Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 43:3 (2019) ► pp.715–751

Differential nominal marking in Circassian

ORCID logo | Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences | Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow
 | Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences | Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow
In this paper we describe a peculiar pattern of case alternation from the polysynthetic Circassian (West Caucasian) languages, where specificity-driven differential marking of noun phrases is attested in all syntactic positions and with the absolutive and the oblique cases alike. We call this phenomenon differential nominal marking (DNM). We show that the presenсe resp. absenсe of overt case marking in Circassian fits in the two-level (DP vs. NP) structural model for nominal constructions and is in some ways similar to the phenomenon of pseudo-incorporation described for various languages with differential object marking. For instance, unmarked nominals in Circassian show number-neutrality and scope inertness with respect to negation and quantifiers. However, DNM in Circassian crucially differs from all known instances of pseudo-incorporation or case alternation in that it is not restricted to any particular syntactic position. We argue that this feature of the Circassian DNM calls all the existing approaches (both functionalist and generative) to the phenomenon of differential case marking in question.
Keywords: differential case marking, Circassian languages, pseudo-incorporation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Circassian languages
  • 3.Differential nominal marking in Circassian: The basics
    • 3.1The Absolutive contexts
    • 3.2The Oblique contexts
    • 3.3Summary
  • 4.Circassian DNM as Pseudo-Incorporation?
    • 4.1Pseudo-incorporation
    • 4.2Evidence for PI in Circassian
    • 4.3Evidence against PI in Circassian
    • 4.4Summary
  • 5.Abaza: Pseudo-Incorporation without case
  • 6.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 18 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18063.ark
References (70)
References
Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana, Bert Le Bruyn & Joost Zwarts (eds.). 2014. Weak Referentiality. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. Multiple Determiners and the Structure of DPs. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2006. Dvuxpadežnye sistemy v indoiranskix jazykax: Tipologičeskaja perspektiva (=Two-term case systems in the Indo-Iranian languages: A typological perspective). In: M. N. Bogoljubov (red.), Indoiranskoe jazykoznanie i tipologija jazykovyx situacij. Sbornik statej k 75-letiju professora A.L. Grjunberga (1930–1995) (=Indo-Iranian linguistics and the typology of linguistic situations. Studies for the 75th anniversary of Professor A.L. Grjunberg), 74–92. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M. & Yury A. Lander. Forthcoming. The North-West Caucasian languages. To Appear. In Maria Polinsky (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Languages of the Caucasus.
Arkadiev, Peter M. & Alexander B. Letuchiy. 2011. Prefixes and suffixes in the Adyghe polysynthetic wordform: Types of interaction. In Vittorio S. Tomelleri, Manana Topadze & Anna Lukianowicz (eds.), Languages and Cultures in the Caucasus, 495–514. München, Berlin: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Bagirokova, Irina, Yury Lander & Paul Phelan. Submitted. Number in West Circassian. In Paolo Acquaviva & Michael Daniel (eds.), Number in the World’s Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baker, Mark. 2011. On the syntax of surface-adjacency: The case of pseudo noun incorporation. Ms., Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Borik, Olga & Berit Gehrke (eds.). 2015. The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation. (Syntax & Semantics Vol. 40). Leiden, Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et Valence dans les Language de l’Europe, 193–258. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gryuter.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano & Maria Polinsky. 2011. Relative embeddings: A Circassian puzzle for the syntax/semantics interface. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 29(1). 71–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. “Definite” and “animate” direct objects: a natural class? Linguistica Silesiana 31. 13–21.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2011. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 29(1). 123–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Andrej Malchukov. 2007. On fluid differential case marking: a bidirectional OT account. Lingua 1171. 1636–1656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Case marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39(4). 565–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart (eds.). 2009. Differential Subject Marking (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 72). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dodyxudoeva, Lejla R. 2000. Pamirskie jazyki [The Pamir languages]. In: Rastorgueva, Vera S. et al. (eds.) Jazyki mira. Iranskie jazyki. III. Vostočnoiranskie jazyki. [Languages of the World. Iranian languages. III. The East Iranian languages], 170–174. Moskva: Indrik.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Definite articles. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2018-08-11.)
Du Bois, John. 2003. Argument structure: Grammar in use. In John Du Bois, Lorraine Kumpf & William Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for Function, 11–60. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edel’man, Džoj I. 1966. Jazguljamskij jazyk (=The Yazghulāmī Language). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1). 1–25.Google Scholar
Fajzov, M. 1966. Jazyk rušancev sovetskogo Pamira (=The Language of the Rošani of the Soviet Pamir). Dušanbe: Akademija Nauk Tadžikskoj SSR.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stephanie & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2014. A and O as each other’s mirror image? Problems with markedness reversal. Linguistic Typology 18(1). 3–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorbet, Larry Paul. 1976. A Grammar of Diegueño Nominals. New York, London: Garland.Google Scholar
Grossman, Eitan. 2014. Case in Coptic: what’s ‘coded’? Paper from the Workshop on ‘Case and Agreement: Between Grammar and Pragmatics’. Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Hardy, Donald E. 1988. The Semantics of Creek Morphosyntax. Houston, TX: Rice University PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
2005. Creek. In Heather K. Hardy & Janine Scancarelli (eds.), Native Languages of the Southeastern United States, 200–245. Lincoln, London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency and iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Are we making progress in understanding Differential Object Marking? Diversity Linguistics Comment. [URL]
. 2019. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. [URL]
Hewitt, B. George. 1979. Abkhaz. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34(2). 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Tesi di dottorato, Università degli studi di Pavia.Google Scholar
Kamali, Beste. 2008. Phases of incorporation and a three-way distinction for direct objects (in Turkish). Talk given at the 5th Workshop of Altaic Formal Linguistics. SOAS. London.
Kjuseva, Maria & Svetlana Pavlova. 2015. Vyraženie lokativnyx značenij v glagolax dviženija v kubanskom dialekte kabardinskogo jazyka [The expression of spatial meanings with verbs of motion in Kuban dialect of Kabardian]. Fieldwork report, Higher School of Economics, Moscow.Google Scholar
König, Christa. 2008. Case in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Korotkova, Natalia A. & Yury A. Lander. 2010. Deriving suffix ordering in polysynthesis: Evidence from Adyghe. Morphology 201. 299–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kumaxov, Muxadin A. 1971. Slovoizmenenie adygskix jazykov [=Inflection in the Circassian languages]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kumakhov, Mukhadin A. & Karina Vamling. 2009. Circassian Clause Structure. Malmö: Malmö University.Google Scholar
Lander, Yury A. 2012. Reljativizacija v polisintetičeskom jazyke: adygejskie otnositelʹnye konstrukcii v tipologičeskoj perspektive [Relativization in a polysynthetic language: Adyghe relative clauses in typological perspective]. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
2017. Nominal complex in West Circassian: Between morphology and syntax. Studies in Language 41(1). 76–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lander, Yury A. & Alexander B. Letuchiy. 2010. Kinds of recursion in Adyghe morphology. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Recursion and Human Language, 263–284. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lander, Yury A. & Yakov G. Testelets. 2017. Adyghe. In Michael Fortescue, Marianne Mithun & Nicholas Evans (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis, 948–970. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2004. Specificity and object marking: the case of Spanish a. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 31. 75–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Letučij, Aleksandr B. 2009. Affiksy benefaktiva i malefaktiva: sintaksi­če­skie osobennosti i krug upotreblenij [Benefactive and malefactive markers: Syntactic peculiarities and range of uses]. In Yakov G. Testelets (ed.), Aspekty polisintetizma: Očerki po grammatike adygejskogo jazyka [Aspects of polysynthesis: Studies in the grammar of West Circassian], 329–371. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities.Google Scholar
Letuchiy, Alexander B. 2012. Ergativity in the Adyghe system of valency-changing derivations. In Gilles Authier & Katharina Haude (eds.), Ergativity, Valency and Voice, 323–354. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luqo, Inǰīl. 2001. Luqo Inǰīl (=The Gospel of Luke in Shughnī). Moscow: Instituti tarǰumā Kitobi Muqadas.Google Scholar
Lyutikova, Ekaterina A. 2017. Agreement, case and licensing: Evidence from Tatar. Ural-Altaic Studies 251. 25–45.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Peter de Swart. 2009. Differential case marking and actancy variations. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 339–355. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19(1). 153–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Noun incorporation: Essentials and extensions. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(4). 1076–1096. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazurova, Julia V. 2009. Semantika lokativnyx preverbov pə- i ṣ̂we- [Semantics of the locative preverbs pə- i ṣ̂we- ]. In Yakov G. Testelets (ed.), Aspekty polisintetizma: Očerki po grammatike adygejskogo jazyka [Aspects of polysynthesis: Studies in the grammar of West Circassian], 429–453. Мoscow: Russian State University for the Humanities.Google Scholar
Miller, Amy. 2001. A Grammar of Jamul Tiipay (Mouton Grammar Library 23). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miner, Kenneth L. 1986. Noun Stripping and Loose Incorporation in Zuni. International Journal of American Linguistics 521. 242–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Herin, Brian. 2002. Case and Agreement in Abaza. Arlington: SIL International & University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkız. 2005. Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, John. 1980. The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua 511. 147–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(2). 433–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serdobolskaya, Natalia. 2011. Grammaticalization patterns of the Adyghe instrumental case. In Vittorio S. Tomelleri, Manana Topadze & Anna Lukianowicz (eds.), Languages and Cultures in the Caucasus, 515–539. München, Berlin: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy 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
Smeets, Rieks. 1992. On valencies, actants and actant coding in Circassian. In B. G. Hewitt (ed.), Caucasian Perspectives, 98–144. München, Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Stilo, Don. 2009. Case in Iranian: From reduction and loss to innovation and renewal. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 700–715. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1985. An Icelandic Primer. With Grammar, Notes and Glossary. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Ilja Seržant. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Xalbad, T. X. 1975. Vyraženie kategorij opredelennosti i neopredelennosti v abxazo-adygskix jazykax. (=The expression of the categories of definiteness and indefiniteness in the Abkhaz-Adyghe languages.). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Ershova, Ksenia
2024. Phasehood as defective intervention: Possessor extraction and selective DP islandhood in West Circassian. Syntax DOI logo
Lander, Yury A. & Shamset Sh. Unarokova
2024. Defining pronominal series: demonstratives in West Circassian. Voprosy Jazykoznanija :2 DOI logo
Давидюк, Татьяна Игоревна
2024. The Subject of Argument Clauses with the Participle -em in Tatyshly Udmurt. Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology :2(44) ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Marsault, Julie
2023. Unusual Properties of Applicative Constructions in Umónhon. International Journal of American Linguistics 89:3 ► pp. 357 ff. DOI logo
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina & Anna Pineda
2022. Differential object marking in Catalan. Linguistic Variation 22:2 ► pp. 325 ff. DOI logo
Arkadiev, Peter M. & Alexander Letuchiy
2021. Indirect antipassive in Circassian. In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 483 ff. DOI logo
Driemel, Imke
2020. Pseudo-incorporation and its movement patterns. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 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.