Cover not available
Part of
Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages: Studies in prosody and syntax
Edited by Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude and Martine Vanhove
[Studies in Language Companion Series 199] 2018
► pp. 195–216

Chapter 7
Focus marking and differential argument marking

The emergence of bidirectional case marking in Wan

| CNRS-LLACAN

Wan makes use of a bidirectional case marker that does not attach to either the subject or the object but serves to separate core arguments that would otherwise be adjacent. The use of this optional marker depends on factors that are known to condition alignment splits in other languages (such as pronominality). Bidirectional case marking is but one strategy employed by speakers of Wan to avoid dispreferred combinations of adjacent subjects and objects. It is closely related to the marking of information structure: the same marker is also used to mark focus. The study presents an Optimality-Theoretic account of this relationship and draws parallels between the bidirectional case marking of Wan and systems of optional or pragmatic ergativity.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The marking of focused transitive subject
  • 3.Bidirectional case marking
  • 4.Relating focus marking to bidirectional case marking
  • 5.Avoidance of prominence violations: Beyond bidirectional marking
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.07nik
References
Aissen, Judith
1999 Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M.
2008 Differential argument marking in two-term case systems and its implications for the general theory of case marking. In Differential Subject Marking, Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds), 151–172. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bearth, Thomas
1995 Nominal periphrasis and the origin of the predicative marker in the Mande languages – An alternative view. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 41: 89–117.Google Scholar
Bird, Charles S. & Kendall, Martha B.
1986 Postpositions and auxiliaries in Northern Mande: Syntactic indeterminacy and linguistic analysis. Anthropological Linguistics 28(4): 389–403.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul
1998 Functional Phonology: Formalizing the Interactions between Articulatory and Perceptual Drives. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce
2001 Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Dingare, Shipra & Manning, Christopher
2001 Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Tatiana
2009 The gradience of the dative alternation. In Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, Linda Uyechi & Lian Hee Wee (eds), 161–184. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed.), 25–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), 329–394. Austin TX: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis
1997 Postpositions as a possible origin of certain predicative markers in Mande. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 50: 5–17.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis & Diagne, Anna Marie
2013 Transitivity in Bakel Soninke. Mandenkan 50: 1–35.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis & Sambou, Pierre
2013 Le mandinka: Phonologie, grammaire, textes. Paris: Karthala.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina
2011 Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter
2008 Cross-linguistic variation in differential subject marking. In Differential Subject Marking, Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds), 1–16. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Malchukov, Andrej L.
2007 On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117(9): 1636–1656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39(4): 565–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2011 “Optional” “ergativity” in Tibeto-Burman languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34: 9–20.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
1979 Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie
2011 Differential agent marking and animacy. Lingua 121(3): 533–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
2014 A and O as each other’s mirror image? Problems with markedness reversal. Linguistic Typology 18(1): 3–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1976 Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed.), 149–188. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey
2007 Bidirectional case-marking and linear adjacency. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Recent case work reviewed. Linguistic Typology 13: 451–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio
2010 Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34(2): 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenny, Mathias & San San Hnin Tun
2013 Differential subject marking without ergativity: The case of colloquial Burmese. Studies in Language 37: 693–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastenholz, Raimund
1989 Grundkurs Bambara (Manding) mit Texten. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
2003 Auxiliaries, grammaticalization, and word order in Mande. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 24: 31–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward
1976 Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed.), 303–333. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
König, Christa
2008 Case in Africa. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J.
1992 Anti-ergative marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 15: 1–9.Google Scholar
1995 “Ergative” marking in Tibeto-Burman. In New Horizons in Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax, Yoshio Nishi, James Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds), 189–228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
2004 On nominal relational morphology in Tibeto-Burman. In Studies on Sino-Tibetan Languages: Papers in honor of Professor Hwang-cheng Gong on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Ying-jin Lin, Fang-min Hsu, Chun-chih Lee, Jackson T-S. Sun, Hsiu-fang Yang, & Dah-an Ho (eds), 43–73. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2008 Anymacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2): 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel
2012 The meaning of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49: 127–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B.
2006 Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua 116: 393–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 480–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana
2007 Time reference of aspectual forms in Wan (Southeastern Mande). In Selected Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Doris L. Payne & Jaime Peña (eds), 125–133. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
2008 The Mixing of Syntactic Properties and Language Change. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
2009 The syntax of postpositional phrases in Wan, an “SOVX” language. Studies in Language 33(4): 910–933. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Categorial reanalysis and the origin of the SOVX word order in Mande. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 32(2): 251–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming a. Verb phrase external arguments in Mande: New evidence for obligatory extraposition. To appear in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.
Forthcoming b. When linguists and speakers do not agree: The endangered grammar of verbal art in West Africa. To appear in Journal of Linguistic Anthropology.
Ravenhill, Philip L.
1973/1974 [Philip L. Ravenhill Papers, Box 4]. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas
1991 The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14: 93–107.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
2010 Animacy and information structure in the system of ergative marking in Umpithamu. Lingua 120: 1637–1651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Nikitina, Tatiana
2020. Logophoricity and shifts of perspective. Functions of Language 27:1 ► pp. 78 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 september 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.