Лексические свойства глагола и оформление прямого дополнения в коми-зырянском языке (печорский диалект).
The article concerns the experiment on the Direct Object encoding choice in Komi-zyryan depending on the verb semantic features (presuppositional properties)/
This work is devoted to the differential object marking in Finno-Ugric languages (Mari, Erzya, Moksha, Udmurt languages). The interaction of different factors (noun phrase structure, noun phrase referential properties, information structure etc.)
Heritage Spanish speakers and adult immigrant bilinguals listened to wh-questions with the differential object marker a (quién/a quién ‘who/whoACC’) while their eye movements across four referent pictures were tracked. The heritage speakers were less accurate than the adult immigrants in their verbal responses to the questions, leaving objects unmarked for case at a rate of 18%, but eye movement data suggested that the two groups were similar in their comprehension, with both starting to look at the target picture at the same point in the question and identifying the target sooner with a quién ‘whoACC’ than with quién ‘who’ questions.
Different inflectional endings of masculine animate and inanimate nouns in the accusative are common to Croatian and Russian and constitute Differential Object Marking (henceforth DOM) in these two languages. Additionally, Russian nouns of all genders get DOM in the plural, making this feature even more consistent. In this paper we investigate the acquisition of DOM by Russian and Croatian children. Our longitudinal data reveal that in both languages DOM is acquired early. However, the acquisition route is different. While Croatian children erroneously extend the use of the Acc=Gen to inanimate forms, Russian children start with erroneously 0-marked animate forms and switch to erroneously overmarked (Acc=Gen) forms much later.
The phenomenon of differential object marking (DOM) is widely spread across languages and considered to be one of the features characterizing the Finno-Ugric, Altaic and some other language families [Aissen 1998; Moravcsik 1978]. For these languages there exist two basic patterns for DO encoding, namely the overt case marker or no overt marking. There are various attempts to suggest the syntactic account for this phenomenon. First, the DP/NP having the ‘theme’ role of two-argument predicates can occupy different syntactic positions in a clause. It could be VP internal, it could move to the AgrP to case checking. Moreover, as it has been shown in the literature in some languages both forms can occupy the same syntactic position.
The book is devoted to the word order typology. The languages with free order are under discussion. It concerns verious phenomena that can trgger word order variation and have impact on the syntactic structure of a sentence such as infromation structure, differential argument marking, clitics position etc.
This study describes the use of the nominative object in infinitive clauses in Old Russian and Old Novgorod dialect. There are two competing constructions in this position: nominative object with infinitive and standard (accusative) object. The main goal of the paper is to analyze the choice between nominative and accusative case in these constructions. Nominative objects in infinitival clauses are considered in terms of differential object marking (DOM). The author compares nominative objects with unmarked objects in the Uralic languages. The most significant for the selection of case in this construction are word order and information structure.