Differential object marking in Neo-Aramaic

Lade...
Vorschaubild
Dateien
Coghill_0-276113.pdf
Coghill_0-276113.pdfGröße: 205.38 KBDownloads: 797
Datum
2014
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
Kontakt
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
ArXiv-ID
Internationale Patentnummer
EU-Projektnummer
DFG-Projektnummer
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Gesperrt bis
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Zeitschriftenheft
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
unikn.publication.listelement.citation.prefix.version.undefined
Linguistics. 2014, 52(2), pp. 335-364. ISSN 0024-3949. eISSN 1613-396X. Available under: doi: 10.1515/ling-2013-0065
Zusammenfassung

Many languages differentiate between different types of objects, commonly marking definite or highly animate objects. Crosslinguistically, two strategies for differentiating such objects are attested. One is differential object flagging (DOF), whereby an object is flagged by a case-marker or adposition. Another is differential object agreement (DOA), whereby the verb agrees with the object. A third strategy is to combine DOF and DOA, as happens in some North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects. This paper will focus on one such case, the Telkepe dialect, spoken in the town of Telkepe in northern Iraq. Definiteness is the main factor behind both object agreement and flagging in Telkepe: animacy does not seem to play a role. However, not all definite objects are marked as such. Objects that are generic or semantically integrated with the verb, even if activated in the previous discourse, tend not to be marked. Definite objects that are in focus also lack marking: differential object marking correlates with topic-hood, not only with the primary but also the secondary topic. These conditions for DOM are similar to Nikolaeva's (2001) findings for Ostyak. The situation in Telkepe is compared with the situation in other NENA dialects and with DOM in earlier stages of the Aramaic language. The regional parallels are also discussed, as are the possibilities of contact influence between Aramaic and Arabic dialects.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
400 Sprachwissenschaft, Linguistik
Schlagwörter
differential object marking, agreement, case, information structure, Semitic, Neo-Aramaic, Arabic
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Zitieren
ISO 690COGHILL, Eleanor, 2014. Differential object marking in Neo-Aramaic. In: Linguistics. 2014, 52(2), pp. 335-364. ISSN 0024-3949. eISSN 1613-396X. Available under: doi: 10.1515/ling-2013-0065
BibTex
@article{Coghill2014Diffe-29898,
  year={2014},
  doi={10.1515/ling-2013-0065},
  title={Differential object marking in Neo-Aramaic},
  number={2},
  volume={52},
  issn={0024-3949},
  journal={Linguistics},
  pages={335--364},
  author={Coghill, Eleanor}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/29898">
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/52"/>
    <dc:contributor>Coghill, Eleanor</dc:contributor>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/29898/1/Coghill_0-276113.pdf"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/52"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/29898/1/Coghill_0-276113.pdf"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/29898"/>
    <dcterms:title>Differential object marking in Neo-Aramaic</dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2015-02-19T14:21:03Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:issued>2014</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:creator>Coghill, Eleanor</dc:creator>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2015-02-19T14:21:03Z</dc:date>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Many languages differentiate between different types of objects, commonly marking definite or highly animate objects. Crosslinguistically, two strategies for differentiating such objects are attested. One is differential object flagging (DOF), whereby an object is flagged by a case-marker or adposition. Another is differential object agreement (DOA), whereby the verb agrees with the object. A third strategy is to combine DOF and DOA, as happens in some North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects. This paper will focus on one such case, the Telkepe dialect, spoken in the town of Telkepe in northern Iraq. Definiteness is the main factor behind both object agreement and flagging in Telkepe: animacy does not seem to play a role. However, not all definite objects are marked as such. Objects that are generic or semantically integrated with the verb, even if activated in the previous discourse, tend not to be marked. Definite objects that are in focus also lack marking: differential object marking correlates with topic-hood, not only with the primary but also the secondary topic. These conditions for DOM are similar to Nikolaeva's (2001) findings for Ostyak. The situation in Telkepe is compared with the situation in other NENA dialects and with DOM in earlier stages of the Aramaic language. The regional parallels are also discussed, as are the possibilities of contact influence between Aramaic and Arabic dialects.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.
Prüfdatum der URL
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet