The grammaticalization of object pronouns: Why differential object indexing is an attractor state

  • 1 Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Obere Karolinenstraße 8, 96049, Bamberg, Germany
Geoffrey Haig
  • Corresponding author
  • Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Obere Karolinenstraße 8, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, 96049, Germany
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar

Abstract

While the grammaticalization of person agreement is a widely-cited and apparently uncontroversial topos of grammaticalization theory, the striking differences in the outcome of subject pronoun, and object pronoun grammaticalization, remain unexplained, and the relevant literature continues to assume a unified grammaticalization pathway. This paper argues that the grammaticalization of object pronouns is fundamentally different to that of subject pronouns. More specifically, although object pronouns may be rapid early grammaticalizers, often losing prosodic independence and cliticizing to a verbal head, they do not advance further to reach the stage of obligatory agreement markers typical of subject agreement. Typically, object markers remain at the stage of Differential Object Indexing, where their realization is conditioned by a bundle of semantic and pragmatic factors exhibiting close parallels to those operative in Differential Object Marking. Evidence from language typology, and from the diachrony of person markers across two millennia of Iranian languages, is adduced to back up these claims. Thus the widely-assumed grammaticalization cline for the grammaticalization of agreement needs to be reconsidered; for object agreement, there is evidently an attractor state, that of Differential Object Indexing, beyond which object agreement seldom proceeds. Finally, explanations grounded in discourse data are proposed, which also account for why obligatory object agreement in the category of person is so rare, while gender and number agreement for objects is far less constrained.

  • Abbott, Miriam. 1991. Macushi. In Desmond C Derbyshire & Geoffrey K Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 3 23–160. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.

  • Adibifar, Shirin. 2016. Persian. In Geoffrey Haig & Stefan Schnell (eds.), Multi-CAST (Multilingual corpus of annotated spoken texts). https://lac.uni-koeln.de/multicast-persian/ (accessed 08 January 2017).

  • Arnold, Jennifer. 2003. Multiple constraints on reference form: Null, pronominal, and full reference in Mapudungun. In John Du Bois, Lorraine Kumpf and William Ashby (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure. Grammar as architecture for function, 225–245. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Baker, Mark. 2011. When agreement is for number and gender but not person. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 29(4). 875–915.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Belloro, Valeria. 2007. Spanish clitic doubling: A study of the syntax-pragmatics interface. Buffalo, NY: University of New York at Buffalo dissertation.

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language 79(4). 708–736.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 2nd, 901–923. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bickel, Balthasar, Giorgio Iemmolo, Taras Zakharko & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2013. Patterns of alignment in verb agreement. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 15–36. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

  • Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, rev, 2nd edn., 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cuenit, Tatiana Nikitina & R. Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy ofScience.

  • Bresnan, Joan, Shipra Dingare & Christopher Manning. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints. Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, 13–32. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. [page numbers according to http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/6/pdfs/lfg01.pdf.

  • Bresnan, Joan & Sam A Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63(4). 741–782.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Charitonidis, Chariton. 2008. Polysynthetic tendencies in Modern Greek. Linguistik online 34(2). 17–40.

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Cristofaro, Sonia. 2013. The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence in diachronic perspective. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 69–93. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

  • Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Cysouw, Michael. 2011. Very atypical agreement indeed. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4). 153–160.

  • Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • De Cat, Cécile. 2005. French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua 115. 1195–1219.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Dench, Alan. 1991. Panjyima. In R.M.W. Dixon and Barry Blake (eds.), The Handbook of Australian Languages, 124–243. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Dixon, Robert M. W. 2004. The Jarawara language of southern Amazonia. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Donohue, Mark. 1999. A grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Du Bois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4). 805–855.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Foley, William. 1991. The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Fuß, Erik. 2005. The rise of agreement, a formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 151–188. New York: Academic Press.

  • Givón, Talmy. 1979. From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 81–112. New York: Academic.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Godfrey, John & Edward Holliman. 1993. Switchboard-1 Release 2 LDC97S62. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium. Web download.

  • Goldstein, David. 2014. Object agreement in Lycian. Historische Sprachforschung/Historical Linguistics 127(1). 101–124.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Haig, Geoffrey. 2013. The subject/object asymmetry in bound person indexing: Diachronic and discourse considerations. Paper presented at the Workshop Agreement in Discourse, University of Bamberg, 1–2 February.

  • Haig, Geoffrey. 2017. Deconstructing Iranian ergativity. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Haig, Geoffrey. forthcoming. Grammaticalization and inflectionalization in Iranian. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), Grammaticalization from a typological perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell. 2016a. Multi-CAST (Multilingual corpus of annotated spoken texts). https://lac.uni-koeln.de/multicast/(accessed 24 March 2016).

  • Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell. 2016b. The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language 92(3). 591–618.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Hale, Kenneth. 1982. Some essential features of Warlpiri verbal clauses. In Stephen M Schwartz (ed.), Papers in Warlpiri grammar: In memory of Lothar Jagst (Series A 6), 217–314. Darwin: SIL, Australian Aborigines Branch.

  • Harris, Alice. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 197–226. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

  • Hewitt, Brian G. 1989. Abkhaz. London: Routledge.

  • Holmberg, Anders. 2009. Null subject parameters. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in Minimalist Theory, 88–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Iemmolo, Giorgio & Gerson Klumpp. 2014. Introduction. (special issue: Differential Object Marking: Theoretical and empirical issues). Linguistics 52(2). 271–279.

  • Jahani, Carina. 2015. Complex predicates and the issue of transitivity: The case of Southern Balochi. In Iván Szantó (ed.), From Aṣl to Zā’id: Essays in honour Éva M. Jeremiás, 79–105. Piliscsaba: The Avicenna Institute of Middle Eastern Studies.

  • Jendraschek, Gerd. 2012. A grammar of Iatmul, vol. 1. 1–11. Regensburg: University of Regensburg Habilitationsschrift.

  • Jügel, Thomas. 2015. Die Entwicklung der Ergativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen: Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

  • Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar, vol. 3. Leiden & Boston: Brill.

  • Kibrik, Andrej. 2011. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Korn, Agnes. 2009. Western Iranian pronominal clitics. Orientalia Suecana 58. 159–171.

  • Krapova, Iliyana & Guglielmo Cinque. 2008. Clitic reduplication constructions in Bulgarian. In Dalina Kallulli & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages, 257–287. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Lynch, John. 2000. A grammar of Anejom. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies.

  • MacKenzie, David. 1961. Kurdish dialect studies, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • MacKenzie, David. 1962. Kurdish dialect studies, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • MacKenzie, David. 1979. Mani’s šāBUHRAGāN. BSOAS 42(3). 500–534.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Mirdehghan, Mahinnaz & Nader Jahangiri. 2005. Split ergative morphology in Hindu/ Urdu,Pashto, and Balochi languages. Journal of Humanities 12(3). 93–122.

  • Mithun, Marianne. 2004. Functional perspectives on syntactic change. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 552–572. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Öpengin, Ergin. 2012. Adpositions and argument indexing in the Mukri variety of Central Kurdish: Focus on ditransitive constructions. Orientalia Suecana 61. 187–198.

  • Öpengin, Ergin. 2016. The Mukri variety of Central Kurdish: Grammar, texts and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Paul, Daniel. 2011. A comparative dialectal description of Iranian Taleshi. Manchester: University of Manchester dissertation.

  • Payne, Thomas. 1993. The twins stories: Participant coding in Yagua narrative. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

  • Popjes, Jack & Jo Popjes. 1986. Canela-Krahô. In Desmond C Derbyshire & Geoffrey Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 1 128–199. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Radatz, Hans-Ingo. 2008. Non-lexical core-arguments in Basque, German and Romance: How (and why) Spanish syntax is shifting towards clausal headmarking and morphological cross-reference. In Ulrich Detges & Richard Waltereit (eds.), The paradox of grammatical change: Perspectives from Romance, 181–215. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Rasekh, Mohammad. 2014. Persian clitics: Doubling and agreement. Journal of Modern Languages 24(1). 16–33.

  • Roberts, John R. 2009. A study of Persian discourse structure. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensa.

  • Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. What Sorani Kurdish absolute prepositions tell us about cliticization. In Frederick Hoyt, Nikki Seifert, Alexandra Teodorescu & Jessica White (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Linguistic Society IX: The morphosyntax of understudied languages, 265–285. Stanford, CA: CSLI. http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/TLS/TLS9-2005/TLS9_Samvelian_Pollet.pdf (accessed 10 October 2017)).

  • Schnell, Stefan. 2012. Explaining formal variation in subjects and objects in Vera’a: The emergence of subject-TAM markers. Paper presented at the conference New Ways of Analyzing Variation, Asia – Pacific 2, Tokyo, 1–4 August.

  • Schnell, Stefan & Danielle Barth. in press. Discourse motivations for pronominal and zero objects across registers in Vera’a. Language Variation and Change 30. 1.

  • Schnell, Stefan & Geoffrey Haig. 2014. Assessing the relationship between object topicalisation and the grammaticalisation of object agreement. In Lauren Gawne & Jill Vaughan (eds.), Selected papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 2013, 102–125. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/40959 (accessed 10 October 2017)).

  • Seržant, Ilya A & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking (Studies in Diversity Linguistics), 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Siewierska, Anna. 1999. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. Folia Linguistica 33(1/2). 225–251.

  • Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Siewierska, Anna. 2013. Verbal person marking. In Matthew S Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/102 (accessed 12 January 2017)).

  • Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2). 281–313.

  • Sjoberg, Andrée F. 1963. Uzbek structural grammar (Uralic and Altaic Series 18.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

  • Van Gelder, Timothy & Robert F. Port. 1995. It’s about time: An overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In Robert F Port & Timothy Van Gelder (eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition, 1–43. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Wald, Benji. 1979. The development of the Swahili object marker: A study of the interaction of syntax and discourse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 505–524. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Wegener, Claudia. 2008. A grammar of Savosavo, a Papuan language of the Solomon Islands. Nijmegen: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen dissertation.

  • Woolford, Ellen. 2001. Conditions on object agreement in Ruwund (Bantu). In Elena Benedicto (ed.), The UMass volume on indigenous languages (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20), 177–201. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


Journal + Issues

Linguistics publishes articles and book reviews in the traditional disciplines of linguistics as well as in neighboring disciplines insofar as these are deemed to be of interest to linguists and other students of natural language. The journal also features occasional Special Issues in these fields.

Search