Volume 42, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The parallel data discussed in this article suggest that in Guaraní languages differential objects seem far from being exclusively highlighted in morphology. Instead, the Guaraní systems exhibit a differential treatment of certain direct objects within narrow syntax. Focusing on [+animate] direct objects, I supply evidence that [+] direct objects scramble out of their base position into a higher, P-internal, projection, namely αP (following López 2012). This is derived including data from simple transitive, ditransitive, and applicative constructions as well as from object conjunction. The short scrambling within P is followed by further direct object dislocation into a higher functional domain, an operation described in literature as triggered by φ-feature under T° and targeting a specifier in an expanded functional domain (Freitas 2011b). DOs that move out of their base position may be marked with the overt case marker, homophonous with case. The homophony between and is conceived as morphological opacity in the Guaraní case. Syntactically, however, [+] DOs pattern together with their zero-marked counterparts, rather than with indirect objects.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aissen, J.
    2003 Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bárány, A.
    2018 DOM and Dative Case. Glossa, A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–40. 10.5334/gjgl.639
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.639 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bossong, G.
    1985aEmpirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1985b Markierung von Aktantenfunktionen im Guaraní. In F. Plank (Ed.), Relational Typology, 1–29. Berlin: Gruyter, Mounton de. 10.1515/9783110848731.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848731.1 [Google Scholar]
  5. 1991 Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond. In D. Kibbee , & D. Wanner (Eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.69.14bos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.69.14bos [Google Scholar]
  6. Cardoso, V. F.
    2008 Aspectos Morfosintácticos da Língua Kaiowá (Guarani). Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, N.
    2000 Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2001 Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz , & K. Hale (Eds.), A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Diesing, M.
    1992Indefinites. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dietrich, W.
    1990More evidence for an internal classification of Tupi-Guarani languages. Indiana. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2009 Cambio del orden de palabras en lenguas tupí-guaraníes. Cadernos de Etnolingüística, 1(3).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dooley, R.
    1982 Options in the Pragmatic Structuring of Guaraní Sentences. Language, 58(2), pp.307–331.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2006 Léxico Guarani, Dialeto Mbyá e Introdução: Informações Gerais, Esboço Gramatical e Refererências. Working Paper SIL.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Freitas, M. L.
    2011aHierarquia de Pessoa em Avá-Guarani – Considerações a partir da Morfologia Distribuída. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2011b Hierarquia de pessoa em Avá Guarani: aspectos sintáticos e morfológicos. LLAMES, 11, 7–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Freitas, M. L. D. A. & Roessler, E.-M.
    2013 On Null-Arguments in Aché and Guaraní. InCILLA VI – 6th Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America, Panel 6A – Syntax. Austin: Austin University.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. García, M.
    2007 Differential Object Marking in Inanimate Objects. In G. Kaiser , & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop ’Definetness, Specificty and Animacy in Ibero Romance Languages, University Konstanz, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft. Konstanz.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gregores, E. & Suaréz, J.
    1967A Description of Colloquial Guaraní. Den Haag; Paris: Mounton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111349633
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111349633 [Google Scholar]
  19. Guasch, A.
    1981Diccionário Castellano-Guaraní y Guaraní-Castellano. Asunción: Ediciones Loyola.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Irimia, M. A.
    2018 Differential Objects and other Structural Objects. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 3(50), 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jelinek, E.
    1993 Ergative “Splits” and Argument Type. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, (18), 15–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jelinek, E. & Carnie, A.
    2003 Argument Hierarchies and the Mapping Principle. In A. Carnie (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar – In honor of Eloise Jelinek. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/la.62.20jel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.62.20jel [Google Scholar]
  23. Jensen, C.
    1990 Cross-referencing changes in some Tupí-Guaraní languages. In D. Payne (Ed.), Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American Languages, 117–158. Austin: Austin University.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1998 The use of coreferential and reflexive markers in Tupi-Guarani languages. Journal of Amazonian Languages, I(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Keine, S. & Müller, G.
    2008 Differential Argument Encoding by Impoverishment. In M. Richards , & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86, 83–136. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Larson, R. K.
    1988 On Double Object Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. López, Luis
    2012Indefinite Objects: Scrambling, Choice Functions, and Differential Marking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Martins, M. F.
    2003Descrição e Análise de Aspectos da Garmática do Guaraní Mbyá. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nevins, A. & Sandalo, F.
    2011 Markedness and morphotactics in Kadiwéu [+participant] agreement. Morphology, 21, 351–378. 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9165‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9165-2 [Google Scholar]
  30. Oxford, W.
    2014 Microparameters of agreement: A diachronic perspective on Algonquian verb in ection by A diachronic perspective on Algonquian verb in ection. Dissertation, University of Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2015 Variation in Multiple Agree: A syntactic connection between portmanteau agreement and inverse marking. pp.1–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2017 Inverse Marking as Impoverishment. In A. Kaplan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Cost Conference on Formal Linguistics, 413–422. Cascadilla. Somerville.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Payne, D.
    1994 The Tupí-Guaraní Inverse. In B. Fox , & P. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: Form and Function, 313–340. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. 10.1075/tsl.27.13pay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.27.13pay [Google Scholar]
  34. Pollock, J.-Y.
    1989 Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–340.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Pylkkänen, L.
    2008Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rodrigues, A.
    1990 You and I = neither you nor I: the personal system of Tupinamabá. InAmazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American Languages, 393–405. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Roessler, E.-M.
    2015 Inflectional Morphology Restructuring in Ache – Discussing Grammatical Change and Language Contact in Tupí-Guaraní Subgroup–1. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 371–393. 10.1590/1981‑81222015000200009
    https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200009 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2018 Syntactic Effects of Inflectional Morphology Restructuring – On Language Change and Language Contact in Tupi-Guaraní Subgroup-1. Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Roessler, E.-M. , Gasparini, N. & Danielsen, S.
    2014 ‘The Southern Clade of Tupi-Guarani Languages: Adpositional Issues’. Belem do Pará.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sandalo, F.
    2009 Person Hierarchy and Inverse Voice in Kadiwéu. LLAMES, 9(Primavera), 27–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Seki, L.
    2000Gramática do Kamaiura. Campinas: Impresensa Oficial / Editora Unicamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Shain, C. A.
    2009The Distribution of Differential Object Marking in Paraguayan Guaraní. Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Shain, C. & Tonhauser, J.
    2011 The Synchrony and Diachrony of Differential Object Marking in Paraguayan Guaraní. Language Variation and Change, 22, 321–246. 10.1017/S0954394510000153
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394510000153 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tonhauser, J.
    2014 Null Arguments in Paraguayan Guaraní. In B. Estigarribia (Ed.), Guaraní Linguistics in the 21st Century (submitted manuscript), 1–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tonhauser, J. & Colijn, E.
    2010 Word Order in Paraguayan Guaraní. International Journal of American Linguistics, 76 (2), 255–288. 10.1086/652267
    https://doi.org/10.1086/652267 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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