Abstract
Considering the phenomenon of differential object marking of the direct object in possessive nominal phrases (NPs) has revealed two varieties of differential case marking in the Tuvan language: of the direct object and of the possessor. Thus, it was interesting to check the correlation between the factors influencing variation in both cases. The choice in favor of the genitive marking of the possessor is found to be determined by definiteness, animacy of the referent of some NPs, the linear remoteness of the possessive construction components, and additional definitions. Genitive marking of a possessor with an indefinite or non-referential status is due to the sentence information structure. The same set of factors is relevant for choosing accusative direct object labeling. Thus, the obligatory accusative marking of possessive NPs with a genitive possessor in the position of a direct object is associated with the same factors in the structure of relations between components that determined the choice of the genitive form of the possessor. Accusative marking of the direct object of possessive NPs without a genitive is determined by the definiteness of the possessor, the presence of identifying definitions, the presupposition of the singularity of the referent, the sentence information structure, with different communicative status of the object and the predicate. Possessive NPs without a genitive in the direct object position are used in the nominative: if their referent has an indefinite or non-referential status, they are in the utterance rheme with a contact arrange-ment to the control verb and have no other determinants.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have