Differential Object Marking in Modern Ossetic: Referential Properties and Animacy
DOI: 10.23951/2307-6119-2025-2-91-107
This article deals with the phenomenon of Differential Object marking in Iron Ossetic. We consider the main factors underlying the choice of DO marking and the animate and referential properties of DOs. In terms of animacy, we show that the basic opposition is that of human vs. non-human animates (while non-animate only marginally takes the genitive, as shown in the literature on Ossetic). Lexical classes of non-human animate, such as animals vs. insects vs. birds vs. amphibians, are irrelevant for DO marking. Some specific lexemes show behavior characteristic of other lexical classes: the lexeme šəvɜllon ‘child’ submits to the DOM rules for non-humans, and the lexeme foš ‘livestock’ behaves like a non-animate, i.e., it rarely takes the genitive in DO position. The nouns denoting groups of people (škond ‘staff,’ k’laš ‘school class’) also behave like non-animate persons. The reference types are subject to different restrictions for human and non-human animates. For human animates, genitive marking is obligatory for reference types that presuppose the existence of the referent in the listener’s mind (from the speaker’s point of view), either concrete (definite) or abstract (e.g., attributive). The nominative is just as possible for other reference types as the genitive. The marking of non-human animate DOs is described using a scale of the relative frequency of the genitive and the nominative: DOs with negative polarity > definite specific/non-specific (attributive) DOs > negative free DOs > indefinite specific known generic DOs > indefinite specific unknown and non-specific DOs
Keywords: differential object marking, direct object, Ossetic, Iranian languages, referentiality, animacy
References:
1. Abaev V.I. Grammaticheskiy ocherk osetinskogo yazyka [Grammatical essay of the Ossetian language]. Ordzhonikidze, Severo-Osetinskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1959. 168 p. (in Russian).
2. Gagkaev K.E. Sintaksis osetinskogo yazyka [Syntax of the Ossetian language]. Ordzhonikidze, Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo Severo-Osetinskoi ASSR Publ., 1956. 276 p. (in Russian).
3. Sinnemäki K. A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics. 2014;52(2):281- 313.
4. Aissen J. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 1998;21(3):435-483.
5. de Hoop H. Case and strength. In: Dekker P., Franke M. (eds.). Proceedings of the Fifteenth Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam, ILLC, 2005. Pp. 113–118.
6. de Swart P. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Ph.D. Diss., Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. 2007. 234 p.
7. Iemmolo G. Towards a typological study of Differential Object Marking and Differential Object Indexation. Ph. D. thesis. Pavia, Università degli studi di Pavia Publ., 2011. 324 p.
8. Bickel B., Witzlack-Makarevich A., Zakharko T. Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. In: Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Malchukov A. L., Richards M. (eds.) Scales and hierarchies: A crossdisciplinary perspective. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter Publ., 2015. Pp. 7–45.
9. Haspelmath M. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford, Clarendon Press Publ., 1997. 364 p.
10. Abbott B. Reference. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press Publ., 2010. 308 p.
11. von Heusinger K. Specificity. In: von Heusinger, Maienborn and Portner (eds.) Semantics (HSK 33.2). de Gruyter Publ., 2011. Pp. 1025–1058.
12. Akhvlediani G.S. (ed.). Grammatika osetinskogo yazyka [Grammar of the Ossetian language]. Vol. 1. Ordzhonikidze, NII pri Sovete ministrov Severo-Osetinskoi ASSR Publ., 1963. 364 p. (in Russian).
13. Bagaev N.K. Sovremennyi osetinskiy yazyk [Modern Ossetian language]. Ch. 1. Ordzhonikidze, Severo-Osetinskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo Publ., 1965. 488 p. (in Russian).
14. Şahingöz E. Differential Object Marking in Ossetic: A corpus-based analysis. In: Conference presentation. 2022. 33 p.
15. Cheung J. Studies in the Historical Development of the Ossetic Vocalism. In: Beiträge zur Iranistik. Wiesbaden, Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag Publ., 2002. 331 p.
16. Gagkaev K.E. Ocherk grammatiki osetinskogo yazyka [Grammatical essay of the Ossetian language]. Ordzhonikidze, Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo Severo-Osetinskoy ASSR Publ., 1952. 116 p. (in Russian).
17. Thordarson F. Ossetic grammatical studies. In: Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik. Vol. 48. Vienna, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Publ., 2009. 259 p.
18. Donnellan K.S. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review. 1966;(77):281-304.
19. von Heusinger K. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics. 2013;19:245-274.
20. Frawley W. Linguistic semantics. New York, London, Routledge. 1992. 544 p.
21. Paducheva E.V. Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost’ s deistvitel’nost’yu [Statement and its correlation with reality]. Moscow, Nauka. 1985. 270 p. (in Russian).
22. Paducheva E.V. Referentsial’nyi status imennoy gruppy [Referential types of noun phrases]. In: Materialy dlya proekta korpusnogo opisaniya russkoy grammatiki [Materials for the project of the corpus-based description of Russian grammar]. Moscow. 2017. Accessed on 01.08.2024. (in Russian).
23. Carlsson G., Pelletier F.J. The generic book. Chicago, London, The University of Chicago Press Publ., 1995. 474 p.
24. Givón T. Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publ., 1984. 500 p.
( 231.95 kB ) 
( 194.21 kB )
Issue: 2, 2025
Series of issue: Issue 2
Rubric: LINGUISTICS
Pages: 91 — 107
Downloads: 516