1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Historical Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Argument marking reflects audience design effects
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper contrasts typological and diachronic evidence on argument marking with theoretical proposals made in psycholinguistic research about the ways various types of audience design strategies affect production, with a focus on ambiguity avoidance in argument roles. The aim is to find convergent evidence from psycholinguistics as well as from typological and diachronic research. This evidence suggests that argument marking in functional constructions is shaped by generic audience design effects, while cross-linguistic and diachronic support for utterance-specific audience design is very scarce. Diachronically utterance-specific audience design tends to be abandoned in favor of functionally related generic audience design strategies. The paper reconciles earlier claims about ambiguity avoidance affecting argument marking and the view of ambiguity avoidance as having no effect on argument marking. It is suggested that ambiguity avoidance is a strong pressure in argument marking. I show that a high ambiguity potential of role identification of various constructions correlates positively with the degree of non-differential argument marking; and, vice versa, differential marking is more likely in constructions that provide reliable cues for role identification.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24035.ser
2026-04-03
2026-04-21

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24035.ser
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aissen, Judith
    2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory(). –. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arkadiev, Peter
    2008a Chapter 7. Differential Argument Marking in Two-term Case Systems and its Implications for the General Theory of Case Marking. Differential Subject Markinged. byH. de Hoop & P. de Swart, –. City: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 2008b Thematic roles, event structure, and argument encoding in semantically aligned languages. The Typology of Semantic Alignmented. byMark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky
    2014 Competition in argument interpretation: Evidence from the neurobiology of language. Competing motivations in grammar and usageed. byBrian MacWhnney, Andrej L. Malchukov & Edith A. Moravcsik, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bossong, Georg
    1985 Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Buz, Esteban, Michael K. Tanenhaus & T. Florian Jaeger
    2016 Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language. –. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  7. Christiansen, M. H. & N. Chater
    2016 The now-or-never bottleneck: a fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, e62. 10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X [Google Scholar]
  8. Coghill, Eleanor
    2014 Differential object marking in Neo-Aramaic, Linguistics(), –. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0065
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0065 [Google Scholar]
  9. Comrie, Bernard
    1978 Ergativity. Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of languageed. byWinfred P. Lehmann, –. Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 1989 Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cook, Dorothy & Stephen Levinsohn
    1985 Coreguaje: The Domains of Focus Markers. From Phonology to Discourse: Studies in Six Colombian Languages [Amerindian Series 9] ed. byRuth M. Brend, –. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Culy, Christopher
    1995 Ambiguity and Case Marking in Donno Sɔ (Dogon), Theoretical Approaches to African Languagesed. byAkinbiyi Akinlabi, –. Trento: Africa World Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dahl, Östen
    2000 Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language(). –. 10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah [Google Scholar]
  14. Dalrymple, M. & I. Nikolaeva
    2011: Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511993473
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511993473 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dell, G. S. & P. M. Brown
    1991 Mechanisms for listener-adaptation in language production: Limiting the role of the “model of the listener”. Bridges between psychology and linguistics: A Swarthmore festschrift for lila gleitmaned. byD. J. Napoli & J. A. Kegl, –. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. de Hoop, H. & M. Lamers
    2006 Incremental distinguishability of subject and object. Case, Valency, and Transitivityed. byL. I. Kulikov, A. L. Malchukov & P. de Swart, –. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.77.17hoo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.17hoo [Google Scholar]
  17. de Hoop, Helen & Andrej Malchukov
    2007 On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua. –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  18. de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart
    eds. 2008: Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    1979 Ergativity. Language. –. 10.2307/412519
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  20. 1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dobrovskij, I.
    1834: Grammatika jazyka slavjanskogo po drevnemu narečiju. St. Petersburg: Tipografija departamenta narodnogo prosveščenija.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Durie, Mark
    1995 Towards an Understanding of Linguistic Evolution and the Notion ’X has a Function Y’. Discourse, Grammar and Typology: Papers in honor of John W.M. Verhaared byWerner Abraham, Talmy Givón & Sandra A. Thompson, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.27.21dur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.27.21dur [Google Scholar]
  23. Evans, Nicholas
    2003 Bininj Gun-Wok: A Pan-dialectal Grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune. (Pacific Linguistics, 541.) Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Everett, Caleb
    2009 A reconsideration of the motivations for preferred argument structure. Studies in language(). –. 10.1075/sl.33.1.02eve
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.1.02eve [Google Scholar]
  25. Falandays, J. B., S. Brown-Schmidt & J. C. Toscano
    2020 Long-lasting gradient activation of referents during spoken language processing. Journal of Memory and Language. . 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104088
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104088 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fauconnier, Stefanie & Jean-Christophe Verstraete
    2014 A and O as each other’s mirror image? Problems with markedness reversal. Linguistic Typology(). –. 10.1515/lingty‑2014‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2014-0002 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fedzechkina, Mariya, Florian T. Jaeger, & Elissa L. Newport
    2012: Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, –. 10.1073/pnas.1215776109
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215776109 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ferreira, Victor
    1996 Is It Better to Give Than to Donate? Syntactic Flexibility in Language Production. Journal of Memory and Language, –. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0038
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0038 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2019 A Mechanistic Framework for Explaining Audience Design in Language Production. Annual Review of Psychology. –. 10.1146/annurev‑psych‑122216‑011653
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011653 [Google Scholar]
  30. Foley, William A.
    1986 The Papuan languages of New Guinea (Cambridge language surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Fox, Barbara A.
    1995 The Category S in English conversation. Discourse Grammar and Typologyed. byWerner Abraham, Talmy Givón & Sandra A. Thompson, –. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.27.14fox
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.27.14fox [Google Scholar]
  32. García García, Marco
    2007 Differential Object Marking with inanimate objects. Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages” (= Arbeitspapier des Fachbereichs Sprachwissenschaft Nr. 122) ed. byGeorg A. Kaiser & Manuel Leonetti, –. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gerner, Matthias
    2008 Ambiguity-Driven Differential Object Marking in Yongren Lolo. Lingua. –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  34. Greenberg, Joseph H.
    1966 Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Handschuh, Corinna
    2014 A typology of marked-S languages. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_533871
     https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_533871 [Google Scholar]
  36. Haspelmath, Martin
    2013 Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ‘Give’. WALS Onlineed. byDryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin. (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.7385533wals.info/chapter/105
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2019 Differential place marking and differential object marking. Language Typology and Universals (STUF)(). –. 10.1515/stuf‑2019‑0013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2019-0013 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2021a Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form–frequency correspondences and predictability. Journal of Linguistics. –. 10.1017/S0022226720000535
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000535 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2021b Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0252
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0252 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hofling, Charles
    2003 Tracking the deer: Nominal reference, parallelism and Preferred Argument Structure in Itzaj Maya narrative genres, Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function, ed. byDu Bois, Kumpf & Ashby, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.14.17hof
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.14.17hof [Google Scholar]
  41. Iemmolo, Giorgio
    2010 Topicality and differential object marking : Evidence from Romance and beyond, Studies in Language(), –. 10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem [Google Scholar]
  42. 2013 Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. STUF — Language Typology and Universals. –. 10.1524/stuf.2013.0019
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2013.0019 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jäger, Gerhard
    2004 Learning Constraint Subhierarchies: The Bidirectional Gradual Learning Algorithm, Optimality Theory and Pragmatics, ed. byin Blutner, R. & H. Zeevat, –. Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230501409_11
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501409_11 [Google Scholar]
  44. Jaeger, T. Florian & Esteban Buz
    2018 Signal reduction and linguistic coding. The handbook of psycholinguistics. First editioned. by In E. M. Fernández & H. S. Cairns (eds.), –. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/wcs.126
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.126 [Google Scholar]
  45. Jaeger, T. Florian & Elisabeth J. Norcliffe
    2009 The Cross-linguistic Study of Sentence Production. Language and Linguistics Compass, –. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00147.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00147.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Key, Gregory
    2008: Differential Object Marking in a Medieval Persian Text. Aspects of Iranian Linguistics, ed. bySimin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Don Stilo, –. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kibrik, Aleksandr E.
    1997 Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology(). –. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.3.279
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.3.279 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kilian-Hatz, Christa
    2006 Topic and focus in Khwe. Focus and Topic in African Languagesed. bySonja Ermisch, –. [Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 18]. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Klenin, E.
    1983 Animacy in Russian: A new interpretation. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Korn, Agnes
    2017 Notes on the Nominal System of Bashkardi. Transactions of the Philological Society/, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kozhanov, Kirill & Ilja A. Seržant
    . Forthcoming. Evolution and areal expansion of differential object marking in Romani. Journal of Language Dynamics and Change. 10.1163/22105832‑bja10037
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-bja10037 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kozhanov, Kirill, Ilja A. Seržant & Eleni Bužarovska
    . Forthcoming. Evolution of differential object marking in Macedonian dialects. Diachronica. 10.1075/dia.24047.koz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.24047.koz [Google Scholar]
  53. Krys’ko, Vadim B.
    1993 Novye materialy k istorii drevnenovgorodskogo nominativa na-e. Voprosy jazykoznanija. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Krys´ko, Vadim B.
    1994 Razvitie kategorii oduševlennosti v istorii russkogo jazyka. Moscow.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 1997 Istoričeskij sintaksis russkogo jazyka. Ob”ekt i perexodnost’. Moscow.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Kurumada, Chigusa & T. Florian Jaeger
    2015 Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese, Journal of Memory and Language, –. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  57. LaPolla, Randy
    1992 Anti-ergative Marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. –. 10.32655/LTBA.15.1.01
     https://doi.org/10.32655/LTBA.15.1.01 [Google Scholar]
  58. Levshina, Natalia
    2021 Communicative efficiency and differential case marking: A reverse-engineering approach. Linguistics Vanguard, (): . 10.1515/lingvan‑2019‑0087
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0087 [Google Scholar]
  59. MacDonald, M.
    2013 How language production shapes language form and comprehension, Frontiers in Psychology / Language Sciences, Article 226. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226 [Google Scholar]
  60. Malchukov, Andrej L.
    2008 Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua(). –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  61. Malchukov, Andrey, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie
    2011 Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview. Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbooked. byAndrey Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Matisoff, James
    1973 The grammar of Lahu. Publications in Linguistics, vol. 75. Berkeley: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. McGregor, William B.
    2010 Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua. –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  64. McGregor, William
    2018 Emergence of optional accusative case marking in Khoe languages. The diachronic typology of differential argument markinged. byIlja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, –. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Menschel, Jakob
    . Forthcoming. Differential Object Marking in Tucanoan languages. A diachronic-typological account. A manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Næss, Åshild
    2006 Case semantics and the agent-patient opposition. Case, Valency and Transitivityed. byLeonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter De Swart, –. CITY: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/slcs.77.20nae
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.20nae [Google Scholar]
  67. Norcliffe, E., A. C. Harris & T. F. Jaeger
    2015 Crosslinguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, –. 10.1080/23273798.2015.1080373
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1080373 [Google Scholar]
  68. Ospina Bozzi, Ana María
    2002 Les structures élémentaires du yuhup makú, langue de l’amazonie colombienne: morphologie et syntaxe. Phd thesis. Université Paris 7.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Paul, Ludwig
    2008: Some remarks on the Persian suffix -rā as a general and historical linguistic issue. Aspects of Iranian Linguisticsed. bySimin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo, –. Newcastle: PUBLISHER.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Piantadosi, Steven T., Harry Tily & Edward Gibson
    2012 The Communicative Function of Ambiguity in Language. Cognition. –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  71. Pineda, Anna & Carles Royo
    2017 Differential Indirect Object Marking in Romance (and How to Get Rid of It). Revue Roumaine de Linguistique(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Pöppel, Ernst
    2009 Pre-semantically defined temporal windows for cognitive processing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, –. 10.1098/rstb.2009.0015
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0015 [Google Scholar]
  73. Rose, Françoise
    2011 Who Is the Third Person? Fluid Transitivity in Mojeño Trinitario. International Journal of American Linguistics(). –. 10.1086/662153
     https://doi.org/10.1086/662153 [Google Scholar]
  74. Schikowski, Robert & Giorgio Iemmolo
    2015 Commonalities and differences between differential object marking and indexing. Zurich: University of Zurich. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.7738049
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7738049 [Google Scholar]
  75. Seifart, Frank, Jan Strunk, Swintha Danielsen, Iren Hartmann, Brigitte Pakendorf, Søren Wichmann, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Nivja de Jong & Balthasar Bickel
    2018 Nouns slow down speech across structurally and culturally diverse languages. PNAS. –. 10.1073/pnas.1800708115
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800708115 [Google Scholar]
  76. Seržant, Ilja A.
    2019 Weak universal forces: The discriminatory function of case in differential object marking systems. Explanation in typologyed. bySchmidtke-Bode, K., N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. Seržant, –. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 2019 Weak universal forces: The discriminatory function of case in differential object marking systems. Explanation in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidenceed. byKarsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne M. Michaelis & Ilja A. Seržant, –. [Conceptual Foundations of Language]. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Seržant, Ilja A. & George Moroz
    2022 Universal attractors in language evolution provide evidence for the kinds of efficiency pressures involved. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications. Article 58. 10.1057/s41599‑022‑01072‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01072-0 [Google Scholar]
  79. Seyfarth, Scott
    2014 Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition(). –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  80. Siewierska, Anna & Dik Bakker
    2009 Case and Alternative Strategies: Word Order and Agreement Marking. The Oxford Handbook of Caseed. byAndrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languagesed. byR. M. W. Dixon, –. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Sinnemäki, Kaius
    2014 A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0063
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0063 [Google Scholar]
  83. Sóskuthy, Marton & Jenifer Hay
    2017 Changing word usage predicts changing word durations in New Zealand English. Cognition. –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.032
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.032 [Google Scholar]
  84. Stassen, Leon
    2013 Comparative Constructions. WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo. Ed. byMatthrew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath. 10.5281/zenodo.7385533 (Available online atwals.info/chapter/121, Accessed on2024-04-30.)
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533 [Google Scholar]
  85. Stenzel, Kristine
    2008 Kotiria ‘differential object marking‘ in cross-linguistic perspective. Amerdindia. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Strauß, Silvia
    2021 Differential argument marking with a special focus on differential object marking in Eastern Armenian. Abschlussarbeit zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Master of Arts (M.A.) im Fachbereich Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften der Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, am Institut für Empirische Sprachwissenschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Tomson, A. I.
    1908 Roditel´nyj-vinitel´nyj padež pri nazvanijach živych suščestv v slavjanskich jazykach. Izvestija Otdelenija russkago jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj akademii nauk(), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 1909: K voprosu o vozniknovenii rod.-vin. p. v slavjanskix jazykax: Priglagol’nyj rod. p. v praslav. jazyke, Izvestija ORJaSt., kn., –.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Torrego Salcedo, Esther
    1999 El complemento directo preposicional. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Vol. 2: Las construcciones sintácticas fundamentales. Relaciones temporales, aspectuales y modales. Ed byI. Bosque & V. Demonte, –. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Walker, Katherine, Pegah Faghiri & Eva van Lier
    2024 Argument indexing in Kamang. Studies in Language(), –. 10.1075/sl.21077.wal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21077.wal [Google Scholar]
  91. Wardlow Lane, L. & V. S. Ferreira
    2008 Speaker-external versus speaker-internal forces on utterance form: Do cognitive demands override threats to referential success?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition(), –. 10.1037/a0013353
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013353 [Google Scholar]
  92. Wasow, Thomas
    2002 Postverbal Behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Wasow, Thomas, Amy Perfors & David Beaver
    2005 The Puzzle of Ambiguity. Morphology and the Web of Grammar: Essays in the Memory of Steven G. Lapointeed. byC. Orhan Orgun & Peter Sells, –. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Wheeler, Alva
    1967 Grammatical structure in Siona discourse. Lingua(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Wendtland, Antje
    2008 On Ergativity in the Pamir languages. Aspects of Iranian Linguisticsed. bySimin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo. –. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Williams, Corinne J.
    1980 A grammar of Yuwaalaraay. (Pacific Linguistics: Series B, 74.) Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Wittmann, Marc
    2011 Moments in time. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, . 10.3389/fnint.2011.00066
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2011.00066 [Google Scholar]
  98. Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Ilja A. Seržant
    2018 Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. Diachrony of differential argument markinged. bySeržant, I. A. & A. Witzlack-Makarevich, –. Berlin: LSP.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Zeevat, Henk & Gerhard Jäger
    2002 A reinterpretation of syntactic alignment. Proceedings of the Fourth International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computationed. byDick de Jongh, Marie Nilsenovai & Henk Zeevat. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Zúñiga, Fernando
    2006 Deixis and Alignment: Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.70
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.70 [Google Scholar]
  101. 2007 The discourse-syntax interface in northwestern Amazonia. Differential object marking in Makú and some Tucanoan languages. Language Endangerment and Endangered Languages: Linguistic and Anthropological Studies with Special Emphasis on the Languages and Cultures of the Andean-Amazonian Border Areaed. byLeo Wetzels (ed.), –. Indigenous Languages of Latin America 5. Publications of the Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), University of Leiden.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24035.ser
Loading
Argument marking reflects audience design effects
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.24035.ser
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24035.ser
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24035.ser
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: differential marking ; bivalent predicates ; disambiguation ; audience design

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error