See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249941216 Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan Article in Journal of African Languages and Linguistics · June 2010 Impact Factor: 0.07 · DOI: 10.1515/JALL.2010.003 CITATIONS 2 READS 4 1 author: Gerrit Jan Dimmendaal University of Cologne 63 PUBLICATIONS 203 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. Available from: Gerrit Jan Dimmendaal Retrieved on: 25 May 2016
In spite of its widespread nature in the Nilo-Saharan phylum, the differentialmarking of objects as constituents with or without an explicit case marker hasgone virtually unnoticed in the typological literature. The present contributiongives a survey of this economy principle in three Nilo-Saharan subgroups, Fur,Maban, and Eastern Sudanic, where Differential Object Marking extends toditransitive clauses as well as adjuncts under certain conditions. The govern-ing principles in these Nilo-Saharan languages are in accordance with moregeneral principles of discourse prominence, involving features like animacyand definiteness. But the data from this phylum also suggest that this two-dimensional system needs to be extended into another dimension, the categor-ical/thetic contrast.
1. An ancient convergence zone
In his typological survey of African languages, Heine (1976) identified a con-vergence zone in Ethiopia plus Eritrea which extends into Sudan and Chad(as shown on Map 1). This (former) Sprachbund, which involves verb-finallanguages with rich case-marking systems, mainly consists of Afroasiatic lan-guages and Nilo-Saharan languages in these countries. In a number of publica-tions, the present author has pointed towards additional typological propertiesshared by languages in this area. Dimmendaal (2007: 43–44) lists DifferentialObject Marking, the use of light verb plus coverb constructions, and the fre-quent use of converbs as additional features shared by languages in this typo-logical zone. Light verb plus coverb constructions are discussed in more detailin Dimmendaal (2008a), whereas Amha and Dimmendaal (2006) present a ty-pological account of converbs. The main goal of the present contribution is toelaborate upon the system of so-called Differential Object Marking, hereafter
DOM, as another permanent feature of Nilo-Saharan. Although the DOM prin-ciple is also attested in several Afroasiatic languages, this latter phylum is notfurther discussed here.
In all Nilo-Saharan languages with DOM, Nominative case is used with sub-jects of transitive as well as intransitive predications.1 Accusative case is as-sociated with primary and secondary objects in Nilo-Saharan languages, andis expressed either by way of a case-marking clitic or suffix (sometimes com-bined with tonal modification of nouns, noun phrases, or pronouns), or it ismorphologically unmarked. This latter property of case-marking languages,
1. In her survey of case in Africa, König (2008) also discusses the differential marking of objectsin Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic languages, but she does not use Differential Object Markingas a concept.
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan 15
the differential marking of objects, has been discussed in considerable detailfor Indo-Iranian (Indo-European) or Semitic by Bossong (e.g., 1985), who alsoappears to have coined the term.
Although the same phenomenon is attested in a wide range of Nilo-Saharanlanguages, this phenomenon appears to have gone virtually unnoticed in thetypological literature on the topic. Compare, for example, the recently pub-lished Oxford Handbook of Case, edited by Malchukov and Spencer (2009).In a way, this situation reflects a more general state of the art with respect toNilo-Saharan studies. To date, this phylum is still one of the world’s poorestknown language phyla. Moreover, descriptions of Nilo-Saharan languages areoften ignored by theoretical linguists, including typologists. To some extentthis is due to the fact that these descriptions are sometimes couched in partlyidiosyncratic terminology. Amha and Dimmendaal (2006) give an example ofthis in their discussion of converbs in languages of northeastern Africa. Thesedependent verb forms are well-known as an areal phenomenon from languagesin Asia, but they are equally common in Nilo-Saharan languages in northeast-ern Africa. In spite of this, they have gone largely unnoticed, not only due toa poor documentation of some of the languages involved, but also as a resultof the way in which these verb forms have sometimes been described in theliterature.
This applies equally well to DOM in Nilo-Saharan. In their magnificent ty-pological survey of languages of northeastern Africa, Tucker and Bryan (1966)in fact already made reference to the differential marking of objects in lan-guages today widely assumed to be part of the Nilo-Saharan phylum, without,however, using the term. Thus, in their description of Kunama, Tucker andBryan (1966: 340) point towards an “Object case ending -si, which can beomitted.” Research by the present author over the past few years has con-firmed that this feature extends into other Nilo-Saharan languages, e.g., Tama,a language spoken in the border area between Sudan and Chad, and a memberof the Taman cluster within the Eastern Sudanic branch of Nilo-Saharan; seeDimmendaal (2007, 2008a, 2009a) for some preliminary observations on thistopic.
A number of recently completed dissertation projects (co-)supervised by thepresent author and aiming at a better documentation in particular of more iso-lated Nilo-Saharan branches, have provided additional evidence for this phe-nomenon in Nilo-Saharan. Satti (2008) shows that DOM is attested in Don-golese Nubian, Waag (2009) gives evidence for this with respect to Fur, andWeiss (2009) shows that it is also attested in Maba. Research in progress by ateam consisting (in alphabetical order) of Jade Comfort, Angelika Jakobi andRobert Williams has made clear that DOM is attested in at least one other Nu-bian language, Ghulfan (Uncunwee), spoken in the Nuba Mountains (Sudan).Since several of these studies have not been published yet and, consequently,
are not yet available to a wider public, the present contribution gives a firstoverview of this phenomenon on the basis of these case studies.
2. Genetic inheritance or areal diffusion?
The primary goal of the present contribution is to discuss DOM-systems froman areal and typological point of view. Since all languages involved are also(assumed to be) genetically related, the question arises whether we are deal-ing with inherited properties or features which spread through areal diffusion.According to Greenberg (1963) Nilo-Saharan consists of the following six sub-branches:
1. Songhai2. Saharan3. Maban4. Fur5. Chari-Nile
– Eastern Sudanic– Central Sudanic– Berta– Kunama
6. Coman
Figure 1. Nilo-Saharan (Greenberg 1963)
An alternative subclassification is found in Bender (1996, 2001). Accordingto the latter author, the Kadu languages (spoken along the southern range ofthe Nuba Mountains, Sudan) also belong to Nilo-Saharan.
The present author’s classification is more in accordance with Ehret (2001:88–89), who arrives at an alternative subgrouping for Nilo-Saharan, presentedin Figure 2: DOM, as an inflectional category, is found in languages and lan-guage groups printed in bold face in Figure 2. The details of the subclassifica-tion should not concern us here, but it should be clear from the genetic distri-bution of this phenomenon that we are dealing with a widespread property ofthe Nilo-Saharan phylum.
One cannot prove that language X is not genetically related to Y. (Presum-ably, all human languages are related.) But the point is to provide the bestevidence in favour of specific genetic relations first. Ehret (2001) does not takethe Kadu languages to be part of this phylum, a position also shared by thepresent author. Dimmendaal (2008b) further excludes the Coman languagesand Gumuz (Ehret’s Koman group) as well as the Songay (Songhai) clusterfrom Nilo-Saharan, given the paucity of grammatical evidence. Since none of
these latter groups manifest DOM, this issue should not concern us any furtherhere.
The present author divides – what he considers to be – Nilo-Saharan intotwo major branches (Figure 3 – Dimmendaal in press, to appear a).
Whereas there is some evidence for additional subgrouping within the so-called Northeastern Nilo-Saharan branch (corresponding to Ehret’s NorthernSudanic), this issue should not concern us here. As anybody who has tried todo this knows, it is very difficult to arrive at convincing subclassifications fordeeper historical levels, given the usual lack of clearcut shared innovations; theinterested reader is referred to Dimmendaal (to appear a) for further details.
Within Nilo-Saharan (as understood by the present author), there is a sharptypological split between the two (hypothesized) primary branches, CentralSudanic and Northeastern Nilo-Saharan. The conclusion arrived at in Dim-mendaal (to appear a) is that this is due mainly to phonological restructuringin Central Sudanic and major morphosyntactic innovations in the Northeasternbranch. Innovations in the latter include the development of a verb-final con-
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
18 Gerrit J. Dimmendaal
I Central SudanicII Northeastern Nilo-Saharan
Saharan GroupMaban GroupBertaFur (plus Amdang)Kunama clusterEastern Sudanic
NorthernCentralSouthern
Kuliak
Figure 3. Nilo-Saharan (Dimmendaal to appear a)
stituent order with converbs, coverb plus light verb constructions, as well asextensive case marking, including DOM.
The case-marking strategy which is central to the present contribution isfound in all major subgroups of Nilo-Saharan: the Maban group, Fur, Kunamaand the Northern branch within Eastern Sudanic, consisting of Taman, Nubian,Nara, Nyimang plus Dinika and, probably, the extinct Meroitic language. Cen-tral and Southern members of Eastern Sudanic developed a different type ofsyntactic alignment, as illustrated in section 5 below.
As should become clear from the following survey, several Accusative casemarkers probably are cognate. The conclusion arrived at, therefore, is thatDifferential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan is based on a shared innovationof a specific Accusative marker in Northeastern Nilo-Saharan. Our main goalhere, however, is not to provide additional evidence for the genetic unity orsubgrouping of Nilo-Saharan, but instead, to present a phenomenon which isapparently poorly known among a wider public.
If areal diffusion did play a role, a factor which cannot be excluded of course,it must have occurred at an early stage in the historical development of North-eastern Nilo-Saharan, as today these languages are spoken in geographicallynon-contiguous areas (as shown in Map 2). Their current distribution is as-sumed to be the result of climatological changes, more specifically the deser-tification of the Wadi Howar or Yellow Nile area over the past 5,000 years(Dimmendaal 2007).
Fur (also referred to as For or Poor) is spoken mainly in the Darfur region ofwestern Sudan, and has been described in considerable detail by Jakobi (1989).More recently, Christine Waag has presented a detailed analysis of the verb sys-tem of this isolated Nilo-Saharan language in her doctoral dissertation (Waag2009). Examples below are drawn from this latter study.
Fur is a verb-final language which marks objects for case under conditionsfurther specified below; subjects of transitive and intransitive predications arenot case-marked.
Fur distinguishes between Nominative, Accusative, Locative and Genitivecase markers. In Fur, as well as in other Nilo-Saharan languages, these are clit-ical elements, rather than suffixes, because they are always attached to the finalconstituent in a noun phrase or adpositional phrase. If, for example, the noun isthe final constituent, it takes the case-marking clitic; if a noun is modified by afollowing adjective, the case marker is attached to the latter. Semantic notionssuch as Comitative, Instrument or Manner are expressed by way of a proclitic(prepositional) marker kI- in Fur.
Preverbal constituent order in Fur is relatively free from a syntactic point ofview, for example SOV as well as OSV order occurs. Although Fur is stronglydependent marking at the clausal level, it does mark pronominal subjects on theverb (as is the case for many dependent-marking languages cross-linguistically,as already pointed out in Nichols 1986). Nominal modifiers follow the headnoun in Fur (and most other verb-final Nilo-Saharan languages). The cliticalnature of the Accusative and other case markers in Fur is illustrated in thefollowing example, where the Accusative case marker is attached to a headlessnoun phrase ‘the dry ones’. As the same example further shows, adjuncts mayoccur in the position immediately preceding the verb. The low tone precedingthe Accusative marker in example (1) is a floating tone associated with thisclitical element (Waag 2009).
(1) namáthen
k-InPL-this
pUttONa-`sIdry.PL-ACC
tONhouse.LOC
P-UndI
1SG-leave.PF‘Then I should leave the dry ones at home.’
The distribution of the Accusative case marker -sI in Fur reflects a more widelyspread pattern involving discourse salience. It is not used, for example, withnon-specific or indefinite (and thereby less salient) objects:
1SG.cut.SJ‘I just want to cut a handle for a hoe.’
Passives in Fur take on the structure of impersonal active constructions, i.e.,constructions without a syntactic subject, whereby the verb is inflected for per-son by way of the [+human] third person plural marker. As the followingexample shows, the object noun phrase specified by way of the pronominalpossessive element ‘our’ is marked for Accusative case.
(3) dáIN
SG.1PL.GENpága-sIokra-ACC
PâlREP
kUlE3H:PL.trade.PF-3PL.PF
‘Our okra has been sold.’
As pointed out in Waag (2009), the optional object marker is frequently usedfor noun phrases representing affected participants which do not occur in theirdefault object position (i.e. in their pragmatically unmarked position immedi-ately before the verb). Thus, objects in topic position tend to take an Accusativecase marker. Interestingly, as the next example from Fur shows, the object neednot be specific or definite.
(4) nârma-`sIfood.in.market-ACC
namáthen
lIalater
k-âm1PL-eat.SJ
kI-dUlEwith-sun
tOkkE
hot‘Eating at the market we can do later on, when it is midday.’
Here, ‘eating at the market’ or ‘eating market food’ is activated as a topic. In acorresponding construction where no such contrastive function is involved, theobject is not inflected for case.
(5) nuN
foodb-ámI-lá2PL-eat.C.Q
‘Have you eaten?’
In the next example, the conversation centers around a specific piece of landwhich is commented upon. The same example also shows that more than oneobject in a sentence may be inflected for case in Fur.
(6) ki1PL
suuru-`sIground-ACC
lOO-`sIplace-ACC
kalâsalready
PInthis
duó-`sI-sman-ACC-TR
k-wa1PL-say.PF‘Regarding our land, we already talked to this man about the place.’
Topic continuity is another relevant factor in understanding the distribution ofAccusative marking in a language like Fur. Thus, in the following example theobject is marked for case, even though the latter is inanimate:
Apart from topic-hood, animacy also seems to play a role with respect to DOMin Fur. Thus, the addressee of a speech act verb such as ‘tell’ is usually inflectedfor Accusative case.
(8) namá-sthen-TR
PabO-`sIgrandmother-ACC
PIn-wathis-1SG.say.PF
PâlREP
. . .
‘Then I told the grandmother that . . . ’
Also, objects of transitive verbs such as ‘hit’, expressing highly affected andusually animate entities, tend to be inflected for case. Nevertheless, the affectedobject need not be animate in order to take Accusative case marking.2
(9) namáthen
t@w-`sIwater.pot-ACC
kI-tiinwith-heel
P-ald-O1SG-beat-C
‘Then I hit the water pot with my heel.’
As the following example makes clear, objects may be indefinite, but they maystill take an Accusative marker, when referring to animate entities.
(10) namáthen
duóperson
kENá3SG.be.C
náCON
kwa-sIpeople-ACC
ladda3SG.beat.IPF.PAST
‘. . . and there was a man (who was) beating people.’
When independent object pronouns occur, they always seem to take the Ac-cusative marker in Fur.
(11) namá-sthen-TR
Piw-O3SG.recognize.PF-C
PâlREP
tOOrOhyena
kO-El3SG.want-IPF
PáláN
thatyE-`sI3SG-ACC
PamI
3SG.eat.PF‘Then he knew that the hyena wanted to eat him.’
Like other Nilo-Saharan languages in the area, Fur also uses ‘do’ plus coverbconstructions as a lexical strategy. The complement of this light verb nevertakes Accusative case marking. In the following example, the noun phraseexpressing the patients affected by the event of herding, rather than the so-called coverb (‘(do) the herding’), is marked for case.
2. Because of this distributional property of the Accusative case marker in Fur, the questionarises whether the object in (8) above is marked for case, because it refers to an animateentity, or because a high degree of affectedness for the object ‘grandmother’ is involved.
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
22 Gerrit J. Dimmendaal
(12) náCON
sI-ˆNTR-PAST:DUR
k-EE-NPL-3SG-GEN
lEwágoat.PL
naand
Puri-Ná-`sIsheep-PL-ACC
duoN
herdingpII
3SG.do.IPFPEllE-ˇNvillage-GEN
kIlIin nearness
‘He was continually herding his goats and sheep near the village.’
Constituents expressing Benefactives or Recipients as participant roles aretreated like objects expressing Patients or Goals in Fur, i.e., they take the sameAccusative case marker. Whereas the definite object ‘the post’ in the followingexample is not inflected for case, the object expressing the Beneficiary (‘yourdonkey’) is.
In spite of the fact that the ‘iron post’ is highly affected by the fixing, ‘yourdonkey’ apparently is more salient. According to Waag (2009), Recipients orBenefactives are usually inflected for Accusative case.
As the next sentence shows, Beneficiary roles are not necessarily associatedwith human (or animate) entities, but they still take the Accusative case markerin such cases.
(14) dáIN
SG.1PL.GENbElE-sIlanguage-ACC
naanow
PásaREP.TR
dOmbOrENabooks
káa1PL-do.PF‘We now make books for our language.’
The Fur data suggest that objects are more likely to be marked with highlytransitive constructions, involving features like affectedness on (or empathywith) animate and definite or specific phrases (or pronouns). They are alsomore likely to be marked, when expressing topics or topic continuity.
3.2. Maba
Maba, one of the members of the Maban cluster within Nilo-Saharan, dis-tinguishes between a number of case markers, more specifically between theAccusative and a morphologically unmarked Nominative case as well as Loca-tive, Ablative, Directional, and Genitive case (Weiss 2009). All case markersin Maba are, again, realized as clitical elements.
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan 23
Their clitical nature is evident from the following example, where the Ac-cusative marker follows the relative clause.
(15) lútO:thing
g-ìdáy-nú-gù2SG-want-DEF-ACC
dEttirDP
mb-ì-tE2SG>1SG-give-FUT
‘I will (even) give you everything you want.’
Whereas SOV constituent order is common in Maba, the alternative order OSValso occurs. The Accusative case marker is only used apparently with objectnouns when preceded by a Definiteness marker:
(16) O:lì-gùwind.SG.DEF
súNgO:-nú-gùtree-DEF-ACC
mbòkOdbreak
t-ir-ì3SG-AUX:PAST-DCL
‘The wind has destroyed the trees.’
Accusative case marking is absent, on the other hand, with indefinite objectnouns in Maba:
(17) t-iñiN3SG-mother
mili:name
t-EndE:l-á-N-à3SG-choose-V-SG-PAST
‘Her/His mother chose a name.’
Definiteness or specificness may also be expressed by way of a demonstrative,in which case no Accusative case marker is required in Maba.
(18) gándàGanda
káná:
wordwáN
DEMnil-à:
2SG.hear-Q‘Ganda, did you hear that news?’
Maba marks pronominal subjects (Agents) on the verb by way of stem-initialconsonant alternation in the case of the second person singular, and by way ofprefixes for the other person distinctions. Moreover, it has a system of subject-object cross-reference marking on verbs in the case of transitive predications.Because of this cross-reference system, independent subject and object pro-nouns are not obligatory from a syntactic point of view. Independent pronounsmay be used, for example, in order to express topicalised subjects. Pronominalobjects are inflected for case when expressed as independent pronouns, as inthe following example:
(19) àm1SG
tì:-gú3SG-ACC
súNgO:
woodá-nntám-ì1SG-CAUS.cut-DCL
‘(As for me), I made him cut wood.’
Question words are inherently in focus, and always seem to take Accusativecase marking when functioning as objects in Maba.
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
24 Gerrit J. Dimmendaal
(20) ñà:-gúwho-ACC
máEMPH
l-OkOy2SG-see.DCL
‘Who(m) do you see?’
Like in other Nilo-Saharan languages, Accusative case is also used with phrasesexpressing Beneficiary or Recipient roles in Maba. In other words, these se-mantic roles and the Patient role are symmetrical from a syntactic point ofview.
(21) mùSON-gùwoman-SG.DEF
àm-gú1SG-ACC
fárdE:
skirtOnd-ùy-O3SG>1SG-give-PAST
‘The woman gave me a skirt.’
As the following example from Maba illustrates, the Recipient is not necessar-ily expressed. It may also be implied, in which case the constituent expressingthe Patient may receive the Accusative (object) marker. Note also that the ob-ject in the following example is indefinite, but carries focus.
(22) sOw-nú-gùflour-DEF-ACC
Endi3SG>1SG.give.IMP
‘Give (me) flour!’
3.3. Tama
Several Eastern Sudanic languages spoken along the same east to west axis asmore distantly related Nilo-Saharan members such as Kunama, Fur, or Maba,share a range of typological properties with the latter, including DOM. TheseNorthern Eastern Sudanic languages also use case-marking clitics in order toexpress different semantic roles. The case markers shown in Table 1 occur inTama, one member of the Taman cluster (Dimmendaal 2009a).
As is more common in languages with case systems, these labels cover pro-totypical semantic roles associated with these markers, but there is a certaindegree of syncretism involved, for example in that so-called Instrumental(-mediative) markers may also be used for time reference.
(23) EsI3SG:NOM
wáár-Eevening-INST
kUŤnU-Ná3SG.come-PF
‘(S)he came in the evening.’
Parallel to what has been observed for Fur and Maba above, the distribution ofAccusative case marking in Tama is linked to the inherent categorial status ofobjects (e.g. pronouns versus nouns) as well as to the pragmatic role played bythese constituents in discourse. So far, only few texts have been collected andtranscribed for this language by the present author. Claims made here on thedistribution of DOM in Tama, therefore, are based mainly on elicitation. Thefollowing examples illustrate the distribution of the Accusative case marker -IN(and some of its allomorphs). According to our present understanding of thislanguage, DOM in Tama is obligatory with pronominal objects.
(24) wâ1SG:NOM
2y-ŤkúN
2PL-ACCkItâbbook
nì-siŤni-Nó1SG-give-PF
‘I gave you the/a book.’
As illustrated in (24), pronominal subjects are marked on the verb, wherebythe third person is marked by zero; singular versus plural is distinguished byway of number suffixation. Pronominal objects are not cross-referenced on theverb in Tama, but instead by independent pronouns. The latter are obligato-rily marked for Accusative case both when expressing Patient and Recipient(Benefactive or Malefactive) roles. The following example illustrates the useof the Accusative marker with a pronominal object; the nominal subject in thissentence carries assertive focus:
(25) wâ-N1SG-ACC
2wisnake:NOM
tIIŤnI-Ná3:bite-PF
‘A snake bit me; I was bitten by a snake.’
DOM is obligatory with proper names as objects in Tama. It is not obligatoryfrom a syntactic point of view with other objects performing the role of Patient(or Theme). But when such objects are definite and referring to humans, theyusually take an Accusative case marker.
(26) hInámy
ií-rwife-SPEC
tààt-Ir-ŤINchild-SPEC-ACC
lOOŤwEy3SG:drink.CAUS
‘My wife is feeding the baby.’
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
26 Gerrit J. Dimmendaal
DOM is excluded with coverbs, i.e., with complements of light verbs (‘do/say’)together forming a complex predicate.
(27) áààranger
nú-Ťnú-tó1SG-say-NEG
‘I am not angry.’
Accusative case marking on coverbs appears to be excluded in all Nilo-Saharanlanguages investigated so far. Such coverbs thus behave like incorporatednouns in, for example, Cushitic languages. In other words, conceptually thecoverb plus light verb are fused, so that no predicative relation can arise be-tween them.
Disambiguating Agent/Patient roles appears to be one structuring principlebehind DOM-marking in Tama. Thus, in the following sentence with an ani-mate subject and object, speakers prefer to use an Accusative case marker, inorder to disambiguate who is hitting whom, also because OSV order is possi-ble, and consequently, constituent order is not an immediate indicator of func-tional roles. Moreover, initial pronouns may be used as topic markers (coin-dexed with following subjects or objects), and consequently are not necessarilyintroducing subjects.
(28) EsI3SG:NOM
tààtIr-ŤINchild-ACC
sOOtstick
Ťdúút-gibig-INST
kOŤOmhit
Ir-áNádo-PF
‘(S)he hit the child with a big stick.’
The conditions for DOM emerging from these Tama data so far are in fullaccordance with those described for Fur or Maba above, and, as we shall seenext, for Nubian languages as well.
3.4. Nubian
DOM-systems are also common in Nubian languages. Satti (2008) presentssuch data for one member, Dongolese Nubian. As is common in other Nilo-Saharan languages, the distribution of the Accusative case marker is governedby principles of discourse prominence. Although the details of the DOM-principle as operating in Dongolese Nubian still need to be worked out, it isclear that both the Recipient or Benefactive and the Patient or Goal can take anAccusative case marker, also simultaneously (data from Satti 2008).
(29) burugirl
kusu-gimeat-ACC
kandiknife
kinynya-gedsmall-INST
mer-kocut.PAST.3SG
‘The girl cut the meat with the small knife.’
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan 27
(30) ayI
tii-gicow-ACC
essi-giwater-ACC
tirsigive.PAST.1SG
‘I gave water to the cow.’
Interestingly, the skewed distribution of Accusative case marking in DongoleseNubian was originally treated as an instance of language attrition by the au-thor (Nasir Satti, personal communication). Morphological reduction, includ-ing loss of case marking, or attrition with inflectional and derivational mor-phology in general, is indeed a feature of dying languages (cf. Dimmendaal1998 for a survey). Given the fact that Nubian as well as other languagesare currently disappearing, with Sudanese Arabic taking over as the primarylanguage, this interpretation makes sense by itself. Moreover, his interpre-tation of Accusative case marking in this language was probably inspired byan analysis along these lines for the same language by Werner (1987). Oncloser inspection, the distribution of Accusative case marking in this Nubianlanguage turns out to follow the same pattern as in Tama. The exact conditionsfor DOM in Dongolese Nubian still need to be investigated, but relevant fea-tures (animacy and definiteness) identified so far fit in with operating principlesobserved for other Nilo-Saharan languages (Nasir Satti, personal communica-tion).
More recently, another Nubian language, known as Ghulfan in the scientificliterature (after the Arabic name for this language) and called Uncunwee by itsspeakers, has become the subject of a language documentation project. Jakobi(2009) gives a first, detailed analysis of the distribution of the marker -gI and itsvarious allomorphs, which she refers to as the object marker. We thus find anAccusative case marker which is cognate with the Dongolese marker discussedabove (and probably with the Tama Accusative marker -IN). The various al-lomorphs (-bI, -NI, -lI etc.) in Ghulfan are conditioned by the phonologicalproperties of the preceding consonant in the nominal root or stem. The vowelof this case marker shifts to its corresponding [+ATR] counterpart i after a[+ATR] stem vowel. Also, the tone of the preceding nominal root or stemis copied. These, and additional allomorphic properties of the case-markingclitic, are discussed in detail by Jakobi (2009). Neither the Theme (associatedwith direct objects in the terminology of Jakobi 2009) nor the Recipient (asso-ciated with the indirect object) need to be marked for case, and can be identifiedby their syntactic position, according to Jakobi (2009). When objects refer toan unspecific or indefinite entity, case marking is avoided (interlinear glossingas in Jakobi 2009).
(31) yeI
girjulúmoney.PL
bIg-EErElose.PASTI.1SG
‘I lost money.’
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
28 Gerrit J. Dimmendaal
(32) yeI
girjulú-gimoney.PL-ACC
bIg-EErElose.PASTI.1SG
‘I lost the money.’
(33) yeI
ànàbáN
my.grandparentbIjEbeer
kOtá-nI-EbE
bring-APPL-PASTII.1SG‘I brought beer to [one of] my grandparent[s].’
Either the Recipient or the Theme, though not both at the same time, may takethe Accusative marker. The order Theme – Recipient (as against Recipient –Theme above) is ungrammatical with nominal constituents in Ghulfan. If theRecipient is represented by an unmarked object pronoun, the latter occurs im-mediately before the verb in this Nubian language. What is interesting from ahistorical-comparative and typological perspective is the fact that case mark-ing in Ghulfan is not obligatory with pronominal objects. If unmarked forAccusative case, these latter elements immediately precede the verb. Althoughthese pronominal elements do not show ATR harmony with the following verb,they are nevertheless best treated as clitics, since nothing may be inserted be-tween this pronoun and the verb (Jade Comfort and Angelika Jakobi, personalcommunication).
(34) ye1SG
à2SG:ACC
ãUk-kErEbeat-FUT.1SG
‘I will beat you.’
Pronominal objects marked for Accusative case on the other hand constituteindependent prosodic units and are used in order to focus on the object. Thisapplies to objects expressing a Patient role as well as to those functioning asRecipients or Beneficiaries.
(35) ye1SG
à-gI
2SG-ACCãUk-kErEbeat-FUT.1SG
‘I will beat you (picked out of a group of people).’
Here, then, we find another Nilo-Saharan language where DOM interacts withpragmatic principles, more specifically with categorical (as against thetic) state-ments. Whereas (34) involves a thetic statement, (35) qualifies as a categoricalstatement. Sasse (1987: 568) states that “. . . we can say that the thetic type ofstatement is used whenever the speaker assumes that the hearer expects unitaryinformation to be given about the whole situation in question, and the categor-ical type of expression is used whenever he assumes that the hearer expectsinformation units about the constituent parts to be built up successively.” If wefocus on the interpersonal aspect of communication, one could say (alterna-tively) that the speaker wants (instead of “assumes that”) the hearer to interpret
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan 29
the information this way. Sasse (1987: 511) further points out that “. . . cate-gorical sentences contain a predication base about which some state of affairsis predicated, while thetic sentences are simple nonpredicative assertions ofstates of affairs.” This distinction neatly explains the distinction in Ghulfanabove between, for example, pronominal objects with and those without anAccusative case marker.
Case marking is obligatory with proper names as objects, according to Jakobi(2009).
(36) zéynàb-bZeynab-ACC
El-ErEE
find.PASTI.1SG‘I found Zeynab.’
Moreover, case marking is also obligatory in Ghulfan with inalienable posses-sion, whereas with alienable possession, the use of DOM again depends ondefiniteness.
(37) Olbreast-PL
Ij-jImilk-ACC
kUn-Ehave.INALIEN-PRES.3PL
‘The breasts contain milk.’
Although topic and focus as notions relevant to information packaging in ut-terances clearly play a role with respect to DOM in Ghulfan and other Nilo-Saharan languages discussed so far, it is probably not correct to treat the latterphenomenon just in terms of these notions. One reason for this is the fact thatfocus (more specifically, contrastive focus or emphasis) may also be involvedin certain thetic statements; see Sasse (1987) for an extensive discussion of thisconceptual contrast. The thetic/categorical distinction as a discourse-pragmaticnotion probably provides a better explanation for the distribution of DOM.
4. The comparative evidence
Apart from the Maban group, Fur, and Northern Eastern Sudanic, the Kunamacluster uses DOM, as already observed by Tucker and Bryan (1966: 340), as doseveral Saharan languages. Hutchison (1986: 200–201) claims that in Kanuri,for example, Accusative case is never used with non-animate objects, whereaswith animate objects it is highly pragmatically marked; with first and secondperson objects, however, Accusative case is obligatory.
In Nilo-Saharan languages discussed above, Nominative case is expressedby way of zero marking. König (2008) refers to this Nominative-Accusativesystem as Type 1, whereas languages marking both Nominative and Accusativefor case are called Type 2 languages; this latter system is attested, for example,in Kunama.
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
30 Gerrit J. Dimmendaal
Table 2. Accusative markers and related case forms in Nilo-Saharan
In his survey of Nilo-Saharan features, Bender (1989: 7) notes with respectto Accusative case marking that “[t]he widest-spread marker is a velar, occur-ring in at least six of twelve families; it seems safe to assume this is a reflexof the proto-form.” Ehret (2001: 203) reconstructs an Accusative marker *-kO
for early Nilo-Saharan. Table 2 summarizes the various Accusative markersattested for Nilo-Saharan. Whereas those listed in the first column presumablyare cognate, it is not clear whether those in the second column are cognatewith these, since the variation in vowel quality cannot be explained yet. (TheAccusative marker -gI probably is cognate with the Accusative marker -IN (<*-Ig). Consequently, the exact original Nilo-Saharan form remains to be deter-mined.
Although DOM does not occur in the Kuliak (or Rub) languages (as far aspresent knowledge goes), there is still a reflex of the original Accusative casemarker.
Tucker and Bryan (1966: 223, 340) already pointed towards the formal sim-ilarity between the Accusative case markers in Fur and Kunama. Interestingly,in spite of the fact that the authors never accepted the hypothesis of a geneticaffiliation between these, they also point out with respect to the markers in Ku-nama that “. . . [t]hese are almost identical with the Postpositional Particles inFUR (Accus. -si, Gen. -N, Loc. -le).” Not only do Fur and Kunama share thesame innovated Accusative case marker, they also show remnants of the otherAccusative case marker (containing the velar stop) in restricted environments.Thus, Bender (1989: 7) points towards an Accusative marker -k- in selectorsin Kunama. The corresponding marker -gI (also occurring in a number of allo-morphic forms) in Fur is obligatory with independent object pronouns referringto speech participants (first or second person, singular or plural).
If distantly related Nilo-Saharan languages like Fur and the Kunama cluster,spoken in Western Sudan and Ethiopia plus Eritrea, respectively, use a cognatemorpheme as Accusative case marker, one might be lead to the conclusion thatthis latter morpheme constitutes the older form. But this hypothesis is lessplausible for a number of reasons. First, the majority of Nilo-Saharan groups,including those that are only distantly related to each other, such as Maba andKuliak, have reflexes of the other Accusative case marker (with the velar stop).Second, Fur and Kunama still have reflexes of the latter morpheme, whereas theinverse (reflexes of -sI in the other Nilo-Saharan groups) is not attested. Third,it is known from typological studies that Accusative case markers historicallyoften marked more peripheral semantic roles such as the Beneficiary (Dative)or Direction; compare the English object pronoun ‘her’, which is cognate with
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
32 Gerrit J. Dimmendaal
the Dative pronoun ‘ihr’ in German. Ehret (2001: 205) in fact reconstructs anOblique case marker *-si for early Nilo-Saharan.
5. Breaking away from the DOM system
Within Nilo-Saharan, there are individual languages in two subgroups, Saharanand southern members of Eastern Sudanic, which show a pattern that deviatesfrom the DOM system. In her survey of different case-marking strategies onthe African continent, König (2008: 40) points out that in the Saharan languageTubu, which also manifests DOM, it is more likely that the Accusative markerin this language is used when the object is not expressed in its basic posi-tion, i.e., when some pragmatically marked situation is involved (König 2008:40). Whereas Saharan languages like Tubu, but also Kanuri, have a DOM sys-tem, other members of this subgroup, e.g., Beria, do not. Within Eastern Su-danic there is a sharp typological break between the Northern branch (Nubian,Taman, Nara) and the Central plus Southern branches in terms of constituentorder as well as the degree to which case marking plays a role. Thus, whereasNorthern Eastern Sudanic languages explicitly mark the object, Southern East-ern Sudanic languages (Daju, Temein plus Keiga Jirru, Nilotic, and Surmic)never mark the Object for case. Case marking within this Southern branch ofEastern Sudanic in fact is restricted to Nilotic and Surmic. Here, the (postver-bal) subject of transitive and intransitive clauses may be inflected for case.One could argue that in the latter type of language Agentive case marks theresponsible constituent, while the Accusative case element marks the affectedparticipant.
Three of the four languages constituting Central Eastern Sudanic (or Jebel)have become extinct, and so nothing is known about their grammatical struc-ture; there is no evidence for case marking in the fourth language, Gaam (Ben-der and Agaar Ayre 1980: 17).
Whereas Greenberg (1963) also placed Berta (Bertha) within Eastern Su-danic, this language is better treated as a more distantly related Nilo-Saharanlanguage, i.e., as an earlier split-off (Dimmendaal, To appear a). Typologi-cally, however, Berta shares a number of features with neighboring EasternSudanic languages belonging to the Southern branches (i.e., Nilotic and Sur-mic), namely a verb-initial constituent order and case inflection for postver-bal subjects of transitive and intransitive predications. This so-called MarkedNominative case system is universally rare, but well-established in a range oflanguages belonging to Nilotic and Surmic. For a more detailed survey of thistypological feature, the reader is referred to König (2008: 138–203); Kießling(2007) gives a detailed account of this phenomenon in Southern Nilotic Da-tooga.
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan 33
Preverbal subjects in Eastern Sudanic languages with Marked Nominativecase are never marked for case, whereas postverbal subjects always are, a phe-nomenon which consequently may be referred to as Differential Subject Mark-ing. The following examples from one Nilotic language, Päri, and one Surmiclanguage, Tennet, serve to illustrate this alternative case marking strategy.
The case system of Päri is organized along an Ergative-Absolutive base, ac-cording to Andersen (1988), who points out that the three formal strategiesused with postverbal Agents (of transitive predications) are in complementarydistribution. The Ergative case marker -I/-i occurs with nouns ending in aconsonant (with the preceding sonorant being doubled) as well as with nounsending in a high vowel. The case suffix -E/-e is used when the noun ends ina non-high vowel. (With some nouns this results in Ergative and Absolutiveforms for nouns only differing in tone, or being homophonous.)
(39) dháagO
woman:ABSá-yàañ
C-insultùbúrr-ìUbur-ERG
‘Ubur insulted the woman.’
Objects and preverbal subjects of transitive clauses, or subjects of intransitivepredications (which can only precede the verb in Päri) do not take case markers(hence the label Absolutive for these forms).
(40) dháagO
woman:ABSá-mIEl`C-dance
‘The woman danced.’
In the Surmic language Tennet, the case markers -E/-e and -I/-i are also incomplementary distribution. But here the distribution is determined by se-mantic, rather than phonological, features of the postverbal subject noun. InTennet, -I/-i is used with proper names, whereas -E/-e occurs with other typesof postverbal subjects. However, Tennet also allows for postverbal subjectsin intransitive predications, which are also inflected for case. Consequently,postverbal A-roles and S-roles are treated the same in terms of case assign-ment, hence we are dealing with a Marked Nominative system. Interestingly,VAO and VS order only occurs in main clauses in Tennet; in dependent clausesthe case marking system is organised along an Ergative-Absolutive (ratherthan Nominative-Absolutive) basis, in that VAO order is possible here, butin intransitive predications in subordinate or dependent clauses the order isSV.
Such (Marked) Nominative-Absolutive systems are common in a number ofother Surmic languages, but also in Western Nilotic languages like Dinka aswell as in Eastern and Southern Nilotic. Not only do we find a distinct con-stituent order and case-marking system in Nilotic and Surmic compared toEastern Sudanic languages like Tama or the Nubian languages, the formerhave also drifted towards head marking at the clausal level (Dimmendaal toappear b). In other words, Nilotic and Surmic languages use a reduced case-marking system (or no case marking at all) combined with an extensive systemof valency-changing suffixes on the verb. Historically, the Marked Nominativesystem is best explained as an extension of an ergative system, i.e., of a systemwhere case marking on (postverbal) Agents in transitive predications was ex-tended to the S-role, i.e., to subjects of intransitive predications (Dimmendaalto appear b). The Ergative case markers -E/-e probably go back to an earlierInstrumental case marker reconstructed as *-yE by Ehret (2001: 208). Thisetymological source for the Ergative marker is of course more common cross-linguistically and has been reconstructed for subgroups within Indo-Europeanor Sino-Tibetan. The Ergative case marker -I/-i appears to be a reflex of anancient Genitive case marker in Eastern Sudanic (Dimmendaal, to appear b).
Nilotic and Surmic languages with an Ergative-Absolutive or Nominative-Absolutive case system also show active alignment in the sense of Klimov(1974). Active languages can be described as languages which align S (thesubject of an intransitive verb) with either O or A (the subject of a transitiveverb), depending on the semantic roles involved in a predication. Thus, inthe Eastern Nilotic language Turkana, which inflects postverbal subjects oftransitive and intransitive predications for Nominative case and which markspronominal subject and object on the verb, intransitive verbs like ‘be lonely’require a cross-reference marker which is identical with the pronominal objectmarker in a transitive predication (Dimmendaal 1983).
(43) kà-sil-ikin-ìt3>1-lonely-DAT-AS
ayON`1SG:ABS
‘I am lonely.’
(44) kà-ràm-i`3>1-beat-AS
Nesì3SG:NOM
ayON`1SG:ABS
‘(S)he beat me.’
As these examples show, the fused morpheme ka- in the intransitive predica-tion in (43) is identical with the pronominal object marker in a proto-typicaltransitive predications like (44). An intransitive verb like ‘go’ on the other
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan 35
hand would take a prefix a- for a first person singular subject. Active align-ment thus refers to a morphosyntactic coding system whereby the argumentsof intransitive predicates are treated either as Agents or as Patients of transitivepredications.3 Dixon (1994) refers to such configurations as split-S systems.
In at least one Saharan language, Beria (Zaghawa), one finds a combinationof Ergative and active/agentive alignment for the expression of grammaticalrelations.4 Jakobi and Crass (2004) and Jakobi (2006) give a detailed analysisof this Saharan language, where again the (single) argument of intransitive sen-tences splits structurally and patterns either with the Agent or with the Patientof transitive sentences. Active verbs like ‘come’ take different cross-referencemarkers on the verb from verbs like ‘sleep’ in Beria; with the latter verb, thecross-reference marker is identical with the pronominal object marker.
(45) E-sE-r"-I
1SG:ABS-eat-3:ERG-IPF:PL‘They (the lions) will eat me.’
(46) E-gE-I1SG:ABS-lie.down-PRF‘I have slept.’
The corresponding first person singular subject marker with ‘come’ or otheractive verbs would be -g-:
(47) kéì-g-ìcome-1SG:ERG-IPF‘I will come.’
The split-S system of Beria and other Nilo-Saharan languages is based on thesemantics of the verb. The importance of semantic primitives such as voli-tionality or sentience thus becomes obvious from Nilo-Saharan languages withactive systems, whereas the importance of affectedness is clear from the DOMprinciple in other members of this phylum.
Ergative properties of Beria manifest themselves with certain pragmaticallymarked constructions. With respect to focus marking on core syntactic func-tions, S patterns with P rather than with A (Jakobi 2006: 136), in that they
3. It is important to point out that, contrary to Klimov’s expectations (Klimov 1974), Nilo-Saharan languages with active alignment do make a distinction between transitive and in-transitive predications elsewhere in their grammars (e.g., with respect to case marking); also,these languages do have a morphological category voice.
4. Given the close historical link between Marked Nominative systems and Ergative systemsin Nilo-Saharan (as argued in Dimmendaal to appear b), the presence of active alignment inNilotic and Surmic languages with Marked Nominative case systems should not come as asurprise.
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
36 Gerrit J. Dimmendaal
take the same focus marker, which is different from the focus marker used forA. (For further details, see Jakobi 2006.) Unlike Nilotic or Surmic languages,however, such Agents marked with Ergative case always precede the verb inBeria.
There is no evidence that Saharan and the Eastern Sudanic branches Niloticand Surmic form a genetic unit historically. Instead, the latter clearly are moreclosely related to subgroups such as Nubian or Taman. Consequently, the par-allel development of ergative properties and active alignment in these two Nilo-Saharan branches must be due to an independent slant or drift (or areal contactwith languages of this type).
In spite of the fact that active alignment is widespread in Nilo-Saharan lan-guages with Ergative-Absolutive or Marked Nominative properties, it is againignored unfortunately in recent areal overviews such as Donahue and Wich-mann (2008), where it is pointed out that Eurasia, the Americas, and the south-west Pacific are the zones (hotbeds) where this phenomenon is concentrated.Apparently, we Africanists are not very successful when it comes to the mar-keting of our scientific results.
It should be pointed out that Omotic (Afroasiatic) languages also combinecase marking with active alignment. Whereas Nilo-Saharan languages dis-cussed above use a split-S system, the Omotic languages in question usuallyhave a fluid-S system. Amha (2009) describes this phenomenon for the Omoticlanguage Wolaitta, where the Experiencer is rendered as an object taking Ac-cusative case, in order to express a dynamic situation, whereas the Experiencertakes Nominative case when a stative situation is to be expressed; the verb alsotakes a passive marker in the latter case.
(48) táná1SG:ACC
sákk-eésido.pain-3M:SG:IPF
‘I am sick (I feel pain as I speak).’
(49) táání1SG:NOM
sák-étt-aisido.pain-PASS-1SG:IPF
‘I am sick/ill (state, longer period of sickness).’
A related phenomenon, also discussed in Amha (2009), is the alternative useof Accusative as opposed to Nominative case in order to express degree ofvolitionality or control.
(50) táná1SG:ACC
tukkeécoffee:NOM
Pámoy-iisicrave.for-3M:SG:PF
‘I longed for coffee.’
(51) táání1SG:NOM
tukk-íyacoffee-M:ACC
Pámott-aasicrave.for-1SG:PF
‘I craved for coffee.’
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan 37
Case assignment in these Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan languages thus is con-ditioned by the semantic nature of core noun phrases, the semantics of the verb,as well as tense/aspect. All three factors are listed by Dixon (1994: 70–110) asfrequently occurring features conditioning the distribution of split-S and fluid-S marking cross-linguistically.
In a fascinating contribution, Bickel (2000) has pointed towards genetic sta-bility with respect to the treatment of so-called Primary Grammatical Relationsin different language families. The author primarily compares Sino-Tibetanand Indo-European languages, in order to distinguish between so-called as-sociative and integrative agreement systems. The latter are characterized byagreement marking on the verb primarily serving an identificational function.This is the common pattern in Indo-European languages like English, wherethe relation between the noun phrase and the conjugational system would beone of identity. Sino-Tibetan languages on the other hand tend to have associa-tive, rather than integrative, systems.
Thus, in Belhare the noun phrase stands in an appositional (‘as NP’), a par-titional (‘NP of’) or a relational (‘NP with regard to’) position towards thefollowing verb. The following example illustrates the third type. In this sen-tence, the verbal agreement marker functions semantically as an apposition tothe preceding noun phrase taking Ergative case (glossing as in Bickel 2000).
(52) cuN-Nacold-ERG
si-yu[3SG:S-9]die-NON.PAST
holaprobably
‘He will probably die from the cold.’
The alternative construction where the verb is inflected for A (rather than S) isungrammatical:
(53) *cuN-Nacold-ERG
seiP-t-u[3SG:A-]kill-NON.PAST-3[SG]UND
holaprobably
‘He will probably die from the cold.’
As further pointed out in Bickel (2000), the associative agreement is fully com-patible with noun phrases in core argument positions, i.e., the noun phrasesare not necessarily adjuncts. Interestingly, this feature is also found in Sino-Tibetan language like Modern Chinese, which does not have agreement mark-ers, but which still allows for such appositional structures. Bickel (2000) con-cludes that there are deeply rooted typological differences between the Indo-European and the Sino-Tibetan family and that these features themselves ap-parently are stable.
Nilo-Saharan languages pattern along with Indo-European in this respect,i.e., they have integrative, rather than associative, agreement systems. In spiteof the typological split within Nilo-Saharan between languages with Marked
Nominative and Ergative-Absolutive systems on the one side and the differ-ential marking of objects on the other, their respective design principles inthe syntax-semantics interface did not change that much. Most Nilo-Saharanlanguages involved use cross-reference marking for subjects (S and A) on theverb, and several of them also mark pronominal objects. Moreover, these cross-reference markers in Nilo-Saharan allow for identificational relations betweenthe subject noun phrase, or independent subject pronoun, and the targeted verb.Like in Indo-European languages, but unlike Sino-Tibetan languages for exam-ple, these serve an integrative (configurational) role. The only type of construc-tion where there may be “disagreement” is in so-called partitional construc-tions. In the following Fur sentence, for example, the speaker is the subjectof the verb ‘meet’. Because of the comitative, however, the subject referencemarker on the verb is a first person plural.
(54) EttEtoday
ka-sI1SG-ACC
kIlmá-gI
hear-OM1/2sImmO-IIhappy-3SG.be.IPF
ásáN
to.TRkI-krIstInE
with-Christinek-áytI1PL.meet.PF
‘I am very happy today to meet with Christine.’
We know, however, that this type of construction is widespread across theAfrican continent, thus probably constituting an ancient areal feature.
6. The DOM principle in a typological perspective
The operation of DOM in Semitic languages like Hebrew was already men-tioned in the pioneering study by Bossong (1985). Amberber (2009) and Kievitand Kievit (2009) have shown that this feature extends to Ethiopian Semiticlanguages like Amharic and Tigrinya, respectively. For Tigrinya, the latter au-thors show that DOM “. . . largely correlates with the definiteness and, to alesser degree, the animacy of the object” (Kievit and Kievit 2009: 45). The au-thors base their analysis on a statistical analysis of object marking in a chapterof a contemporary Tigrinya novel.
Disambiguation of argument roles is also a crucial function of DOM cross-linguistically. Animate and specific (definite) noun phrases and pronouns, ashighly prominent constituents in the discourse, are more likely to be overtlycase-marked than other constituents in this respect, as pointed out by differentauthors, e.g., Aissen (2003), or de Hoop and Melchukov 2008). The latter twoauthors discuss DOM in terms of two violable constraints well known fromthe typological literature (e.g., Comrie 1981), whose effects converge in thecase of the differential marking of objects (but diverge in the case of differ-ential marking of subjects). The first strategy involves distinguishability, i.e.,
disambiguation of argument roles in a transitive clause. The second strategy,identification, requires case marking to identify specific semantic-pragmaticinformation about the nominal argument. Discourse prominence of the case-bearing arguments is central to the latter.5
Næss (2007) claims that the marked participant in DOM is primarily the[−volitional] [−instigating] [+affected] participant of a prototypical transitivesituation, and that the object is less likely to be marked the more the situ-ation deviates from the prototypical transitive one. DOM, according to thisview, marks the object in a situation in which A(gent) and O(bject) are max-imally semantically distinct, as in the prototypical transitive situation. Theobject marking is thus used for prototypical objects. The prototypical Agentis [+volitional] [+instigating] [−affected]. Volition requires animacy. There-fore, a prototypical transitive situation involves two participants, which areboth human beings, or at least animate.
According to the same author, the marking of the object is less likely, if thetransitivity features of A and O differ less in a situation. She further proposesthat the Accusative case should cross-linguistically be regarded as a marker ofhigh affectedness of objects. Where the case marker correlates with definite-ness and/or animacy, this is a consequence of the way these properties are usedas criteria for judging the degree of affectedness of an object (Næss, 2007). Inthis respect, a noun phrase is also more likely to be referential, the more spe-cific and definite it is. Finally, Næss (2007) includes animacy in the featuresof affectedness. She argues that the perceived affectedness is altered by thesignificance a situation has for human beings. A situation is most significant ifthe affected participant is a human being and the least significant for inanimateitems.
Primus (to appear) presents grammatical and processing evidence that ani-macy is more closely connected to agentivity than previously assumed in theliterature on this topic. Indeed, the Accusative marker may not only be missingfor animate Patients, it may also be used for certain inanimates, as we saw fordifferent Nilo-Saharan languages above. Primus (to appear) gives interestingexamples from Spanish, where the element a is obligatory with objects that arehuman or animate and specific. This element merges with the following defi-niteness marker el, as in the next example (glossing as in Primus to appear).
(55) elthe
professorprofessor
reemplazareplace.PRS.3SG
elthe
librobook
‘The professor replaces the book (with something else).’
5. The authors further claim that passive formation and DOM are found mostly in Nominative-Accusative languages, whereas antipassives and Differential Subject Marking are foundmostly in Ergative languages. Data from Nilo-Saharan corroborate their observations.
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
40 Gerrit J. Dimmendaal
(56) elthe
professorprofessor
reemplazareplace.PRS.3SG
alOB:DEF.M.SG
librobook
‘The professor replaces the book.’
Primus (to appear) argues that in the second example the professor and thebook have the capability to act as proto-agents in an equivalent way. But itwould seem that these contrasting examples could also be accounted for by thethetic/categorical contrast. The sentence without the a-marker (55) expressesthe fact that the professor replaces the book with another book or with some-thing else, for instance, in a shelf. In example (56), the professor takes theplace of the book as a didactic source (or whatever function is attributed tothe book), i.e., ‘book’ carries assertive (or even contrastive) focus, and thus isan instance of a categorical statement, whereas (55) is an example of a theticstatement.6
As we saw for Ghulfan above, there are no categories of nominals or pronom-inal forms in this Nubian language for which object marking is obligatoryexcept for proper names. This contradicts the hierarchy proposed in Aissen(2003), where pronouns are ranked higher than proper names on the definite-ness scale, and thus more likely to be marked for case. As pointed out byKievit and Kievit (2009: 58) in their study of Tigrinya, “[t]he theory predictsthat animates should be marked more frequently than inanimates. However,while 27 % of inanimates were marked, only 11 % of (nonhuman) animateswere marked” in the Tigrinya texts investigated by the authors. This is a fur-ther indication that additional properties play a role. More specifically, thecognitive status of referring expressions in the discourse seems to interact withthe prominence hierarchy. The claim made in the present contribution is thatthe statistical probability that DOM occurs is higher with objects in categoricalstatements.
In their pioneering work on a range of languages in northeastern Africa,Tucker and Bryan (1966: 320) make an interesting observation on Accusativecase marking in one Nubian language, Fadicca. Here, the Accusative casemarker is also used with certain adverbial constructions:
(57) ayI
issa-gjust-ACC
kahave
kab-iseaten
‘I have just eaten.’
6. After having completed this article, the present author read a recently published contributionon DOM and topicality in Spanish as spoken in the Balearic Islands (Majorca, Minorca, Ibiza,and Formentera) by Escandell-Vidal (2009). Interestingly, the author concludes with respectto this language that “. . . information structure distinctions must be taken into account toobtain a better understanding of the parameters responsible for DOM”. One could not agreemore.
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan 41
The same phenomenon is attested for Old Nubian, where -ka is used as an Ac-cusative marker expressing Patient or Direction, but also temporal expressionsdenoting duration (Browne 2002: 36). Alternatively, such preverbal elementsfocussing on the temporal dimension in Fadicca apparently may take Genitivecase, the choice presumably being governed by the etymological origin of thesewords used as temporal adjuncts (as opposed to verbal complements), i.e., forparticipant roles not required by the verb.
(58) ayI
wiil-inyesterday-GEN
kis-scame
‘I came yesterday.’
As pointed out by Wierzbicka (1981) in her plea for an analysis of case in se-mantic (rather than syntactic) terms, cross-linguistically Accusative case mark-ing usually extends beyond the basic sphere, that of the direct object. Accord-ing to Wierzbicka (1983), the “discriminatory” theory of case won’t do; what isneeded to explain facts is a semantic theory of case marking. She suggests thatdifferences in countability are likely to attach themselves to the Genitive, anddifferences in status and importance to the Nominative. As further observed byher, morphology enrolls semantic and syntactic categories rather than merelydiscriminating between them. These phenomena described for Nubian lan-guages above also show that both concepts, semantic role and syntactic func-tion, are needed.
Interestingly, Kievit and Kievit (2009: 56) mention the fact that in the Semiticlanguage Tigrinya the Accusative case marker ni- or nä- may be attached tonominal phrases expressing Patient roles, but also to phrases expressing Direc-tion, Purpose, Addressee, Recipient and Beneficiary of an action.
Such phenomena would seem to be problematic for theoretical models whichstart out from syntax, since the syntactic treatment of these phrases is directlymotivated semantically or pragmatically, or, as Primus (to appear) puts it: Theyare performance-based. Of course, analytical problems of this kind are alsofound in typologically radically different language families like Bantu, whichare strongly head marking at the clausal level, i.e., which tend to mark argu-ment roles on the verb rather than on dependent categories (by way of case).Several Bantu languages make a formal distinction on the verb between con-joint versus disjoint, or conjunctive versus disjunctive, constructions. Creis-sels (1996) argues with respect to Setswana, for example, that disjunctive verbforms imply a break between the verb and what follows; moreover, such verbforms can also be used in sentence-final position; conjunctive verb forms onthe other hand need to be followed by an element providing new information.Kraal (2009) gives a detailed account of this phenomenon in Makonde. Con-joint forms in this Bantu language spoken in Tanzania and Mozambique con-stitute one phonological phrase and contain one “information peak” or salient
constituent. Focused objects require a conjoint, rather than disjoint, verb form,for example.
(59) yanga¯ta
help:CJváyééniguests
‘Help the guests!’
(60) va-yangaate3:OB-help:DJ
(vayeeéni)guests
‘Help them/the guests!’
The constituent following such a verb form may also be a focused Obliqueargument like ‘today’ in an answer to a question ‘when are you going?’ (Kraal2009: 299).
(61) ni-nku-wéná1SG-PROG-go:CJ
léelo9.today
‘I am going today.’
Separating the referring function of phrases (e.g., as constituents carrying fo-cus) from the relational role their denotata play as arguments in a propositionthus is important. Case assignment in theoretical models like Role and Refer-ence Grammar is not based on grammatical relations or phrase structure con-figurations; instead, it is directly motivated semantically or pragmatically (VanValin 2009). The distribution of Accusative case marking, and its interactionwith focus, in Nilo-Saharan languages supports this position.
In their quintessential contribution on diversity in human language, Evansand Levinson (2009: 430) make the following observation:
It will take a historian of science to unravel the causes of this ongoing presumption ofunderlying language uniformity. But a major reason is simply that there is a lack ofcommunication between theorists in the cognitive sciences and those linguists most inthe know about linguistic diversity. This is partly because of the reluctance by mostdescriptive and typological linguists to look up from their fascinating particularisticworlds and engage with the larger theoretical issues in the cognitive sciences. Outsidershave instead taken the articulate envoys from the universalizing generativist camp torepresent the consensus view within linguistics. But there are other reasons as well: therelevant literature is forbiddingly opaque to outsiders, bristling with arcane phoneticsymbols and esoteric terminologies.
Making innovative studies on poorly known and at times rare features of Afri-can languages (such as the use of numeral classifiers) available to the linguisticcommunity at large has been one of the pillars of the JALL philosophy over theyears. Moreover, presenting these phenomena in linguistically sophisticatedterms, rather than by using idiosyncratic and esoteric terminologies, has also
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Author's Copy
Aut
hor's
Cop
y
Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan 43
been a Leitmotiv in the editorial policy. There is tremendous typological vari-ation on the African continent, and no doubt there is still a lot to be discoveredin this respect. Obviously, this journal can only make a modest contributionin its “mission” to inform, not only the interested Africanist, but also generallinguistic (“theoretical”) circles about fascinating new discoveries. It is withinthis spirit that the present contribution was written.
Acknowledgement
Research on Tama by the present author was carried out within the Sonder-forschungsbereich 389 ACACIA (Arid Climate, Adaptation, and Cultural In-novation in Africa) at the University of Cologne, a project financed by theDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Their financial support is kindly acknowl-edged here. An earlier draft of the present contribution was presented at aseminar at the Radboud University, Nijmegen (The Netherlands). I would liketo express my sincere gratitude to Helen de Hoop for inviting me; I would alsolike to thank the audience for their various comments and suggestions. Spe-cial thanks are due to the editors Felix K. Ameka and Azeb Amha, and to JadeComfort and Angelika Jakobi for their detailed comments on an earlier versionof this paper.
Abbreviations
3>1 third person subject-first person singular objectABS absolutive caseACC accusative caseAUX auxiliaryCAUS causativeC completiveCJ conjointCON connectiveDAT dative caseDCL declarativeDEF definitiveDEM demonstrativeDJ disjointDP discourse particleDUR durativeEMPH emphaticFUT future
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Languageand Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711.
Amberber, Mengistu. 2009. Differential case marking of arguments in Amharic. In Andrej L.Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 742–755. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Amha, Azeb. 2009. Wolaitta. In Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (ed.), Coding participant marking, 355–384. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Amha, Azeb, & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. 2006. Converbs from an African perspective. In Felix K.Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challengeof grammar writing, 393–440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Andersen, Torben. 1988. Ergativity in Päri, a Nilotic OVS language. Lingua 75. 289–324.Bender, M. Lionel. 1989. Nilo-Saharan pronouns/demonstratives. In M. Lionel Bender (ed.),
Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics, 1–34. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Bender, M. Lionel. 1996. The Nilo-Saharan languages: A comparative essay. Munich: LINCOM,
Browne, Gerald M. 2002. A grammar of Old Nubian. Munich: LINCOM, Europe.Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Creissels, Denis. 1996. Conjunctive and disjunctive verb forms in Setswana. South African Jour-
nal of African Languages 16(4). 109–115.de Hoop, Helen, & Andrej L. Malchukov. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39.
565–587.Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 1983. Turkana as a verb-initial language. Journal of African Languages
and Linguistics 5. 17–44.Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 1998. Language contraction versus other types of contact-induced change.
In Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Endangered languages in Africa, 71–117. Cologne: RüdigerKöppe.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2007. Eastern Sudanic and the Wadi Howar and Wadi El Milk diaspora.Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 18. 37–67.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2008a. Africa’s verb-final languages. In Bernd Heine & Derek Nurse (eds.),A linguistic geography of Africa, 271–307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2008b. Language ecology and linguistic diversity on the African continent.Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5). 840–858.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2009a. Tama. In Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (ed.), Coding participant marking,307–331. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. In press. Historical linguistics and the comparative study of African lan-guages. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. To appear a. Nilo-Saharan and its limits. In Jean-Marie Hombert & GerardPhilippson (eds.), The classification of African languages revisited.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. To appear b. Marked Nominative systems in Eastern Sudanic and theirhistorical origin. In Pascal Boyeldieu et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Nilo-Saharanconference. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. (ed.). 2009b. Coding participant marking: Construction types in twelveAfrican languages. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Donahue, Mark, and Søren K. Wichmann (eds.). 2008. The typology of semantic alignment.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ehret, Christopher. 2001. A historical-comparative reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan. Cologne:
Rüdiger Köppe.Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2009. Differential object marking and topicality: The case of Balearic
Catalan. Studies in Language 33(4). 832–885.Evans, Nicholas, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language
diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–492.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. The languages of Africa. Bloomington, Indiana University. (Interna-tional Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 29.1, Part II.)
Heine, Bernd. 1976. A typology of African languages based on the order of meaningful units.Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Hutchison, John P. 1986. Major constituent case marking in Kanuri. In Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (ed.),Current approaches to African linguistics, Vol. 3, 191–208. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Jakobi, Angelika. 2006. Focus in an active/agentive alignment system – the case of Beria (Saha-ran). ZAS Papers in Linguistics 46. 129–142.
Jakobi, Angelika. 2009. Differential object marking in Uncunwee (Kordofan Nubian). Paperpresented at the 6th World Congress of African Linguistics, University of Cologne.
Jakobi, Angelika, & Joachim Crass. 2004. Grammaire du beria (langue saharienne). Cologne:Rüdiger Köppe.
Kießling, Roland. 2007. The “marked nominative” in Datooga. Journal of African Languages andLinguistics 28(2). 149–191.
Kievit, Dirk, & Saliem Kievit. 2009. Differential object marking in Tigrinya. Journal of AfricanLanguages and Linguistics 30(1). 45–71.
Klimov, G. A. 1974. On the character of languages of active typology. Linguistics 131. 11–25.König, Christa. 2008. Case in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kraal, Peter. 2009. Makonde. In Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (ed.), Coding participant marking: Con-
struction types in twelve African languages, 281–303. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9. 153–
185.Malchukov, Andrej L., & Andrew Spencer (eds.). 2009. The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62. 56–119.Primus, Beatrice. To appear. Animacy, generalized semantic roles, and differential object marking.
In Monique Lamers & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, word order, and prominence: Psycholin-guistic and theoretical approaches to argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25. 511–580.Satti, Nasir Ali Osman. 2008. A grammatical analysis of Dongolese phrases and clauses. PhD
dissertation, University of Khartoum.Tucker, Archibald N., & Margaret A. Bryan 1966. Linguistic analyses: The Non-Bantu languages
of Northeastern Africa. London: Oxford University Press for the International African Insti-tute.
Van Valin, Robert D. 2009. Case in role and reference grammar. In Andrej L. Malchukov &Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 104–120. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Waag, Christine. 2009. The Fur verb and its context. PhD dissertation, University of Cologne.Weiss, Doris. 2009. Phonologie et morphosyntaxe du maba. Thèse de doctorat, Université Lu-
mière Lyon 2.Werner, Roland. 1987. Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch): Phonologie, Tonologie und Mor-
phologie. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Werner, Roland. 1993. Tìdn-Áal – A study of Darfur-Nubian. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Wierzbicka, Anna. 1981. Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1(1).
43–80.Wierzbicka, Anna. 1983. The semantics of case marking. Studies in Language 7(2). 247–275.
