Differential object marking in Neo-Aramaic

Abstract

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 45 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.