ISSN: 2306-5737E-ISSN: 2658-4069
Acta Linguistica Petropolitana
Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies
ISSN: 2306-5737E-ISSN: 2658-4069
Acta Linguistica Petropolitana
Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies 

A database of contexts with polypredicative reason constructions in the New Testament

DOI:10.30842/alp23065737193611633
PDF, 541.01 kb
Shuvalova V. P. Strategii markirovaniya obyekta v khristianskom urmiyskom idiome sela Urmiya. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 611–633.

This paper is dedicated to the Differential Object Marking system in the Christian Urmi idiom (NENA dialects < Semitic < Afro-Asiatic language family), spoken in the village of Urmiya, Russia. Both indexing and flagging are employed in this idiom for object marking, with either technique showing rather optional use. The paper investigates the way the prominence of a direct object on the one hand, and the informational structure on the other, influence the object marking. The study is based on material that includes texts obtained by elicitation, recorded spontaneous texts, and a fairy tale translated specifically for the research. The findings show the effects of the direct object’s prominence to be typologically expected, with the following restrictions coming into play: inanimate objects cannot be marked by flagging, while interlocutors, on the contrary, tend to be more frequently marked by means of flagging. Christian Urmi has three sets of indexes that are selected depending on the aspect and tense form of the verb. The frequency of using these sets of indexes varies greatly, with flagging preferably chosen for past tense and indexing mostly found with present-stem-derived forms. In progressive and resultative tenses, indexes and flagging show equal frequency of occurrence. The influence of the informational structure seems to be as follows. Flagging is used to encode direct objects which have been a) shifted from their subject role, b) disrupted by other referents in the immediately preceding register, or c) which occur with verbs that imply a high level of the object’s involvement.

Keywords
differential object marking, verb indexing, flagging, information structure, Semitic, Neo-Aramaic
References
Agassiyev 2007
S. A. Agassiyev. Grammatika sovremennogo assiriyskogo yazyka [A Grammar of Modern Assyrian]. Russian State Pedagogical University in the name of A. I. Herzen Press, 2007.
Aissen 2003
J. Aissen. Differential Object Marking. Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 2003. Vol 21. № 3. P. 435–483.
Baerman 2007
M. Baerman. Morphological reversals. Journal of linguistics. 2007. Vol. 43. № 1. P. 33–61.
Comrie et al. 2008
B. Comrie, M. Haspelmath, B. Bickel. The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses About the rules. Department of Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology & the Department of Linguistics of the University of Leipzig. 2008. Retrieved January, 28. P. 2010.
Dalrymple, Nikolaeva 2011
M. Dalrymple, I. Nikolaeva. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
de Swart 2007
P. de Swart. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University, 2007.
Du Bois 1987
J. W. Du Bois. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language. 1987. Vol. 63. No. 4. P. 805–855.
Givón 1983
T. Givón. Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1983. P. 1–41.
Haig 2018
G. Haig, Geoffrey. 2018. The grammaticalization of object pronouns: Why differential object indexing is an attractor state. Linguistics. 2018. Vol. 56. № 4. P. 781–818. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2018-0011.
Hammarström et al.
H. Hammarström, R. Forkel, M. Haspelmath, S. Bank. 2022. Glottolog 4.6. URL: https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/urmi1250#refs (accessed: 18.04.2023).
Haspelmath 2008
M. Haspelmath. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics. 2008. Vol. 19. № 1. P. 1–33.
Hoberman 1988
R. D. Hoberman. Emphasis harmony in a Modern Aramaic dialect. Language. 1988. Vol. 64. No. 1. P. 1–26.
Iemmolo, Klumpp 2014
G. Iemmolo, G. Klumpp. Introduction. Linguistics. Special issue on differential object marking. 2014. Vol. 52. № 2. P. 271–279.
Iemmolo 2010
G. Iemmolo. Topicality and differential object marking. Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language. 2010. Vol. 34. № 2. P. 239–272.
Iemmolo 2011
G. Iemmolo. Differential object marking. Dissertation. Pavia: University of Pavia, 2011.
Khan 2016
G. Khan. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. Vols. 1–4. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016.
Mulder 2014
M. Mulder. Differential object marking in Semitic. Master thesis. University of Amsterdam. 2014. P. 32.
Murre-van den Berg 1999
H. L. Murre-van den Berg. From a spoken to a written language. The introduction and development of literary Urmia Aramaic in the nineteenth century. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1999.
Nikolaeva 1999
I. Nikolaeva. Object agreement, grammatical relations, and information structure. Studies in Language. 1999. Vol. 23. P. 331–376.
Nikolaeva 2001
I. Nikolaeva. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics. 2001. Vol. 39. № 1. P. 1–49.
Ovsjannikova et al. in process
M. Ovsjannikova, E. Zabelina, K. Kozhanov. Non-Urmi Northeastern Neo-Aramaic varieties in the village of Urmiya, Russia. Pt. 1–2. In process.
Pennacchietti, Tosco 1991
F. Pennacchietti, M. Tosco. Testi Neo-Aramaici dell’Unione Sovietica: Raccolti Da Enrico Cerulli. Napoli: Istituto universitario orientale, Dipartimento di studi asiatici, 1991.
Sarkisov 2017
I. V. Sarkisov. Differentsirovannoye markirovaniye obyekta v khristianskom urmiyskom dialekte novoarameyskogo yazyka [Differential object marking in the Christian Urmi dialect of the Neo-Aramaic language]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 2017. Vol. XIII. Pt. 3. P. 371–392.
Sarkisov 2018
I. V. Sarkisov. K voprosu ob ergativnosti v novoarameyskikh yazykakh [On the problem of ergativity in Neo-Aramaic languages] [Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic languages revisited]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Vol. XIV. Pt. 2. P. 380–399.
Say 2020
S. S. Say. Markirovaniye aktantov dvukhmestnykh predikatov v novoarameyskikh idiomakh sela Urmiya [Two-argument predicate marking in the Neo-Aramaic idioms of the village of Urmiya]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 2020. Vol. 2. Pt. XVI. P. 654–689.
Siewierska 1999
A. Siewierska. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects donʼt make it. Folia Linguistica. 1999. Vol. 33. P. 225–251.
Tsereteli 1964
K. G. Tsereteli. Sovremennyy assiriyskiy yazyk [Modern Assyrian languages]. Moscow: Nauka, Central Dept. of Oriental Literature. 1964.
Keywords
differential object marking, verb indexing, flagging, information structure, Semitic, Neo-Aramaic
ScopusSCImago Journal & Country RankE-Library.ruCrossRefCyberLeninkaVAKERIH Plus