Referential Expression Type and Definiteness as Factors in Asymmetrical Object Marking in Modern Hebrew

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The subject of this study are the referential expressions that encode the O-participant in a transitive clause in the Modern Hebrew language. The goal of this study is to establish the significance of “definiteness” as a factor in asymmetric object marking for different types of referential expressions used by the Modern Hebrew speakers. For this purpose, the author considers the ways of expressing the category "definiteness" in various Modern Hebrew referential expressions that encode the O-participant in a transitive clause, and carries out a quantitative and comparative analysis of the ways of formalizing these expressions, using two research corpuses with a total volume of about 101 000 words. As a result of the analysis, it is concluded that, despite the clear correlation between the “definiteness” and the way noun phrases in the direct object role are constructed, “definiteness” is the only factor licensing asymmetric object marking for only one category out of the four considered, for proper names that are obligatorily marked. The remaining categories (definite noun phrases with other indicators of determination, indefinite noun phrases and pronouns) are all optionally marked within one or more types of referential expressions within each category. Of particular importance are the conclusions about the optional marking of referents encoded with the kol quantifier (55% of referential expressions with a quantifier and a relative pronoun are marked), partitive constructions (75% are marked), demonstrative and relative pronouns (48% and 66-85% are marked, respectively). It is proposed that for these types of referential expressions, there are additional factors that license asymmetric object marking in Modern Hebrew and that to determine them it would require further study of the discourse-pragmatic characteristics of referent-encoding expressions, including their referential status, status of animation, activity in discourse and degree of topicality.

References

  1. Воейкова М. Д. Введение. Петербургская школа функциональной грамматики: история, современное состояние и направления развития // Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Труды института лингвистических исследований, 2015. №1. С. 3-17.
  2. Кибрик А. А., Плунгян В. А. Функционализм // А. А. Кибрик, И. М. Кобозева, И. А. Секерина (ред.). Современная американская лингвистика. Фундаментальные направления. 4-е изд. М.: Книжный дом «ЛИБРОКОМ», 2010. С. 276-339.
  3. Ронько Р. В. Номинативный объект в древнерусском языке и севернорусских диалектах в ареальной и типологической перспективе: диссертация ... кандидата филологических наук : 10.02.20 / Ронько Роман Витальевич; [Место защиты: Ин-т языкознания РАН]. М., 2018. 136 с.
  4. Сердобольская Н. В., Толдова С. Ю. Дифференцированное маркирование прямого дополнения в финно-угорских языках // Финно-угорские языки: фрагменты грамматического описания. Формальный и функциональный подходы. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2012. С. 59-142.
  5. Серобольская Н. В. Одушевленность и маркирование прямого дополнения в бесермянском корпусе // Ежегодник финно-угорских исследований, 2019. №2. С. 205-215.
  6. Aissen J. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy // Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3), 2003. Pp. 435–483.
  7. Bekins P. Information Structure and Object Marking: A Study of the Object Preposition ’et in Biblical Hebrew. PhD thesis, Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 2012. 287 p.
  8. Bhat D. N. S. Interrogative–Indefinite Puzzle // Pronouns, Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford, 2007. Pp. 226–249.
  9. Bossong G. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr, 1985. 185 p.
  10. Dalrymple, M., Nikolaeva I. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 247 p.
  11. Danon G. The Hebrew Object Marker and Semantic Type // Proceedings of IATL 17, Falk, Yehuda (ed.), 2002. 19 c. http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/17/Danon.pdf [дата обращения: 22.04.2023]
  12. Dik S. C. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1989. 433 p.
  13. Falk Y. N. Case: Abstract and Morphological // Linguistics 29(2), 1991. Pp. 197–230.
  14. Foley W. A., Van Valin R. D. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. 432 p.
  15. Glinert L. The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 608 p.
  16. Hacohen A., Kagan O., Plaut D. Differential Object Marking in Modern Hebrew: Definiteness and partitivity // Glossa: a journal of general linguistics. 6(1): 148. 2021, Pp. 1-34.
  17. Halliday M. A. K. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold, 1994. 434 p.
  18. Haspelmath M. Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment // Functions of Language 14(1), 2007. Pp. 79-102.
  19. Haspelmath M. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits // Linguistics. Vol. 59. No. 1. 2021. Pp. 123-174.
  20. Jäger G. Evolutionary game theory and typology: A case study // Language. Vol. 83. No. 1. 2007. P. 74-109.
  21. Malchukov А., de Swart P. Differential case marking and actancy variation // A. Malchukov, A. Spencer (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009. Pp. 339–355.
  22. Siloni T. Construct states at the PF interface // Linguistic Variation Yearbook, vol. 1. Ed. By Pica P., Rooryck J. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. 2001. Pp. 229–266.
  23. Wintner S. Definiteness in the Hebrew Noun Phrase // Journal of Linguistics 36(2), 2000. Pp. 319-363.
  24. SketchEngine [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://www.sketchengine.eu/, свободный.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).