1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 45, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 45, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper analyzes Differential Object Marking in P’orhépecha, which involves split case and fluid case alternations. Although this system is sensitive to Animacy and Definiteness, I will show that prominence on these scales does not account for the distribution of flagging. In fact, in P’orhépecha, the expected prominence effects of these scales are overridden by certain grammatical properties of the NPs, which explains the obligatory vs. forbidden flagging. The fluid pattern is of special interest, since even though there is evidence that flagging is used as a device to codify definiteness/specificity, higher and lower ranked objects on the definiteness scale may be (un)flagged. This peculiar behavior is explained by two facts: (a) definite/specific descriptions may, and in some instances must, be unflagged when the context of use guarantees the intended referential interpretation of the NP; and (b) lower ranked objects may be flagged only when their referents exhibit discourse salience.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.16071.cap
2020-11-12
2023-09-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.16071.cap
    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 Theory21. 435–483. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bickel, Balthasar & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    2008 Referential scales and case alignment: Reviewing the typological evidence. In Andrej Malchukov & Marc Richards (eds.), Scales (Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86). 1–37. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik Universität Leipzig.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Birner, Betty J.
    2006 Inferential relations and noncanonical word order. In Betty J. Birner , & Gregory Wards (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (Studies in Language Companion Series 80). 31–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.80.04bir
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80.04bir [Google Scholar]
  4. 2013 Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Blansitt, Edward L.
    1984 Dechticaetiative and dative. In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Toward a Theory of Grammatical Relation, 127–150. London & New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bohnemeyer, Jürgen
    2015 A practical epistemology for semantic elicitation in the field and elsewhere. In M. Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, 13–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bossong, Georg
    1985 Differenzielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Genter Narr Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 1991 Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analysis in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Urbana-Champaign, April 7–9, 1988). 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.69.14bos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.69.14bos [Google Scholar]
  9. 1998 Le marquage différentiel de l’ objet dans les langues d’ Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804485.193
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804485.193 [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell, Lyle , Terrence Kaufman & Thomas C. Smith-Stark
    1986 Meso-America as a linguistic area, Language62 (3). 530–570. 10.1353/lan.1986.0105
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1986.0105 [Google Scholar]
  11. Capistrán Garza, Alejandra
    2002a Variaciones de orden de constituyentes en p’orhépecha. Topicalización y focalización. In Paulette Levy (ed.), Del cora al maya yucateco. Estudios lingüísticos sobre algunas lenguas indígenas mexicanas, 349–402. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2002b Marcación de caso objetivo en la frase nominal p’orhépecha. In Zarina Estrada & Rosa María Ortiz (eds.), VI Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, Memorias. TomoI, 251–269. Sonora: Unison.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2012 Definitud y marcación diferencial de objeto en p’orhépecha. Signos Lingüísticos8(15). 43–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2014 El morfema verbal –a de objeto en p’orhépecha: Pluralidad vis-à-vis distributividad. In Rebeca Barriga Villanueva & Esther Herrera Zendejas (eds.), Lenguas, estructuras y hablantes. Estudios en homenaje a Thomas C. Smith -Stark, Vol.2. 713–736. Mexico: El Colegio de México.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2015 Multiple object constructions in P’orhépecha. Argument realization and valence-affecting morphology (Brill’s Studies in the indigenous languages of the Americas 9). Leiden-Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004288874
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004288874 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chamoreau, Claudine
    1999 Le marquage différentiel de l’objet en purépecha. La Linguistique35 (2). 99–114.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chelliah, Shobhana
    2013 Fieldwork for language description. In Robert J. Podesva & Devyani Sharma (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 51–73. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139013734.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013734.005 [Google Scholar]
  18. Clark, Herbert
    1977 Bridging. In Philip N. Johnson-Laird & Peter C. Wason (eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science, 411–420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Comrie, Bernard
    1989 Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd. edn.Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 2012 Some argument-structure properties of ‘give’ in the languages of Europe and Northern and Central Asia. In Pirkko Suihkonen , Bernard Comrie & Valery Solovyev (eds.), Argument structure and grammatical relations. A crosslinguistic typology (Studies in Language Companion Series 126). 17–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.126.02com
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.126.02com [Google Scholar]
  21. Cover, Rebecca & Judith Tonhauser
    2015 Theories of meaning in the field: Temporal and aspectual reference. In M. Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, 306–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.003.0013
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  22. Croft, William
    2003 Typology and universals, 2nd. edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Czardybon, Adrian
    2017 Definiteness in a language without articles. A study on Polish. (Dissertations in Language and Cognition, SFB991, Vol. 3). Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Darlymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
    2011 Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Dayal, Veneeta
    2017 Determining (in)definiteness in the absence of articles. In Vera Hohaus & Wanda Rothe (eds.), Proceedings of Triple A 3: Fieldwork Perspectives on the Semantics of African, Asia and Austronesian Languages, 85–99. University of Tübingen.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. de Hoop, Helen & Andrej Malchukov
    2007 On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua117(9). 1636–1656. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  27. de Swart, Peter
    2006 Case markedness. In Leonid Kulikov , Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series 77). 249–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.77.16swa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.16swa [Google Scholar]
  28. 2007 Cross-linguistic variation in differential object marking. Nijmengen: Radbound University dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. de Swart, Peter & Helen de Hoop
    2007 Semantic aspects of differential object marking. In Estela Puig-Waldmüler (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung11. 598–611. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Dimmendal, Gerrit
    2001 Places and people: Field sites and informants. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic fieldwork, 55–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810206.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.004 [Google Scholar]
  31. Enç, Mürvet
    1991 The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry22. 213–243
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Epps, Patience
    2008 A grammar of Hup. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199079
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199079 [Google Scholar]
  33. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria
    2009 Differential object marking and topicality: The case of Balearic Catalan. Studies in language33 (4). 832–884. 10.1075/sl.33.4.02esc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.4.02esc [Google Scholar]
  34. Farkas, Donka
    1994 Specificity and scope. In Léa Nash & George Tsoulas (eds.), Actes du Premier Colloque Langages et Grammaire, Vol.1, 119–137. Paris: Université Paris 8.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2002 Specificity distinction. Journal of Semantics19 (3). 231–243. 10.1093/jos/19.3.213
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.213 [Google Scholar]
  36. Filimonova, Elena
    2005 The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology9. 77–113. 10.1515/lity.2005.9.1.77
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2005.9.1.77 [Google Scholar]
  37. Foster, Mary LeCron
    1969 The Tarascan language (Publications in Linguistics 56). Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Friedrich, Paul
    1971 The Tarascan suffixes of locative space. Meaning and morphotactics (Language Research Monograph 9). Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. 10.1515/9783111346786
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111346786 [Google Scholar]
  39. 1984 Tarascan from meaning to sound. In Munro S. Edmonson (ed.), Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 2 Linguistics, 56–82. Austin: University of Texas Press. 10.7560/775770‑006
     https://doi.org/10.7560/775770-006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gerner, Matthias
    2008 Ambiguity-driven differential object marking in Yongren Lolo. Lingua, 118 (3). 296–331. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2007.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Gilberti, Maturino
    1987 [1558] Arte de la lengua de Michuacán (Fuentes de la lengua tarasca o purépecha II). Morelia, Michoacán: Fimax Publicistas.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Givón, Talmy
    1984 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, Vol.1, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.17 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gundel, Jeanette , Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69. 274–307. 10.2307/416535
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  44. Haspelmath, Martin
    2005 Universals of differential case marking. Explaining Syntactic Universals, course at the LSA Institute at MIT (LSA 206), July17–August5 2005.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2011 On S, A, P, T and R as comparative concepts for alignment. Linguistic Typology15(3). 535–567. 10.1515/LITY.2011.035
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LITY.2011.035 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2018 Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. Ms., Universität Leipzig, ling.auf.netlingbuzz/004047
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Hawkins, John
    1978 Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 1991 On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics27. 405–442. 10.1017/S0022226700012731
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012731 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2004 Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Iemmolo, Giorgo
    2010 Topicality and differential object marking. Studies in Language34(2). 239–272. 10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem [Google Scholar]
  51. Jenks, Peter
    2018 Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry49(3). 501–536. 10.1162/ling_a_00280
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00280 [Google Scholar]
  52. Johanson, Lars
    2006 Two approaches to specificity. In Leonid Kulikov , Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series 77). 255–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.77.15joh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.15joh [Google Scholar]
  53. Kehler, Andrew & Gregory Ward
    2006 Referring expressions and conventional implicatures. In Betty J. Birner & Gregory Wards (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (Studies in Language Companion Series 80). 177–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.80.11keh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80.11keh [Google Scholar]
  54. Kittilä, Seppo & Andrej Malchukov
    2009 Varieties of accusative. In Andrej Malchukov , & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (Oxford handbooks in Linguistics). 549–561. Oxford: Oxford University.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Klein, Udo & Peter de Swart
    2010 Case and referential properties. Lingua122 (1). 3–19. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kornfilt, Jaklin & Klaus von Heusinger
    2009 Specificity and partitivity in some Altaic Languages. In Ryosuke Shibagaki & Reiko Vermeulen (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics ( WAFL 5) (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58), 19–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Lagunas, Juan Baptista de
    1983 [1574] Arte y diccionario con otras obras en la lengua michuacana (Fuentes de la lengua tarasca o purépecha I). Morelia, Michoacán: Fimax Publicistas.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Levinson, Dmitry
    2006 Definiteness of body part terms in Spanish and Portuguese. In Timothy L. Face & Carol A. Klee (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic linguistics Symposium, 172–182. Sumerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Lewis, David
    1979 Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic8(1). 339–359. 10.1007/BF00258436
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436 [Google Scholar]
  60. Lucas, Christopher
    2011 Definiteness encoding and the limits of accomodation. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal , Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.) Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 157–182. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025011
     https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025011 [Google Scholar]
  61. Lyons, Christopher
    1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  62. Malchukov, Andrej
    2008 Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua118(2), 203–221. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  63. Malchukov, Andrej & Peter de Swart
    2009 Differential case marking and actancy variations. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (Oxford handbooks in Linguistics). 339–355. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Matthewson, Lisa
    2004 On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics70(4). 369–415. 10.1086/429207
     https://doi.org/10.1086/429207 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2017 Semantics in indigenous American languages 1917–2017 and beyond. International Journal of American Linguistics83 (1). 141–172. 10.1086/689304
     https://doi.org/10.1086/689304 [Google Scholar]
  66. McGregor, William B.
    2013 Optionality in grammar and language use. Linguistics51(18).1147–1204. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0047
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0047 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2018 Emergence of optional accusative case marking in Khoe languages, In Ilja A. Seržant , & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (Studies in diversity Linguistics 19). 243–279. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Monzón, Cristina
    1997 Introducción a la lengua y cultura tarascas. Valencia: Universitat de València.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 2004 Los Morfemas espaciales del p’urhépecha. Significado y morfosintaxis. Zamora, Michoacán: El Colegio de Michoacán.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Morimoto, Yukiko
    2002 Prominence mismatches and differential object marking in Bantu. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, 292–314. Stanford CA: CSLI. http//csli-publications.stanford.edu
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Murray, Sarah
    2015 Reciprocity in fieldwork and theory. In M. Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, 287–305. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.003.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  72. Nava, E. Fernando
    1997 Relación de trabajos realizados para el Seminario de Investigación Morfológica dirigido por el Dr. Fernando Leal en el Colegio de México(Ms.) Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Næs, Äshild
    2004 What markedness marks: the markedness problem with direct object. Lingua114 (9–10). 1186–1212, doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  74. Prince, Ellen. F.
    1992 The ZPG letter: Subject, definiteness, and information-status. In William C. Mann & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text (Pragmatics and beyond New Series 16). 295–325. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.16.12pri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.12pri [Google Scholar]
  75. Roberts, Craig
    2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy26(3). 287–350. 10.1023/A:1024157132393
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393 [Google Scholar]
  76. Schwarz, Florian
    2013 Different types of definites crosslinguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass7 (10). 534–559. 10.1111/lnc3.12048
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12048 [Google Scholar]
  77. Serra, Angel
    1730 [1697] Manual de administrar los santos sacramentos. A los españoles y naturales de esta provincia de los gloriosos apostoles S. Pedro y S. Pablo de Michuacan, conforme a la reforma de Paulo V y Urbavo VIII. Mexico: Imprenta de Joseph Bernardo de Hogal.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Seržant, Ilja A. & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    2018 Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 19). 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchies of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Smith-Stark, Thomas C.
    1994 Mesoamerican calques. In Carolyn J. MacKay & Verónica Vázquez (eds.), Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica, 15–50. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Sinnemäki, Kaius
    2014 A typological perspective on DOM. Linguistics52 (2). 281–313. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0063
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0063 [Google Scholar]
  82. Song, Jae Jung
    2001 Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Vázquez Rojas, Violeta
    2010 Case marking and semantic incorporation in Tarascan. In Suzi Lima (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 5: Semantic of Under-represented Languages in the Americas, Harvard/MIT, from15th to 17thmay 2009 259–278. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 2019 Morfosemántica de la frase nominal purépecha. Mexico: El Colegio de México.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Villavicencio, Frida
    2002 Estructura y cambio del sistema de casos en el purhépecha. Del siglo XVI al siglo XX. Mexico: El Colegio de México, CELL, dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 2006 P’orhépecha kaso sïrátahenkwa: Desarrollo del sistema de casos del purépecha, Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, El Colegio de México.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. von Heusinger, Klaus
    2011 Specificity. In Klaus von Heusinger , Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol.2. 1024–1057. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. von Heusinger, Klaus & Jaklin Kornfilt
    2005 The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages9. 3–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Dimas Huacuz, Néstor
    1995 Temas y textos del canto p’urhépecha. Pirekua:Nirasïnkani ma pireni. Zamora, Michoacán: El Colegio de Michoacán.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Lathrop, Maxwell
    (coord.) 1977 Jimbani Eiatsperakua tata Jesucristueri. El nuevo testamento de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, 2nd end. Mexico: Sociedad Bíblica Mexicana.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Márquez Joaquín, Pedro
    1996 P’urhepecha jimpo. Segundo grado. Mexico: Secretaría de Educación Pública, Dirección General de Educación Indígena.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Morales Vázquez, Francisco & Néstor Dimas Huacuz
    (coords.) 1998 P’urhepecha jimpo II. Segundo ciclo. Mexico: Secretaría de Educación Pública, Dirección General de Educación Indígena.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Torres Sánchez, Joel
    1997 P’urhepecha uandatskuecha. Narrativa p’urhépecha Vol.1. Michoacán: Linares.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Santamaría Galván, Ana , Julio Salgado Moya , Juan Cornelio Aparicio & Demetrio Nicolás González
    coord. N. d.Uandanskuecha ka arhinskateacha purépecha jimpo. Cuentos y leyendas purépechas. Pátzcuaro, Michoacán: Centro de Educación Fundamental para América Latina y El Caribe, Jefatura de Zonas de Supervisión de Educación Indígena de Pátzcuaro.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. ji jorhenguariaka = Ji jorhenguariaka sanderu. In anonymous Ms 1975 Literatura tarasca, Cherán, 32–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. ji no xukuamiska = Ji no xukuamiska, ¡ji xurhijkirhiska!In Torres Sanchéz 1997 147–171. (San Jerónimo)
     [Google Scholar]
  97. juata = Juata Akumarhani ka Chupikuarhu anapu. In Santamaría Galván , 43–44 (San Jerónimo)
     [Google Scholar]
  98. kuchi = Kuchi sapi. In Dimas Huacuz 1995 251–252.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. k’uichitiicha = Cherasnaspti k’uichitiicha. In Santamaría Galván , 83. (Tarerío)
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Magdalenita = Magdalenita. In Dimas Huacuz 1995 168.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Maria = Maria juata. In Santamaría Galván , 40–42. (San Jerónimo).
     [Google Scholar]
  102. miringua = Miringua. In Santamaría Galván , 89–95. (San Andrés Tziróndaro)
     [Google Scholar]
  103. San Juanu = Ambakiti eiankperakua eska na karaka San Juanu. InLathrop 1997 322–412.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. San Lukasï = Ambakiti eiankperakua eska na karaka San Lukasï. InLathrop 1997 195–321.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. San Markusï = Ambakiti eiankperakua eska na karaka San Markusï. InLathrop 1997 120–194.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. tata = Tata imangi noteru eskampka. In Santamaría Galván , 55–56. (Ihuatzio)
     [Google Scholar]
  107. tata Pedru = Tata Pedru no ambakiti. In Santamaría Galván , 25–28. (San Jerónimo)
     [Google Scholar]
  108. tembuchati = Jimbani tembuchati. In Santamaría Galván , 31–32. (San Jerónimo)
     [Google Scholar]
  109. tembuna = Tembuna ka no ambakiti. In Santamaría Galván , 72–77. (Tarerío)
     [Google Scholar]
  110. toru = Toru miringata jiuatsïo anapu. In Santamaría Galván , 60–62. (Ihuatzio)
     [Google Scholar]
  111. tumbi = Tumbi enga nirajka tembuchani. In Santamaría Galván , 103–108. (Ichupio)
     [Google Scholar]
  112. tumbi tembuchati = Tumbi tembuchati. In Santamaría Galván , 78–82. (Tarerío)
     [Google Scholar]
  113. tumina = Tumina eshenantani. Ms. Recorded in 2012. (Santa Fe de la Laguna)
     [Google Scholar]
  114. uajpa = Uajpa, Tanti, ka tata k’eri. In Santamaría Galván , 37. (San Jerónimo)
     [Google Scholar]
  115. uarhuricha = Uekanaspti uarhuricha cheranani. In Santamaría Galván , 86–88. (San Andrés Tziróndaro)
     [Google Scholar]
  116. uekanksï karhani = Uekanksï karhani. In Santamaría Galván , 84–85. (San Andrés Tziróndaro)
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.16071.cap
Loading
Differential object marking in P’orhépecha
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 45, 791 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16071.cap
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.16071.cap
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.16071.cap
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): animacy; definiteness; differential object marking; flagging; fluid case marking; specificity; split case marking

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