Article published In: Differential objects and datives – a homogeneous class?
Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Anna Pineda
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 42:1] 2019
► pp. 31–55
Differential object marking and object scrambling in the Guaraní language cluster
Published online: 10 July 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00028.roe
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00028.roe
Abstract
The parallel data discussed in this article suggest that in
Guaraní languages differential objects seem far from being exclusively
highlighted in morpho-logy. Instead, the Guaraní dom systems exhibit a
differential treatment of certain direct objects within narrow syntax. Focusing
on [+animate] direct objects, I supply evidence that [+dom] direct
objects scramble out of their base position into a higher,
vP-internal, projection, namely αP (following López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite Objects: Scrambling, Choice Functions, and Differential Marking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. ). This
short DO scrambling is derived including data from simple
transitive, ditransitive, and applicative constructions as well as from object
conjunction. The short scrambling within vP is followed by
further direct object dislocation into a higher functional domain, an operation
described in literature as triggered by φ-feature under T° and targeting a
specifier in an expanded functional domain ( 2011b. Hierarquia de pessoa em Avá Guarani: aspectos sintáticos e
morfológicos. LLAMES, 111, 7–33.). DOs that move out of their base position may be marked with the overt case marker, homophonous with dat case. The homophony between dat and dom is conceived as morphological opacity in the Guaraní case. Syntactically, however, [+dom] DOs pattern together with their zero-marked acc counterparts, rather than
with indirect objects.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Pronouns, verbal agreement and word order
- 2.1Free pronominal forms
- 2.2Bound agreement marking
- 2.3Direct/inverse marking system
- 2.4Agreement, p-hierarchy and word-order
- 3.DP features and dom
- 3.1The basic dom system
- 3.2Pronominal differential objects
- 3.3[dom] and DP-feature based theory
- 4.Syntactic treatment of direct objects
- 4.1Previous work on Guaraní word order
- 4.2Evidence for short scrambling of DO+dom
- 4.3[dom] and syntactic theory
- 4.4Further evidence for “3-Step” object scrambling
- 5.Accusative-dative homophony in Guaraní
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes
- Abbreviations
References
References (45)
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs.
Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.
Bossong, G. 1985a. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den
neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
1985b. Markierung von Aktantenfunktionen im Guaraní. In F. Plank (Ed.), Relational Typology, 1–29. Berlin: Gruyter, Mounton de.
1991. Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond. In D. Kibbee, & D. Wanner (Eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Cardoso, V. F. 2008. Aspectos Morfosintácticos da Língua Kaiowá
(Guarani). Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin et al. (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard
Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
2001. Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz, & K. Hale (Eds.), A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Dietrich, W. 1990. More evidence for an internal classification of Tupi-Guarani
languages. Indiana. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
Dooley, R. 1982. Options in the Pragmatic Structuring of Guaraní
Sentences. Language, 58(2), pp. 307–331.
2006. Léxico Guarani, Dialeto Mbyá e Introdução: Informações Gerais,
Esboço Gramatical e Refererências. Working Paper SIL.
Freitas, M. L. 2011a. Hierarquia de Pessoa em Avá-Guarani – Considerações a partir da
Morfologia Distribuída. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
Freitas, M. L. D. A. & Roessler, E.-M. 2013. On Null-Arguments in Aché and Guaraní. In CILLA VI – 6th Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America,
Panel 6A – Syntax. Austin: Austin University.
García, M. 2007. Differential Object Marking in Inanimate Objects. In G. Kaiser, & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop ’Definetness, Specificty and Animacy in
Ibero Romance Languages, University Konstanz, Fachbereich
Sprachwissenschaft. Konstanz.
Gregores, E. & Suaréz, J. 1967. A Description of Colloquial Guaraní. Den Haag; Paris: Mounton de Gruyter.
Irimia, M. A. 2018. Differential Objects and other Structural Objects. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 3(50), 1–15.
Jelinek, E. 1993. Ergative “Splits” and Argument Type. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, (18), 15–42.
Jelinek, E. & Carnie, A. 2003. Argument Hierarchies and the Mapping Principle. In A. Carnie et al. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar – In honor of Eloise
Jelinek. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Jensen, C. 1990. Cross-referencing changes in some Tupí-Guaraní
languages. In D. Payne (Ed.), Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American
Languages, 117–158. Austin: Austin University.
1998. The use of coreferential and reflexive markers in Tupi-Guarani
languages. Journal of Amazonian Languages, I(2).
Keine, S. & Müller, G. 2008. Differential Argument Encoding by Impoverishment. In M. Richards, & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86, 83–136. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite Objects: Scrambling, Choice Functions, and Differential Marking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Martins, M. F. 2003. Descrição e Análise de Aspectos da Garmática do Guaraní Mbyá. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
Nevins, A. & Sandalo, F. 2011. Markedness and morphotactics in Kadiwéu [+participant]
agreement. Morphology, 211, 351–378.
Oxford, W. 2014. Microparameters of agreement: A diachronic perspective on
Algonquian verb in ection by A diachronic perspective on Algonquian verb in
ection. Dissertation, University of Toronto.
2015. Variation in Multiple Agree: A syntactic connection between
portmanteau agreement and inverse marking. pp. 1–39.
2017. Inverse Marking as Impoverishment. In A. Kaplan et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Cost Conference on Formal
Linguistics, 413–422. Cascadilla. Somerville.
Payne, D. 1994. The Tupí-Guaraní Inverse. In B. Fox, & P. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: Form and Function, 313–340. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of
IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 201, 365–340.
Rodrigues, A. 1990. You and I = neither you nor I: the personal system of
Tupinamabá. In Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American
Languages, 393–405. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Roessler, E.-M. 2015. Inflectional Morphology Restructuring in Ache – Discussing
Grammatical Change and Language Contact in Tupí-Guaraní
Subgroup–1. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 371–393.
2018. Syntactic Effects of Inflectional Morphology Restructuring – On
Language Change and Language Contact in Tupi-Guaraní
Subgroup-1. Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
Roessler, E.-M., Gasparini, N. & Danielsen, S. 2014. ‘The Southern Clade of Tupi-Guarani Languages: Adpositional
Issues’. Belem do Pará.
Shain, C. A. 2009. The Distribution of Differential Object Marking in Paraguayan
Guaraní. Ohio State University.
Shain, C. & Tonhauser, J. 2011. The Synchrony and Diachrony of Differential Object Marking in
Paraguayan Guaraní. Language Variation and Change, 221, 321–246.
Cited by (19)
Cited by 19 other publications
Baker, Mark C.
Bhattacharya, Tanmoy & Jyoti Sharma
Carstens, Vicki
De Cia, Simone
Devos, Maud & Rozenn Guérois
Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina
Hauck, Jan David
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina & Eva-Maria Roessler
Milković, Marina & Ronnie Wilbur
Overfelt, Jason
Sonnenhauser, Barbara & Paul Widmer
Steinbach, Markus
Willer-Gold, Jana & Anita Peti-Stantić
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. 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.
