object Marking in P’orhépecha, which involves split case and fluid case alternations. Although this system is sensitive to Animacy and Definiteness, I will show that prominence on these scales does not account for the distribution of flagging. In fact, in P’orhépecha, the expected prominence effects of these scales are overridden by certain grammatical properties of the NPs, which explains the obligatory vs. forbidden flagging. The fluid pattern is of special interest, since even though there is evidence that flagging is used as a device to codify definiteness/specificity, higher and lower ranked objects on the definiteness scale may be (un)flagged. This peculiar behavior is explained by two facts: (a) definite/specific descriptions may, and in some instances must, be unflagged when the context of use guarantees the intended referential interpretation of the NP; and (b) lower ranked objects may be flagged only when their referents exhibit discourse salience.

Keywords: differential object marking, fluid case marking, split case marking, flagging, animacy, definiteness, specificity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Differential object marking
    • 2.1The definiteness scale
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.P’orhépecha and previous proposals about DOM in the language
  • 5.Split DOM pattern. Obligatory flagging vs. forbidden flagging
    • 5.1Obligatory flagging
      • 5.1.1Animacy
      • 5.1.2Syntactic definiteness
      • 5.1.3Plural NPs with -icha/-echa
    • 5.2Forbidden flagging
    • 5.3Obligatory vs. forbidden flagging antecedents. The objective case marker in ancient P’orhépecha
  • 6.Fluid case alternation. DOM and the definiteness dimension
    • 6.1Bare indefinite NPs
    • 6.2Indefinite inanimate NPs with ma
    • 6.3Inanimate definite bare NPs
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Symbols
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16071.cap
References
Aissen, Judith
2003 Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 211. 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
2008 Referential scales and case alignment: Reviewing the typological evidence. In Andrej Malchukov & Marc Richards (eds.), Scales (Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86). 1–37. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J.
2006 Inferential relations and noncanonical word order. In Betty J. Birner, & Gregory Wards (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (Studies in Language Companion Series 80). 31–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L.
1984 Dechticaetiative and dative. In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Toward a Theory of Grammatical Relation, 127–150. London & New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen
2015 A practical epistemology for semantic elicitation in the field and elsewhere. In M. Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, 13–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1985 Differenzielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Genter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
1991 Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analysis in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Urbana-Champaign, April 7–9, 1988). 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Le marquage différentiel de l’ objet dans les langues d’ Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, Terrence Kaufman & Thomas C. Smith-Stark
1986 Meso-America as a linguistic area, Language 62 (3). 530–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capistrán Garza, Alejandra
2002a Variaciones de orden de constituyentes en p’orhépecha. Topicalización y focalización. In Paulette Levy (ed.), Del cora al maya yucateco. Estudios lingüísticos sobre algunas lenguas indígenas mexicanas, 349–402. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas.Google Scholar
2002b Marcación de caso objetivo en la frase nominal p’orhépecha. In Zarina Estrada & Rosa María Ortiz (eds.), VI Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, Memorias. Tomo I1, 251–269. Sonora: Unison.Google Scholar
2012 Definitud y marcación diferencial de objeto en p’orhépecha. Signos Lingüísticos 8(15). 43–72.Google Scholar
2014 El morfema verbal –a de objeto en p’orhépecha: Pluralidad vis-à-vis distributividad. In Rebeca Barriga Villanueva & Esther Herrera Zendejas (eds.), Lenguas, estructuras y hablantes. Estudios en homenaje a Thomas C. Smith -Stark, Vol. 21. 713–736. Mexico: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
2015 Multiple object constructions in P’orhépecha. Argument realization and valence-affecting morphology (Brill’s Studies in the indigenous languages of the Americas 9). Leiden-Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamoreau, Claudine
1999 Le marquage différentiel de l’objet en purépecha. La Linguistique 35 (2). 99–114.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana
2013 Fieldwork for language description. In Robert J. Podesva & Devyani Sharma (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 51–73. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert
1977 Bridging. In Philip N. Johnson-Laird & Peter C. Wason (eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science, 411–420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989 Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd. edn. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2012 Some argument-structure properties of ‘give’ in the languages of Europe and Northern and Central Asia. In Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie & Valery Solovyev (eds.), Argument structure and grammatical relations. A crosslinguistic typology (Studies in Language Companion Series 126). 17–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cover, Rebecca & Judith Tonhauser
2015 Theories of meaning in the field: Temporal and aspectual reference. In M. Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, 306–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2003 Typology and universals, 2nd. edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Czardybon, Adrian
2017 Definiteness in a language without articles. A study on Polish. (Dissertations in Language and Cognition, SFB991, Vol. 3). Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Darlymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
2011 Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta
2017 Determining (in)definiteness in the absence of articles. In Vera Hohaus & Wanda Rothe (eds.), Proceedings of Triple A 3: Fieldwork Perspectives on the Semantics of African, Asia and Austronesian Languages, 85–99. University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Andrej Malchukov
2007 On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117(9). 1636–1656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter
2006 Case markedness. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series 77). 249–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Cross-linguistic variation in differential object marking. Nijmengen: Radbound University dissertation.Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter & Helen de Hoop
2007 Semantic aspects of differential object marking. In Estela Puig-Waldmüler (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 111. 598–611. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Dimmendal, Gerrit
2001 Places and people: Field sites and informants. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic fieldwork, 55–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet
1991 The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 221. 213–243Google Scholar
Epps, Patience
2008 A grammar of Hup. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria
2009 Differential object marking and topicality: The case of Balearic Catalan. Studies in language 33 (4). 832–884. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka
1994 Specificity and scope. In Léa Nash & George Tsoulas (eds.), Actes du Premier Colloque Langages et Grammaire, Vol. 11, 119–137. Paris: Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
2002 Specificity distinction. Journal of Semantics 19 (3). 231–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, Elena
2005 The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 91. 77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, Mary LeCron
1969 The Tarascan language (Publications in Linguistics 56). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul
1971 The Tarascan suffixes of locative space. Meaning and morphotactics (Language Research Monograph 9). Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 Tarascan from meaning to sound. In Munro S. Edmonson (ed.), Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 2 Linguistics, 56–82. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerner, Matthias
2008 Ambiguity-driven differential object marking in Yongren Lolo. Lingua, 118 (3). 296–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilberti, Maturino
1987 [1558] Arte de la lengua de Michuacán (Fuentes de la lengua tarasca o purépecha II). Morelia, Michoacán: Fimax Publicistas.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1984 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, Vol. 11, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski
1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 691. 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2005 Universals of differential case marking. Explaining Syntactic Universals, course at the LSA Institute at MIT (LSA 206), July 17–August 5 2005.Google Scholar
2011 On S, A, P, T and R as comparative concepts for alignment. Linguistic Typology 15(3). 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. Ms., Universität Leipzig, [URL]
Hawkins, John
1978 Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1991 On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 271. 405–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgo
2010 Topicality and differential object marking. Studies in Language 34(2). 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenks, Peter
2018 Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry 49(3). 501–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars
2006 Two approaches to specificity. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series 77). 255–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew & Gregory Ward
2006 Referring expressions and conventional implicatures. In Betty J. Birner & Gregory Wards (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (Studies in Language Companion Series 80). 177–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo & Andrej Malchukov
2009 Varieties of accusative. In Andrej Malchukov, & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (Oxford handbooks in Linguistics). 549–561. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Klein, Udo & Peter de Swart
2010 Case and referential properties. Lingua 122 (1). 3–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin & Klaus von Heusinger
2009 Specificity and partitivity in some Altaic Languages. In Ryosuke Shibagaki & Reiko Vermeulen (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics ( WAFL 5) (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58), 19–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Lagunas, Juan Baptista de
1983 [1574] Arte y diccionario con otras obras en la lengua michuacana (Fuentes de la lengua tarasca o purépecha I). Morelia, Michoacán: Fimax Publicistas.Google Scholar
Levinson, Dmitry
2006 Definiteness of body part terms in Spanish and Portuguese. In Timothy L. Face & Carol A. Klee (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic linguistics Symposium, 172–182. Sumerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Lewis, David
1979 Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1). 339–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Christopher
2011 Definiteness encoding and the limits of accomodation. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.) Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 157–182. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Christopher
1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2008 Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2), 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Peter de Swart
2009 Differential case marking and actancy variations. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (Oxford handbooks in Linguistics). 339–355. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa
2004 On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(4). 369–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Semantics in indigenous American languages 1917–2017 and beyond. International Journal of American Linguistics 83 (1). 141–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B.
2013 Optionality in grammar and language use. Linguistics 51(18).1147–1204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Emergence of optional accusative case marking in Khoe languages, In Ilja A. Seržant, & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (Studies in diversity Linguistics 19). 243–279. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Monzón, Cristina
1997 Introducción a la lengua y cultura tarascas. Valencia: Universitat de València.Google Scholar
2004 Los Morfemas espaciales del p’urhépecha. Significado y morfosintaxis. Zamora, Michoacán: El Colegio de Michoacán.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yukiko
2002 Prominence mismatches and differential object marking in Bantu. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, 292–314. Stanford CA: CSLI. [URL]
Murray, Sarah
2015 Reciprocity in fieldwork and theory. In M. Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, 287–305. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nava, E. Fernando
1997 Relación de trabajos realizados para el Seminario de Investigación Morfológica dirigido por el Dr. Fernando Leal en el Colegio de México (Ms.) Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Næs, Äshild
2004 What markedness marks: the markedness problem with direct object. Lingua 114 (9–10). 1186–1212, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. F.
1992 The ZPG letter: Subject, definiteness, and information-status. In William C. Mann & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text (Pragmatics and beyond New Series 16). 295–325. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craig
2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(3). 287–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian
2013 Different types of definites crosslinguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (10). 534–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serra, Angel
1730 [1697] Manual de administrar los santos sacramentos. A los españoles y naturales de esta provincia de los gloriosos apostoles S. Pedro y S. Pablo de Michuacan, conforme a la reforma de Paulo V y Urbavo VIII. Mexico: Imprenta de Joseph Bernardo de Hogal.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
2018 Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 19). 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchies of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thomas C.
1994 Mesoamerican calques. In Carolyn J. MacKay & Verónica Vázquez (eds.), Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica, 15–50. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius
2014 A typological perspective on DOM. Linguistics 52 (2). 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
2001 Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Vázquez Rojas, Violeta
2010 Case marking and semantic incorporation in Tarascan. In Suzi Lima (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 5: Semantic of Under-represented Languages in the Americas, Harvard/MIT, from 15th to 17th may 2009 259–278. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
2019 Morfosemántica de la frase nominal purépecha. Mexico: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Villavicencio, Frida
2002 Estructura y cambio del sistema de casos en el purhépecha. Del siglo XVI al siglo XX. Mexico: El Colegio de México, CELL, dissertation.Google Scholar
2006 P’orhépecha kaso sïrátahenkwa: Desarrollo del sistema de casos del purépecha, Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus
2011 Specificity. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 21. 1024–1057. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Jaklin Kornfilt
2005 The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages 91. 3–44.Google Scholar

P’orhépechan texts

Dimas Huacuz, Néstor
1995 Temas y textos del canto p’urhépecha. Pirekua:Nirasïnkani ma pireni. Zamora, Michoacán: El Colegio de Michoacán.Google Scholar
Lathrop, Maxwell
(coord.) 1977 Jimbani Eiatsperakua tata Jesucristueri. El nuevo testamento de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, 2nd end. Mexico: Sociedad Bíblica Mexicana.Google Scholar
Márquez Joaquín, Pedro
1996 P’urhepecha jimpo. Segundo grado. Mexico: Secretaría de Educación Pública, Dirección General de Educación Indígena.Google Scholar
Morales Vázquez, Francisco & Néstor Dimas Huacuz
(coords.) 1998 P’urhepecha jimpo II. Segundo ciclo. Mexico: Secretaría de Educación Pública, Dirección General de Educación Indígena.Google Scholar
Torres Sánchez, Joel
1997 P’urhepecha uandatskuecha. Narrativa p’urhépecha Vol.11. Michoacán: Linares.Google Scholar
Santamaría Galván, Ana, Julio Salgado Moya, Juan Cornelio Aparicio & Demetrio Nicolás González
coord. N. d. Uandanskuecha ka arhinskateacha purépecha jimpo. Cuentos y leyendas purépechas Pátzcuaro, Michoacán Centro de Educación Fundamental para América Latina y El Caribe, Jefatura de Zonas de Supervisión de Educación Indígena de Pátzcuaro
ji jorhenguariaka = Ji jorhenguariaka sanderu. In anonymous Ms 1975 Literatura tarasca, Cherán, 32–37.Google Scholar
ji no xukuamiska = Ji no xukuamiska, ¡ji xurhijkirhiska! In Torres Sanchéz 1997 147–171. (San Jerónimo)Google Scholar
juata Juata Akumarhani ka Chupikuarhu anapu. In Santamaría Galván et al., 43–44 (San Jerónimo)
kuchi = Kuchi sapi. In Dimas Huacuz 1995 251–252.Google Scholar
k’uichitiicha Cherasnaspti k’uichitiicha. In Santamaría Galván et al., 831. (Tarerío)
Magdalenita = Magdalenita. In Dimas Huacuz 1995 1681.Google Scholar
Maria Maria juata. In Santamaría Galván et al., 40–42. (San Jerónimo).
miringua Miringua. In Santamaría Galván et al., 89–95. (San Andrés Tziróndaro)
San Juanu = Ambakiti eiankperakua eska na karaka San Juanu. In Lathrop 1997 322–412.Google Scholar
San Lukasï = Ambakiti eiankperakua eska na karaka San Lukasï. In Lathrop 1997 195–321.Google Scholar
San Markusï = Ambakiti eiankperakua eska na karaka San Markusï. In Lathrop 1997 120–194.Google Scholar
tata Tata imangi noteru eskampka. In Santamaría Galván et al., 55–56. (Ihuatzio)
tata Pedru Tata Pedru no ambakiti. In Santamaría Galván et al., 25–28. (San Jerónimo)
tembuchati Jimbani tembuchati. In Santamaría Galván et al., 31–32. (San Jerónimo)
tembuna Tembuna ka no ambakiti. In Santamaría Galván et al., 72–77. (Tarerío)
toru Toru miringata jiuatsïo anapu. In Santamaría Galván et al., 60–62. (Ihuatzio)
tumbi Tumbi enga nirajka tembuchani. In Santamaría Galván et al., 103–108. (Ichupio)
tumbi tembuchati Tumbi tembuchati. In Santamaría Galván et al., 78–82. (Tarerío)
tumina Tumina eshenantani. Ms. Recorded in 2012. (Santa Fe de la Laguna)
uajpa Uajpa, Tanti, ka tata k’eri. In Santamaría Galván et al., 371. (San Jerónimo)
uarhuricha Uekanaspti uarhuricha cheranani. In Santamaría Galván et al., 86–88. (San Andrés Tziróndaro)
uekanksï karhani Uekanksï karhani. In Santamaría Galván et al., 84–85. (San Andrés Tziróndaro)