Cover not available

Article In: Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 49:2 (2026) ► pp.209–245

Discourse prominence, communicative goal and differential object marking in Bodo

ORCiD logo with link | Gauhati University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This paper provides a comprehensive description of differential object marking (DOM) in Bodo [bɔɾɔ] (ISO 639–3: brx), a Bodo-Koch language of the Tibeto-Burman language group, spoken largely in the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR) of Assam, India. Some object NPs in Bodo are obligatorily case marked, while others are variably case marked. Object marking can be associated with various referential and discourse properties of the object NPs, such as definiteness, specificity, human reference, newsworthiness, topicality, contrast, and so on, depending on the class of object NPs or the construction in which they occur. This paper argues that DOM in Bodo encodes discourse prominence and the various referential and discourse properties are the prominence-lending cues which boost the discourse prominence of the object referents. Speakers often use DOM to dynamically signal the prominence status of discourse participants based on their communicative goal.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language background and data
  • 3.Object in Bodo
  • 4.Definiteness and object marking
  • 5.Animacy and specificity
  • 6.Discourse properties and object marking
    • 6.1Generic objects
    • 6.2Object NPs with existential quantifiers
    • 6.3Object NPs with contrastive/corrective discourse markers
  • 7.Communicative goal and object marking
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (36)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2006. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 122–149. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3).435–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24(1).65–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Basumatary, Birhash Giri. 2006. Boro dialects of Brahmaputra valley: A linguistic study. Guwahati: Gauhati University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Basumatary, Prafulla. 2017. Verbal semantics in a Tibeto-Burman language: The Bodo verb. Oxford, United Kingdom: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, Pramod Ch. 1977. A descriptive analysis of the Boro language. Guwahati: Gauhati University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J. & Gregory Ward. 1998. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boro, Krishna & Prafulla Basumatary. 2015. Adverbial suffixes in Bodo. In Mark W. Post, Stephen Morey, & Scott DeLancey (eds.), Language and culture in Northeast India and beyond: in honor of Robbins Burling, 57–99. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics, College of Asia and Pacific, The Australian National University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analysis in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruyn, Bert Le, Henriette de Swart & Joost Zwarts. 2017. Bare nominals. Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins. 2003. The Tibeto-Burman languages of Northeastern India. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 169–192. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins & U. V. Joseph. 2009. Boro tones. In Stephen Morey & Mark W. Post (eds.), North East Indian linguistics 21, 45–58. Delhi: Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1982. Generic terms and generic sentences. Journal of Philosophical Logic 11(2).145–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Genericity. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, volume 21, 1153–1185. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caughley, Ross. 1982. The syntax and morphology of the verb in Chepang. (Pacific Linguistics, Series B — No. 84). Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. & Sander Lestrade. 2017. Non-structural case marking in Tibeto-Burman and artificial languages. Linguistic Discovery 15(1).1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Das, Kalyan & Shakuntana Mahanta. 2018. Distribution of lexical tones in Boro. Himalayan Linguistics 17(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. “Optional” “Ergativity” in Tibeto-Burman languages. LTBA 34(2).9–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Endle, S. 1884. Outline grammar of the Kachari (Bara) language. Shillong: The Assam Secretariat Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, volume I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2).274–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haokip, Pauthang & Daimalu Brahma. 2018. Differential case marking in Bodo. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 11(1).1–14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heusinger, Klaus von & Petra B. Schumacher. 2019. Discourse prominence: Definition and application. Journal of Pragmatics 1541.117–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodgson, B. H. 1847. Essay the first: On the Kocch, Bodo and Dhimal tribes. Calcutta: J. Thomas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiryu, Kazuyuki. 2008. An outline of the Meche language: Grammar, text and glossary. Report for 2007 Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 17720093) granted by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Tsuyama: Mimasaka University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia & Godehard Link. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In Gregory. N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 1–124. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1992. ‘Anti-ergative’ marking in Tibeto-Burman. LTBA 15(1).1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995. ‘Ergative’ marking in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax, 189–228. [URL]
2004. On nominal relational morphology in Tibeto-Burman. In Ying-chin Lin, Fang-min Hsu, Chun-chih Lee, Jackson T.-S. Sun, Hsiu-fang Yang & Dah-an Ho (eds.), Studies on Sino-Tibetan languages: Papers in honor of Professor Hwang-cherng Gong on his seventieth birthday, 43–74. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4).847–984. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peterson, David A. 2011. Core participant marking in Khumi. LTBA 34(2).73–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a Taxonomy of Given–New Information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 223–55. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics 52(2).281–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skrefsurd, Lars Olsen. 1889. A short grammar of the Mech or Boro language, together with a small vocabulary. Santhal Mission, Ebenezer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue