Chapter 3 Differential Object Marking

3.1. Introduction

The variable use of the object preposition )et in Biblical Hebrew is consistent with a phenomenon called Differential Object Marking. DOM is a variety of dif• ferential case marking involving the variable realization of the object in a transi• tive clause. In languages featuring DOM, only a subset of objects are overtly marked as accusatives. Two basic patterns of alternation have been distin• guished: asymmetric and symmetric. In asymmetric DOM, overt marking of the object with the accusative case alternates with null marking, as illustrated by examples 88 and 89 (reproduced from examples 5 and 6) from Spanish.

[88] Mari vi6 a una mujer Mari saw (3cs PAST) ACC INDEF woman 'Mari saw a woman'

[89] Mari vi6 una mujer Mari saw (3cs PAST) INDEF woman 'Mari saw a woman'

In symmetric DOM, marking alternates between two overt cases, and the object may be realized as either an accusative or an oblique, as illustrated by examples 90 and 91 (reproduced from examples 20 and 21) from Finnish.

[90] ostin omenat buy (lcs) apples (Ace) 'I bought (the) apples'

[91] ostin omenoita buy (lcs) apples (PART) 'I bought (some) apples' 60 TRANSITIVITY AND OBJECT MARKING

Both asymmetric and symmetric variations are generally related to the na• ture of transitivity as a prototype category. Overt marking of the object with ac• cusative case is an indicator of high transitivity, while null or oblique marking indicates that the event deviates in some respect from the transitive prototype.

3.2. Subject and Object in Functionalist Theories

Before discussing the factors that influence DOM, it will be helpful to discuss the terms subject and object, which are borrowed from traditional grammar. It has been notoriously difficult to define these pre-theoretical notions. Functional and typological studies have attempted to avoid this difficulty in part by simply labeling the two arguments of a typical transitive verb A and O (or P), while an intransitive verb involves only one argument labelled S (see p. 10nl4). In the functionalist approach, subject and object are described as grammatical rela• tions, or grammatical roles, which can be associated with morpho-syntactic, se• mantic, and pragmatic properties. As with transitivity, however, subject and ob• ject have been treated as prototype categories, which are defined by a cluster of characteristic features rather than a set of essential properties.

3.2.1. Subject and Object Morphosyntax

Cross-linguistically, the subject and object are coded in a variety of ways, in• cluding case marking, verbal agreement, and word order. In languages with a nominative-accusative alignment, the subject is typically associated with the nominative case while the object is associated with the accusative.1 It is also common for the subject to agree with the verb, though some languages index the

1. In the nominative-accusative alignment, the transitive A and intransitive S are coded alike as nominatives, while the O is coded as an accusative. The other significant align• ment pattern is absolute-ergative in which the transitive O and intransitive S are coded alike as absolute, while the transitive A is coded with the ergative case. It is also possible to have a system with neutral alignment, in which S, A, and Oare all marked alike, or tri• partite alignment in which S, A, and O are all marked differently. Finally, active-stative languages feature a split marking pattern in which the intransitive S alternates between being coded similarly to the A and the O (Comrie 1989, 125).