Referential density and Differential Argument Marking in Manange, Nar and Manang Gurung, SOAS
Channel: SOAS University of London
Date: 2014-11-18

This Linguistics seminar titled "Referential density and Differential Argument Marking in Manange, Nar and Manang Gurung" was given by Oliver Bond, University of Surrey (with Kristine Hildebrandt & Dubi Nanda Dhakal) at SOAS, University of London on 18 February 2014 (http://bit.ly/1t8MFka).

Find out more about studying Linguistics at SOAS at http://www.soas.ac.uk/linguistics

Abstract:In many dependent‐marking languages of the Tibeto‐Burman area, Differential Subject Marking (DSM) (de Hoop & de Swart 2008, Malchukov 2008) and Differential Object Marking (DOM) (Bossong 1985, Aissen 2003) are manifested through case -marking of core arguments that is conditional (in the sense of Corbett 2012) rather than invariably governed. In languages exhibiting the possibility of both DSM and DOM within the same transitive clause, the formal manifestation of argument NPs opens up the logical possibility of four different permutations of case -marked arguments [+SUBJ,  -OBJ; +SUBJ, +OBJ,  -SUBJ,  -OBJ;  - SUBJ, +OBJ] with the number of case -combinations realised determined on a language specific basis. In this paper we examine the distribution of Differential Argument Marking (DAM) strategies in three Tamangic languages (Gurung, Manange and Nar -Phu), spoken in Manang District, Nepal, to determine the ways in which DAM behaves in a system exhibiting low referential density.

Using fieldwork data from discourse, semi -spontaneous speech and elicitation, we argue that the combination of case -marking realised on both arguments in a clause with DSM -DOM potential may be influenced by differences in the referential density and case -inventory in each language, but that the overall distribution of case is determined by the interplay between the animacy hierarchy and the information -structure of the clause. For instance, discourse data from Manang Gurung suggests that ERG marking of transitive subjects is much more variable than neighbouring Gyalsumdo (Tibetan), with DSM determined primarily by topicality, except when case is lexically governed by the verb as with se ‘know (someone/something)’ and tha ‘know (a place)’.

Evidence of this kind points to an analysis of DSM -DOM clauses in which information -structural features related to focus or topicality are more important factors for case marking than structural relations. Since the influence of other conditions such as animacy, definiteness and tense -aspect are also relevant – at least in where only on argument may be differentially marked – the evidence examined points to an analysis of DAM in which a multitude of conditions contribute to a meaningful contrast. We propose that while the ways in which these factors influence DSM -DOM clauses are not identical across members of the same genetic group, analysis of the clauses’ information structure appears to be the best determinate of its case -marking potential.