Razvojni pregled tipov variativnega izražanja predmeta

Lingvistični krožek Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani vabi na 1231. sestanek, ki bo v ponedeljek, 2. oktobra 2023, ob 18. uri v predavalnici 325 v 3. nadstropju Filozofske fakultete. Na temo Razvojni pregled tipov variativnega izražanja predmeta / Towards a diachronic typology of differential object marking bo predaval prof. dr. Ilja Seržant, Univerza v Potsdamu, Nemčija. Predavanje bo v angleškem jeziku. 

Povzetek v angleščini:

In this talk I will discuss several aspects of how differential object marking systems (henceforth DOM) develop. First, I will critically discuss the diachronic relationship of some DOM systems and datives. It has been argued in the literature that datives often expand onto direct objects and lead thereby to the emergence of differential object marking (DOM) (inter alia, Comrie 1979; Lazard 2001: 875; Dalrymple & Nikolaeva 2011: 207ff). Thus, Lehmann (1995: 97) states: “A dative marker may further develop into an accusative marker. In keeping with its origin, this will first be used to mark direct objects with a relative independence, mainly human and/or definite/specific objects.” As examples of this development figure languages with the syncretic dative/accusative such as Spanish with its preposition a (both DOM and dative) (since Meyer-Lübke 1899; Hanssen 1913: 296), Burmese -kou, Persian postposition -rā, Bororo -ji or English third person pronouns him/her/them that continue Old English dative forms (Lehmann 1995: 97-8), furthermore, the marker ga in Kanuri and Tubu (West-Saharan) (König 2008: 41-2), the markers t^haʔ in Lahu and t^hie in Lolo (both Lohoish, Tibeto-Burman). 

I will present alternative historical explanations. For example, I will show that the generalization of the dative forms her/him in English was due to the major process of dative-accusative syncretism found (at least) as early as the Old English period and was never conditioned by any of the typical DOM factors such as animacy or topicality. In turn, the DOM preposition a in Romance stems directly from a left-dislocation construction used to code direct objects bearing the marked-topic role (topic shift, contrastive topic) while the original function of the postpositions t^haʔ in Lahu and t^hie in Lolo was to code contrastive focus. I will also present evidence against dative-accusative connection for Persian and Kanuri. Finally, the historical connection between the dative function and the DOM function of -ko in Hindi might indeed be correct (cf. Butt & Ahmed 2008).

Second, I will discuss the role of disambiguation function in DOM in the emergence and development of DOM systems. 

Finally, I will also exemplify the most frequent developmental path of DOM systems from dedicated topic constructions.