Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 45:4 (2021) ► pp.791–839

Differential object marking in P’orhépecha

Split case and fluid case alternations

ORCID logo | Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa
This paper analyzes Differential Object Marking in P’orhépecha, which involves split case and fluid case alternations. Although this system is sensitive to Animacy and Definiteness, I will show that prominence on these scales does not account for the distribution of flagging. In fact, in P’orhépecha, the expected prominence effects of these scales are overridden by certain grammatical properties of the NPs, which explains the obligatory vs. forbidden flagging. The fluid pattern is of special interest, since even though there is evidence that flagging is used as a device to codify definiteness/specificity, higher and lower ranked objects on the definiteness scale may be (un)flagged. This peculiar behavior is explained by two facts: (a) definite/specific descriptions may, and in some instances must, be unflagged when the context of use guarantees the intended referential interpretation of the NP; and (b) lower ranked objects may be flagged only when their referents exhibit discourse salience.
Keywords: differential object marking, fluid case marking, split case marking, flagging, animacy, definiteness, specificity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Differential object marking
    • 2.1The definiteness scale
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.P’orhépecha and previous proposals about DOM in the language
  • 5.Split DOM pattern. Obligatory flagging vs. forbidden flagging
    • 5.1Obligatory flagging
      • 5.1.1Animacy
      • 5.1.2Syntactic definiteness
      • 5.1.3Plural NPs with -icha/-echa
    • 5.2Forbidden flagging
    • 5.3Obligatory vs. forbidden flagging antecedents. The objective case marker in ancient P’orhépecha
  • 6.Fluid case alternation. DOM and the definiteness dimension
    • 6.1Bare indefinite NPs
    • 6.2Indefinite inanimate NPs with ma
    • 6.3Inanimate definite bare NPs
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Symbols
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16071.cap
References (116)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 211. 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2008. Referential scales and case alignment: Reviewing the typological evidence. In Andrej Malchukov & Marc Richards (eds.), Scales (Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86). 1–37. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 2006. Inferential relations and noncanonical word order. In Betty J. Birner, & Gregory Wards (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (Studies in Language Companion Series 80). 31–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L. 1984. Dechticaetiative and dative. In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Toward a Theory of Grammatical Relation, 127–150. London & New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2015. A practical epistemology for semantic elicitation in the field and elsewhere. In M. Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, 13–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Differenzielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Genter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analysis in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Urbana-Champaign, April 7–9, 1988). 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’ objet dans les langues d’ Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, Terrence Kaufman & Thomas C. Smith-Stark. 1986. Meso-America as a linguistic area, Language 62 (3). 530–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capistrán Garza, Alejandra. 2002a. Variaciones de orden de constituyentes en p’orhépecha. Topicalización y focalización. In Paulette Levy (ed.), Del cora al maya yucateco. Estudios lingüísticos sobre algunas lenguas indígenas mexicanas, 349–402. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas.Google Scholar
. 2002b. Marcación de caso objetivo en la frase nominal p’orhépecha. In Zarina Estrada & Rosa María Ortiz (eds.), VI Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, Memorias. Tomo I1, 251–269. Sonora: Unison.Google Scholar
. 2012. Definitud y marcación diferencial de objeto en p’orhépecha. Signos Lingüísticos 8(15). 43–72.Google Scholar
. 2014. El morfema verbal –a de objeto en p’orhépecha: Pluralidad vis-à-vis distributividad. In Rebeca Barriga Villanueva & Esther Herrera Zendejas (eds.), Lenguas, estructuras y hablantes. Estudios en homenaje a Thomas C. Smith -Stark, Vol. 21. 713–736. Mexico: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
. 2015. Multiple object constructions in P’orhépecha. Argument realization and valence-affecting morphology (Brill’s Studies in the indigenous languages of the Americas 9). Leiden-Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamoreau, Claudine. 1999. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet en purépecha. La Linguistique 35 (2). 99–114.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana. 2013. Fieldwork for language description. In Robert J. Podesva & Devyani Sharma (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 51–73. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1977. Bridging. In Philip N. Johnson-Laird & Peter C. Wason (eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science, 411–420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd. edn. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Some argument-structure properties of ‘give’ in the languages of Europe and Northern and Central Asia. In Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie & Valery Solovyev (eds.), Argument structure and grammatical relations. A crosslinguistic typology (Studies in Language Companion Series 126). 17–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cover, Rebecca & Judith Tonhauser. 2015. Theories of meaning in the field: Temporal and aspectual reference. In M. Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, 306–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd. edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Czardybon, Adrian. 2017. Definiteness in a language without articles. A study on Polish. (Dissertations in Language and Cognition, SFB991, Vol. 3). Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Darlymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2017. Determining (in)definiteness in the absence of articles. In Vera Hohaus & Wanda Rothe (eds.), Proceedings of Triple A 3: Fieldwork Perspectives on the Semantics of African, Asia and Austronesian Languages, 85–99. University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Andrej Malchukov. 2007. On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117(9). 1636–1656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2006. Case markedness. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series 77). 249–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in differential object marking. Nijmengen: Radbound University dissertation.Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter & Helen de Hoop. 2007. Semantic aspects of differential object marking. In Estela Puig-Waldmüler (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 111. 598–611. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Dimmendal, Gerrit. 2001. Places and people: Field sites and informants. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic fieldwork, 55–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 221. 213–243Google Scholar
Epps, Patience. 2008. A grammar of Hup. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2009. Differential object marking and topicality: The case of Balearic Catalan. Studies in language 33 (4). 832–884. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1994. Specificity and scope. In Léa Nash & George Tsoulas (eds.), Actes du Premier Colloque Langages et Grammaire, Vol. 11, 119–137. Paris: Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
. 2002. Specificity distinction. Journal of Semantics 19 (3). 231–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 91. 77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, Mary LeCron. 1969. The Tarascan language (Publications in Linguistics 56). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1971. The Tarascan suffixes of locative space. Meaning and morphotactics (Language Research Monograph 9). Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. Tarascan from meaning to sound. In Munro S. Edmonson (ed.), Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 2 Linguistics, 56–82. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerner, Matthias. 2008. Ambiguity-driven differential object marking in Yongren Lolo. Lingua, 118 (3). 296–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilberti, Maturino. 1987 [1558]. Arte de la lengua de Michuacán (Fuentes de la lengua tarasca o purépecha II). Morelia, Michoacán: Fimax Publicistas.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, Vol. 11, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 691. 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Universals of differential case marking. Explaining Syntactic Universals, course at the LSA Institute at MIT (LSA 206), July 17–August 5, 2005.Google Scholar
. 2011. On S, A, P, T and R as comparative concepts for alignment. Linguistic Typology 15(3). 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. Ms., Universität Leipzig, [URL]
Hawkins, John. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 1991. On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 271. 405–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgo. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking. Studies in Language 34(2). 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenks, Peter. 2018. Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry 49(3). 501–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2006. Two approaches to specificity. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series 77). 255–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew & Gregory Ward. 2006. Referring expressions and conventional implicatures. In Betty J. Birner & Gregory Wards (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (Studies in Language Companion Series 80). 177–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo & Andrej Malchukov. 2009. Varieties of accusative. In Andrej Malchukov, & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (Oxford handbooks in Linguistics). 549–561. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Klein, Udo & Peter de Swart. 2010. Case and referential properties. Lingua 122 (1). 3–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin & Klaus von Heusinger. 2009. Specificity and partitivity in some Altaic Languages. In Ryosuke Shibagaki & Reiko Vermeulen (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics ( WAFL 5) (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58), 19–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Lagunas, Juan Baptista de. 1983 [1574]. Arte y diccionario con otras obras en la lengua michuacana (Fuentes de la lengua tarasca o purépecha I). Morelia, Michoacán: Fimax Publicistas.Google Scholar
Levinson, Dmitry. 2006. Definiteness of body part terms in Spanish and Portuguese. In Timothy L. Face & Carol A. Klee (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic linguistics Symposium, 172–182. Sumerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1). 339–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Christopher. 2011. Definiteness encoding and the limits of accomodation. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.) Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 157–182. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2), 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Peter de Swart. 2009. Differential case marking and actancy variations. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (Oxford handbooks in Linguistics). 339–355. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(4). 369–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Semantics in indigenous American languages 1917–2017 and beyond. International Journal of American Linguistics 83 (1). 141–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2013. Optionality in grammar and language use. Linguistics 51(18).1147–1204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Emergence of optional accusative case marking in Khoe languages, In Ilja A. Seržant, & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (Studies in diversity Linguistics 19). 243–279. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Monzón, Cristina. 1997. Introducción a la lengua y cultura tarascas. Valencia: Universitat de València.Google Scholar
. 2004. Los Morfemas espaciales del p’urhépecha. Significado y morfosintaxis. Zamora, Michoacán: El Colegio de Michoacán.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yukiko. 2002. Prominence mismatches and differential object marking in Bantu. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, 292–314. Stanford CA: CSLI. [URL]
Murray, Sarah. 2015. Reciprocity in fieldwork and theory. In M. Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, 287–305. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nava, E. Fernando. 1997. Relación de trabajos realizados para el Seminario de Investigación Morfológica dirigido por el Dr. Fernando Leal en el Colegio de México (Ms.) Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Næs, Äshild. 2004. What markedness marks: the markedness problem with direct object. Lingua 114 (9–10). 1186–1212, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. F. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subject, definiteness, and information-status. In William C. Mann & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text (Pragmatics and beyond New Series 16). 295–325. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craig. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(3). 287–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2013. Different types of definites crosslinguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (10). 534–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serra, Angel. 1730 [1697]. Manual de administrar los santos sacramentos. A los españoles y naturales de esta provincia de los gloriosos apostoles S. Pedro y S. Pablo de Michuacan, conforme a la reforma de Paulo V y Urbavo VIII. Mexico: Imprenta de Joseph Bernardo de Hogal.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 19). 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchies of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thomas C. 1994. Mesoamerican calques. In Carolyn J. MacKay & Verónica Vázquez (eds.), Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica, 15–50. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on DOM. Linguistics 52 (2). 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2001. Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Vázquez Rojas, Violeta. 2010. Case marking and semantic incorporation in Tarascan. In Suzi Lima (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 5: Semantic of Under-represented Languages in the Americas, Harvard/MIT, from 15th to 17th may 2009. 259–278. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
. 2019. Morfosemántica de la frase nominal purépecha. Mexico: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Villavicencio, Frida. 2002. Estructura y cambio del sistema de casos en el purhépecha. Del siglo XVI al siglo XX. Mexico: El Colegio de México, CELL, dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2006. P’orhépecha kaso sïrátahenkwa: Desarrollo del sistema de casos del purépecha, Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. Specificity. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 21. 1024–1057. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Jaklin Kornfilt. 2005. The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages 91. 3–44.Google Scholar
P’orhépechan texts
Dimas Huacuz, Néstor. 1995. Temas y textos del canto p’urhépecha. Pirekua:Nirasïnkani ma pireni. Zamora, Michoacán: El Colegio de Michoacán.Google Scholar
Lathrop, Maxwell (coord.). 1977. Jimbani Eiatsperakua tata Jesucristueri. El nuevo testamento de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, 2nd end. Mexico: Sociedad Bíblica Mexicana.Google Scholar
Márquez Joaquín, Pedro. 1996. P’urhepecha jimpo. Segundo grado. Mexico: Secretaría de Educación Pública, Dirección General de Educación Indígena.Google Scholar
Morales Vázquez, Francisco & Néstor Dimas Huacuz (coords.). 1998. P’urhepecha jimpo II. Segundo ciclo. Mexico: Secretaría de Educación Pública, Dirección General de Educación Indígena.Google Scholar
Torres Sánchez, Joel. 1997. P’urhepecha uandatskuecha. Narrativa p’urhépecha Vol.11. Michoacán: Linares.Google Scholar
Santamaría Galván, Ana, Julio Salgado Moya, Juan Cornelio Aparicio & Demetrio Nicolás González (coord.). N. d. Uandanskuecha ka arhinskateacha purépecha jimpo. Cuentos y leyendas purépechas. Pátzcuaro, Michoacán: Centro de Educación Fundamental para América Latina y El Caribe, Jefatura de Zonas de Supervisión de Educación Indígena de Pátzcuaro.
ji jorhenguariaka = Ji jorhenguariaka sanderu. In anonymous Ms. 1975. Literatura tarasca, Cherán, 32–37.Google Scholar
ji no xukuamiska = Ji no xukuamiska, ¡ji xurhijkirhiska! In Torres Sanchéz. 1997. 147–171. (San Jerónimo)Google Scholar
juata = Juata Akumarhani ka Chupikuarhu anapu. In Santamaría Galván et al., 43–44 (San Jerónimo)
kuchi = Kuchi sapi. In Dimas Huacuz. 1995. 251–252.Google Scholar
k’uichitiicha = Cherasnaspti k’uichitiicha. In Santamaría Galván et al., 831. (Tarerío)
Magdalenita = Magdalenita. In Dimas Huacuz. 1995. 1681.Google Scholar
Maria = Maria juata. In Santamaría Galván et al., 40–42. (San Jerónimo).
miringua = Miringua. In Santamaría Galván et al., 89–95. (San Andrés Tziróndaro)
San Juanu = Ambakiti eiankperakua eska na karaka San Juanu. In Lathrop. 1997. 322–412.Google Scholar
San Lukasï = Ambakiti eiankperakua eska na karaka San Lukasï. In Lathrop. 1997. 195–321.Google Scholar
San Markusï = Ambakiti eiankperakua eska na karaka San Markusï. In Lathrop. 1997. 120–194.Google Scholar
tata = Tata imangi noteru eskampka. In Santamaría Galván et al., 55–56. (Ihuatzio)
tata Pedru = Tata Pedru no ambakiti. In Santamaría Galván et al., 25–28. (San Jerónimo)
tembuchati = Jimbani tembuchati. In Santamaría Galván et al., 31–32. (San Jerónimo)
tembuna = Tembuna ka no ambakiti. In Santamaría Galván et al., 72–77. (Tarerío)
toru = Toru miringata jiuatsïo anapu. In Santamaría Galván et al., 60–62. (Ihuatzio)
tumbi = Tumbi enga nirajka tembuchani. In Santamaría Galván et al., 103–108. (Ichupio)
tumbi tembuchati = Tumbi tembuchati. In Santamaría Galván et al., 78–82. (Tarerío)
tumina = Tumina eshenantani. Ms. Recorded in 2012. (Santa Fe de la Laguna)
uajpa = Uajpa, Tanti, ka tata k’eri. In Santamaría Galván et al., 371. (San Jerónimo)
uarhuricha = Uekanaspti uarhuricha cheranani. In Santamaría Galván et al., 86–88. (San Andrés Tziróndaro)
uekanksï karhani = Uekanksï karhani. In Santamaría Galván et al., 84–85. (San Andrés Tziróndaro)