Pseudoincorporation Analysis of Unmarked Direct Objects in Mari

Abstract

Pseudoincorporation has been defined on the basis of both syntactic and semantic properties of NPs, see Massam (2001), Dayal (2011), Farkas and de Swart (2003), Espinal and McNally (2011). Most authors consider non-specificity to be one of the diagnostic features of pseudoincorporation. In the present article, however, on the basis of data from Eastern Mari (Finno-Ugric, Uralic), I claim that pseudoincorporation can vary in its semantic properties and that it does not always correlate with non-specificity. In Mari, the phenomenon of differential object marking is observed: the NP in the position of the direct object can occur without the accusative case marker. In that case, the direct object must be adjacent to the verb and is prosodically united with it. Moreover, the direct object cannot take dependent relative clauses and demonstrative modifiers. These properties make the constructions under discussion morphosyntactically close to other examples of pseudoincorporation discussed in the literature. Nonetheless, their semantics is not restricted to non-specificity: pseudoincorporated NPs in Mari can be specific and even definite. Hence, I claim that the notion of pseudoincorporation should be broadened allowing for a wider range of semantic types.