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 (51)
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 (1)

Cited by one other publication

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 29 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.