Where differential object marking and split

plurality intersect: Evidence from Hup

Patience Epps

1. Introduction1

The relevance of the Animacy Hierarchy to a range of linguistic structures

is cross-linguistically familiar. Many languages treat nouns differently
according to their position on the hierarchy, which is typically summarized
as follows: pronouns 1/2 > 3 > kin, proper names > human > animate >
inanimate (e.g., Silverstein 1976; Comrie 1989; Croft 1991) – although, as
many scholars have pointed out, there are actually at least three parameters
(or sub-hierarchies) involved: animacy proper (human > animal > inani-
mate), definiteness (personal pronoun > proper name > definite noun
phrase > indefinite specific noun phrase > non-specific noun phrase), and
person: 1/2 > 3. While it is thus difficult to reduce the Animacy Hierarchy
to any single parameter, as noted by Comrie (1989: 195), it is widely ob-
served that more general variables informing this ranking are the individua-
tion of entities and their prominence or salience to speakers (e.g., Bossong
1991; Lazard 2001: 879; de Swart 2007).
As an organizing principle in the variable treatment of nominals, the
Animacy Hierarchy is relevant to a range of grammatical areas both within
and across languages. In particular, these include ergative/absolutive splits,
object case marking, and number marking, such that morphological mark-
ing (or a particular alignment pattern) occurs with those nominals toward
the left end of the hierarchy, but is absent or realized differently on those
nominals toward the right end.
While the treatment of nominals according to the hierarchy itself is
highly consistent across languages, considerable variation exists in the
actual realization of the grammatical patterns involved. For example, lan-
guages differ as to where on the hierarchy they place the cut-off point be-
tween more and less (or differently) marked nominals, and as to whether
morphological marking is optional or obligatory at different points along
the hierarchy. Similarly, a given language may exhibit animacy effects in
86 Patience Epps

one or in several grammatical subsystems (such as number and/or case

marking).
Given this variability, if we take a situation in which animacy effects
are reflected in multiple grammatical subsystems for a single language,
there is no assurance that the parameters informing the treatment of differ-
ent nominals will be identical for the different subsystems, even within that
language. This potential mis-match suggests that the points at which
grammatical subsystems informed by the Animacy Hierarchy intersect
within a language could reveal some intriguing and unexpected twists –
grammatical idiosyncrasies that challenge or complicate typological gener-
alizations about the broader patterns. Yet while there is considerable dis-
cussion in the literature regarding the role of the Animacy Hierarchy in the
patterning of individual subsystems, little attention has been devoted to
what happens when such subsystems overlap.
This paper presents a case of just such an intersection and its outcome.
In Hup, a Nadahup (Makú)2 language of the northwest Amazonian Vaupés
region, the Animacy Hierarchy informs both object marking and number
marking: where relevant, each is obligatory on pronouns and specific hu-
man referents, optional on animal referents, and normally absent on inani-
mates. However, at the point where these two systems overlap – the treat-
ment of plural-marked object nominals – we find a typologically unusual
phenomenon: plural-marked nouns in Hup receive obligatory object mark-
ing, regardless of the animacy of the nominal referent. Thus, contrary to
cross-linguistic generalizations that object-marked nouns will be relatively
more individuated or discrete than unmarked nouns in such variable sys-
tems, in Hup morphologically marked plurality takes priority over consid-
erations of animacy or definiteness/specificity for the purposes of case
marking.
The following sections turn first to a discussion of object marking and
number marking as independent phenomena in Hup, and the role of the
Animacy Hierarchy in determining their respective realizations. The paper
then addresses the intersection of these patterns and the typological impli-
cations of this intersection.

2. Differential object marking and its realization in Hup

The variable treatment of object nominals depending on their location on

the Animacy Hierarchy is known as differential object marking (abbrevi-
ated as DOM; cf. Bossong 1985a, etc.). In such a system, those nominals
 Differential object marking and split plurality 87

that are more highly ranked on the hierarchy will be more (or at least no
less) marked than those below them. The principal parameters involved in
their placement along the hierarchy are animacy and definite-
ness/specificity (c.f. Comrie 1989; Croft 1991; Lazard 2001; etc.), or in
Bossong’s (1991: 159) terms, ‘inherence’ (humanness/animacy and dis-
creteness) and ‘reference’ (individuation and discourse-related definite-
ness); in addition, in Bossong’s (1991) framework, ‘constituence’
(whereby object nominals that are more integrated with the verbal predi-
cate are unmarked) may also play a role.
Why differential object marking exists has been the topic of consider-
able discussion in the linguistic literature. A primary function is clearly the
resolution of potential ambiguity between subjects and objects.3 Studies
such as Zeevat and Jäger (2002) and Øvrelid (2004) indicate that subjects
are much more likely than objects to be animate, definite, and pronominal
(cf. Haspelmath 2005a: 8; de Swart 2007: 81). Given this tendency, as
Comrie (1977: 9) observes, “instances where confusion will be particularly
likely will be where one has either indefinite... and/or inanimate subjects,
or where one has definite... and/or animate direct objects”. In a differential
system, marking thus falls on those objects that share features with proto-
typical subjects (cf. Bossong 1991: 162).
However, the avoidance of subject/object ambiguity is not the whole
story: Many objects receive morphological marking even in cases where
ambiguity is resolved by other means, such as through the discourse or
pragmatic context (cf. Aissen 2003: 437; Haspelmath 2005a: 9; etc.). Ac-
cordingly, DOM often functions to mark prominent objects (i.e. those ob-
jects that are animate, discrete, and/or definite/specific; see de Swart 2007)
generally, regardless of ambiguity. This in turn can be explained as
“maximizing distinctiveness with minimal effort, or minimizing confusion
with maximal economy” (Haspelmath 2005a: 9); in other words, while the
avoidance of ambiguity may be the primary motivation for a differential
system, the convention of marking certain types of nouns has become sys-
tematized and routinized. Thus speakers effectively avoid all or most cases
of potential ambiguity without having to engage in a case-by-case evalua-
tion of whether ambiguity actually exists. We return to this issue in Section
4 below.
Differential object marking is cross-linguistically widespread. It occurs,
for example, in many branches of the Indo-European, Semitic, Finno-
Ugric, and Turkic families (Bossong 1998), in languages of Australia and
the Americas (Bossong 1983, 1985b), and elsewhere. As with Animacy
effects in other grammatical subsystems, however, it is subject to consider-
88 Patience Epps

able variation across languages. Typological approaches to DOM (Lazard

2001; Bossong 1991; etc.) observe that some languages privilege definite-
ness/specificity (or ‘reference’, in Bossong’s terminology) in the marking
of nominals, while in others animacy (‘inherence’) takes priority. Lan-
guages differ in which nouns are marked (e.g., pronouns, human nouns, or
animate nouns), and in whether marking is optional or obligatory. Just a
few examples of this variation are evident in Hindi, which marks nouns
only when the referent is both specific and animate (Blake 2001: 120), in
Sinhalese, where optional object marking is limited to animate-referring
objects, and in Hebrew, in which object marking is obligatory but limited
to definite objects (Aissen 2003: 436). Even within the Vaupés region,
where Hup is spoken and DOM is a general feature (cf. Aikhenvald 2002;
Zúñiga 2007; Stenzel 2008), we find that in the Eastern Tucanoan lan-
guages definiteness plays a particularly important role (such that definite
inanimates and even mass nouns may be case-marked; cf. Stenzel 2008),
while the Nadahup languages in the region (Hup and Yuhup; see below and
Ospina 2002: 139–147) share animacy as the primary variable but differ in
still other ways.
In Hup, differential object marking makes two primary distinctions be-
tween nouns with respect to the Animacy Hierarchy: humans vs. animals
and animates vs. inanimates (see Epps 2008: 165–177 for further details).
Definiteness and specificity also play a role, but one which is less central
than animacy. The following discussion briefly outlines the patterning of
DOM in Hup.
The set of Hup nouns that is most highly ranked according to the Ani-
macy Hierarchy is obligatorily marked with the object suffix -ǎn. This
applies to pronouns and demonstratives, as in (1) and (2):4

(1) ́ -ay
ʔəg-náʔ-ãw hɨ ́d-ǎn tɨh ʔɨ ́d-ɨ ́h
drink-lose_senses-FLR-INCH 3PL-OBJ 3SG speak-DECL
‘While drunk, he spoke to them.’

(2) ʔãh hipãh́ -ãý ́

yúw-ǎn-ãh
1SG know-DYNM that.ITG-OBJ-DECL
‘I know that one (story).’

Obligatory object marking also applies to kin terms (example 3) and per-
sonal names – even those referring to inanimates, such as the canoe in (4).
However, proper names referring to places cannot receive object marking
(in the unlikely event that they occur as objects).
 Differential object marking and split plurality 89

(3) nɨ ̌ tæ̃́ h-ǎn mæh-yɨʔ-tæ̌ n… ʔãh

1SG.POSS son-OBJ kill-TEL-COND 1SG
d’oʔ-d’ɔh-yɨʔ-tæ̃́ ʔ-æ̃́ y ʔũhníy
take-rot-TEL-CNTRFCT-DYNM maybe
‘If they killed my son, I would maybe make things bad (for them).’

(4) hǎt-ǎn ʔãh d’ó-óh

Alligator-OBJ 1SG take-DECL
‘I took Alligator (a canoe).’

Nouns having human referents are also obligatorily marked in almost all
cases, including those in which the human noun is indefinite but specific
(example 6):

(5) yub=ʔãý -ǎn, děh hɔn-yóʔ…

cipó_vine=woman-OBJ water vomit-SEQ
tɨh d’oʔ-macã-́ b’ay-áh
3SG take-gain_consciousness-AGAIN-DECL
‘Having (ritually) vomited water, he created cipó vine woman.’

(6) ʔayǔp=ʔĩh-ǎn ʔãh kéy-éy, j’ǔg-an

one=MSC-OBJ 1SG see-DYNM forest-DIR
‘I saw a man in the forest.’

The only exception to the obligatory object marking of human nouns oc-
curs in the relatively rare cases where the referent is non-specific, provided
the identity of subject and object are clear from the discourse context. This
is the case in (7a), which can be compared with the definite and specific
referent in (7b):

(7) a) wãʔ́ tæ̃ hʔín túk-úy

vulture wife want-DYNM
‘Vulture wants a wife.’ (i.e., he wants to get married)
b) wãʔ́ tɨh=tæ̃ hʔín-ǎn túk-úy
vulture 3SG=wife-OBJ want-DYNM
‘Vulture wants his wife.’ (e.g., they have separated)

In contrast to this obligatorily marked set of Hup nouns, object marking

on nouns referring to animals (which are located at an intermediate point
90 Patience Epps

along the Animacy Hierarchy) is optional, even when the noun is both
definite and specific. This optionality is illustrated by the following exam-
ples, which both come from the same text and refer to the same frog:

(8) hɔhɔ́h=mah tɨh ʔey-yɔhɔ́y-ɔ́h

frog=REP 3SG call-search-DECL
‘He was calling and searching for the frog, it’s said.’

(9) tɨnɨ ̌h cápu-ǎn=yɨ ́ʔ tɨh ʔéy-cud-ʔũhníy

3SG.POSS toad(Port.)-OBJ=TEL 3SG call-INFR-maybe
‘He’s apparently calling for his (pet) frog.’

While examples like these suggest that the factors governing the object
marking of animal nouns are subtle and not easily defined, the choice to
use the marker or not appears to be largely discourse-driven, and dependent
in particular on the topicality of the referent. On the other hand, mythical
animal protagonists in stories are almost always case-marked, probably
because of their human-like attributes of agency and volitionality, as well
as their capacity for speech and rational thought, and the fact that their
names function like personal names.
The last category of Hup nouns, as defined by DOM patterns, is that of
inanimates. For these nouns, object marking is ungrammatical (in the sin-
gular; see below). This is apparently without exception, and without regard
to the noun’s definiteness or specificity:

(10) yɨkán mɔ̌y(*-ǎn) hɨd bɨʔ-pɨ ́d-ɨ ́h, póg !

over_there house(*-OBJ) 3PL make-DIST-DECL big
‘There they built a house, (it was) big!’

Thus far, differential object marking in Hup corresponds neatly to the

Animacy Hierarchy, and exhibits typologically commonplace behavior. As
noted above, however, this is not the full story; we complete the picture of
Hup DOM in Section 4 below.

3. Split plurality and its realization in Hup

As with object marking, the morphological indication of number in many

languages applies differently to nouns according to their position on the
Animacy Hierarchy. This phenomenon is typically labelled ‘split plurality’
 Differential object marking and split plurality 91

(Smith-Stark 1974; Corbett 2000). As Comrie (1989: 189) observes, the

correlation between animacy and number may reflect a “greater human
concern with entities of higher animacy as individuals, therefore countable,
while entities of lower animacy are more readily perceived as an indeter-
minate mass”. This tendency, according to Haspelmath (2005b: 8), may
lead speakers to prefer the use of available plural markers when they refer
to multiple animate entities; the frequent adherence to this norm can then
give rise to routinization and eventual obligatoriness in language structure.
Split plurality, like differential object marking, is cross-linguistically
common, but also varies in its realization across languages. This variation
corresponds to many of the same parameters discussed above for DOM –
where on the hierarchy the cut-off occurs, optional vs. obligatory marking,
etc. To illustrate, Slave (Athabaskan) groups humans and dogs together as
distinct from other animals and inanimates with respect to number mark-
ing, while Marind (Irian Jaya) observes an animate vs. inanimate distinc-
tion (Corbett 2000: 57, 59, after Rice 1989 and Drabbe 1955). Similarly,
within the Vaupés region itself we find widespread split plurality but vari-
able systems; for example, in Eastern Tucanoan languages plurality splits
divide humans and higher-level animates from low-level animates and in-
animates (Wanano; Stenzel 2004: 4.3.1–2) and animates from inanimates
(Tucano: Ramirez 1997: 205–209), while in the Nadahup languages we
find distinctions between human, animal, and inanimate nouns (Hup; see
below), animates and inanimates (Yuhup; Ospina 2002: 258–262), and
humans and non-humans (Dâw; Martins 2004: 401), together with further
differences in marking conventions.
In Hup, split plurality carves up the set of nouns along the Animacy
Hierarchy in much the same way as does differential object marking; how-
ever, the parameters for marking within the two subsystems are not identi-
cal. Plural number in Hup is indicated by the enclitic =d’ǝh (which can also
have a collective function in some contexts); when the plural marker oc-
curs together with the object case marker they take the fused form =n’ǎn.
The following discussion details the patterning of split plurality in Hup
(see Epps 2008: 192–197 for further details).
Like object marking, plural marking is in general obligatory in Hup for
pronouns, demonstratives, kin terms, and human nouns. Pronouns have a
lexical distinction between singular and plural for first, second, and third
persons (e.g., ʔãh ‘I’ and ʔɨn ‘we’). Demonstratives always take the plural
suffix if they stand in for or modify an animate noun, as in (11), while a
separate collective demonstrative form is used for plural inanimates and
mass nouns (12):
92 Patience Epps

(11) ʔǝ̌g=wag nɨ-d’ǝ̌h nɨh-nɨ ́h-ay=pog’, páy-ay

drink=day this-PL be_like-NEG-INCH=EMPH1 bad-INCH
‘On drinking days, these (people) don’t do like this, (it’s) no good.’

(12) nɨ-n’ɨ ̌h j’ɨ ̌k

this-NMLZ smoke
‘(all) this smoke’

Human nouns and referential kin terms must also, in most cases, be marked
as plural:

(13) tiyǐʔ=d’ǝh-ǝw-ǝ́c ʔǝg-náʔ-ãý !

man=PL-FLR-EXCL2 drink-lose_senses-DYNM
‘Only the men got drunk!’

(14) nǽ tukáno=tæ̃́ h=d’ǝh pǎ̃

NEG:R Tucano(Pt)=offspring=PL NEG:EX
‘There are no Tucano children.’

The only exception to this generalization occurs in cases where the human
noun or kin term is indefinite and non-specific, as is also true for object
marking (see above). Even these cases, however, require anaphoric agree-
ment with a plural pronoun, as in (15) (whereas unmarked multiple inani-
mates may be referred to via a singular pronoun):

(15) húp dǝ̌b, hɨd bɨ ́ʔ-ɨ ́h

person many 3PL work-DECL
‘Lots of people worked.’

In contrast to human nouns, nouns referring to animals are optionally

marked for number, which again is consistent with the conventions of
DOM in Hup. The speaker included the plural suffix in example (16):

(16) j’ám-ãṕ děh mí-ĩt,́ hɔ̌p̃ wæ̌ d=n’ǎn

DST.CNTR-DEP water creek-OBL fish eat=PL.OBJ
ʔãh nɔ́-ɔ̃p, yɔ̌k=d’ǝh
1SG say-DEP otter=PL
‘I’m talking about those that eat fish in the river, the otters.’
 Differential object marking and split plurality 93

In the following example, on the other hand, the speaker did not use the
plural suffix in (17a), but did in (17b) – although the two utterances come
from the same text, refer to the same entities, and are almost identical.

(17) a) b’ǒy ʔɨn kǝk-ʔay-nɨ ̌ŋ !

traira 1PL pull-VENT-COOP
‘Let’s go fish for traira together!’

b) b’ǒy=n’ǎn ʔɨn kǝk-nɨ ̌ŋ-ay !

traira=PL.OBJ 1PL pull-COOP-INCH
‘Let’s fish for traira together!’

Exactly what informs the choice to leave animal entities marked or un-
marked for number is thus not obvious, but marking is in general preferred
when the animal referent is more topical (and thus relatively specific, al-
though it frequently occurs on nouns that refer to a generic group of animal
entities – such fish or rats to be caught, as in 17 and in 19 below). In (17),
the unmarked example (17a) comes from the first mention of the traira fish
in the text, while subsequent mentions (such as 17b) are marked fairly con-
sistently as plural.
For nouns referring to inanimate entities, number marking is extremely
rare in natural discourse; however, it is not ungrammatical (except in the
case of mass nouns), as illustrated by the elicited example in (18). This
marginal acceptability of number marking on inanimates constitutes the
primary difference between the conventions governing object and number
marking in Hup, although in actual discourse the two pattern in very simi-
lar ways.

(18) mɔ̌y=d’ǝh ní-ĩý

house=PL be-DYNM
‘There are some houses.’

4. The intersection of differential object marking and split plurality

As we have seen, the Animacy Hierarchy informs two distinct areas of

Hup’s grammar – the marking of object case and number – in ways that are
similar but not quite identical. In such a situation, what will the intersec-
tion of the subsystems look like? How will animacy effects be realized if
and when the two grammatical structures overlap?
94 Patience Epps

In Hup, this intersection occurs when plural-marked nouns appear as

objects. In this context, we find that object marking on these nouns is abso-
lutely obligatory, regardless of their animacy. While obligatory marking is
expected in the Hup system for those entities that are highly ranked on the
Animacy Hierarchy – pronouns, demonstratives, kin terms, and human
nouns – it is much less clear why it should apply to nouns with animal and
inanimate referents, for which object marking is otherwise optional or
obligatorily absent.
Examples (19–20) illustrate this phenomenon for nouns referring to
animals, on which object marking is optional when number marking is
absent. In these examples, however, the presence of the plural marker
without the object marker is ungrammatical, although both may be dropped
and a plural interpretation maintained. (As noted above, the combination of
the plural and object markers yields the fused form =n’ǎn).

(19) bǐʔ=n’ǎn=mah yúp tɨh hãʔ-ʔě-h

rat=PL.OBJ=REP that.ITG 3SG search_with_hands-PERF-DECL
‘He searched out rats with his hands, it’s said.’

(20) cǎy… cǎy=n’ǎn=mah hɨd, hãý -an,

centipede centipede=PL.OBJ=REP 3PL um-DIR
hǝb-kæd-yóʔ, yuʔ-yóʔ=mah hɨd ʔǝg-pó-tíh !
dry-dry_in_heat-SEQ burn-SEQ=REP 3PL drink-EMPH1-EMPH2
‘Centipedes… having dried centipedes out, in the whatchamacallit,
having burned them (to ashes and mixed them with water), they
drink them, it’s said!’

Examples (21–22) illustrate the same phenomenon for inanimate nouns:

here object marking is obligatorily present when the number marker oc-
curs, but obligatorily absent when it does not:

(21) ʔãh́ cug’æ̌ t=n’ǎn pũhũt-d’ǝh-hi-yɨ ́ʔ-ɨ ́y

1SG leaf/paper=PL.OBJ blow-send-descend-TEL-DYNM
‘I blew the papers down.’

(22) pɨhɨ ́t=n’ǎn ʔãh yum-té-h

banana=PL.OBJ 1SG plant-FUT-DECL
‘I’ll plant those bananas.’
 Differential object marking and split plurality 95

Given that number marking rarely occurs on inanimates in natural dis-

course, in my corpus most examples like those above derive from elicita-
tion contexts. Consultants nevertheless report that marked forms like those
in (21–22) are not only grammatical but indicate a specific group of refer-
ents; in (22), for example, the speaker has a particular bunch of bananas in
mind, whereas without the number/object marking the sentence would
simply mean ‘I’ll plant bananas’.
It is interesting to note that while the presence of number marking en-
tails the presence of object marking for Hup nominals, the reverse does not
appear to be the case. In example (23), the indefinite and non-specific noun
‘person’ is best understood as semantically plural but – as expected (com-
pare 15 above, for example) – it does not receive number marking. It is
nevertheless marked with the object suffix, which functions here to clarify
that it is indeed an object, since the subject of the clause is also non-
specific and is in fact dropped. Examples like this one suggest that the
motivations for object marking are generally more complex than are those
for plural marking, and that in particular cases the need to disambiguate
subject and object may take precedence over other considerations.

(23) húp-ǎn tǝ́w-ǝ́y, húp-ǎn dóh-óy

person-OBJ scold-DYNM person-OBJ curse-DYNM
‘(Some people) scold people, cast curses on people.’

As the examples above illustrate, the presence of number-marking mor-

phology on nouns overrides all considerations of animacy in Hup for the
purposes of differential object marking. Yet for plurality to take priority in
a DOM system is typologically highly unusual, and appears to be almost
without parallel in other languages for which discussions of DOM are
available. This can be attributed to the fact that individuation and discrete-
ness are important parameters informing DOM in general (cf. de Swart
2007; Lazard 2001: 879; Bossong 1991; etc.). As Hopper and Thompson
(1980: 292) have likewise observed, the presence of object marking regis-
ters a relatively high degree of individuation of the nominal entity, and
definiteness corresponds closely to the individuation of the object – as does
animacy, as the discussion of split plurality above indicates. It is therefore
less likely that subject/object ambiguity would arise where an object is
plural, since plural entities are almost by definition less individuated than
are singular entities, and are thus less likely to be interpreted as subjects.
There is little doubt that differential object marking relates to the indi-
viduation of entitites in Hup, just as it does cross-linguistically. In addition
96 Patience Epps

to the link between object marking and specificity of referents, a further

indication lies in the fact that object marking in Hup patterns similarly to
the participation of nouns in the ‘bound’ or obligatorily compounded con-
struction, which in many cases encodes inalienable possession. As I have
argued elsewhere (Epps 2007, 2008: 256–263), one function of the ‘bound’
construction in Hup is to individuate an entity from a mass of potential
referents. The parallels between this construction and object marking in
Hup are illustrated in examples such as (7) above, where the definite and
specific referent ‘his wife’ is marked both by the (normally obligatory)
third person pronoun tɨh, indicating inalienable possession, as well as by
the object suffix, whereas both are absent when ‘wife’ is indefinite and
non-specific.
How then can we explain the unusual feature of Hup’s differential ob-
ject marking system, by which plural marking of nouns takes priority over
considerations of animacy in object marking? The answer undoubtedly lies
in the intersection of the two systems – DOM and split plurality – which
are both informed by the Animacy Hierarchy but conform to slightly dif-
ferent parameters.
In Hup, the vast majority of nouns that are candidates for plural mark-
ing are also candidates for object marking: that is, they refer to animates
and are specific and/or topical. Because the parameters governing the two
subsystems are so similar, speakers can – most of the time – safely assume
that where plural marking is appropriate, object marking will be likewise.
Thus, over time, the frequency of their co-occurrence has led to its sys-
tematicization, such that plural marking on object nominals actually entails
object marking. This nicely illustrates Haspelmath’s (2005a: 9) point that
“DOM is about maximizing distinctiveness with minimal effort”: Because
plural-marked nouns are prime candidates for object-marking, the expendi-
ture of minimal effort on the part of speakers leads these nouns to be object
marked by default, thereby avoiding a case-by-case evaluation of their ac-
tual animacy or the likelihood of their confusion with subjects.5 This is
hardly different from other languages’ propensity to case-mark all animate
object nominals, for example, even where ambiguity between subject and
object is not at issue, as discussed above. In Hup, this default generaliza-
tion has extended to plural marking because of the similarities between the
split plurality and DOM systems; the unusual nature of the outcome – that
the presence of plural marking overrides considerations of animacy in
DOM – is due primarily to the mis-match between the two systems, namely
that inanimate nouns may take number marking (although they rarely do),
but by themselves cannot be object-marked.6
 Differential object marking and split plurality 97

As we have seen, the interaction between number and case marking in

Hup gives its differential object marking system a typologically unusual
twist. Yet Hup is certainly not the only language to exhibit animacy effects
in multiple areas of its grammar. While there is relatively little discussion
in the literature of how these animacy effects play out when different
grammatical subsystems come together, there is nevertheless some indica-
tion that Hup is not unique in exhibiting an interaction between number
and other areas of grammar in which the Animacy Hierarchy plays a role.7
Exactly what this interaction is and how it may be generalized across
languages is unclear, however. Comrie, for example, makes the following
observation:

One parameter which... participates in a rather ambivalent interaction with

animacy is number. We are not prepared to make any generalizations as to
whether number raises or lowers the animacy of a noun phrase [with respect
to object marking]... and certainly there is a fair amount of evidence where
number is relevant in either direction, suggesting that over all it is randomly,
rather than significantly, relevant. (Comrie 1989: 188)

Comrie contrasts the example of Russian, where plural nominals are more
likely to take a special animate accusative ending, with that of Polish,
where a plural noun phrase is less likely to take the animate accusative
ending.
Other cases in which plural number appears to win out over singular in-
clude the nominative/ergative splits found in several Australian languages
(Filimonova 2005: 100–104). For example, Giramay (a dialect of Dyirbal)
exhibits a split distinguishing first and second person dual and plural pro-
nouns (which follow a nominative-accusative pattern), first and second
person singular and third person singular/dual/plural (which follow a ‘con-
trastive’ pattern, such that subjects, agents, and patients are all marked
differently), and all other nouns (which follow an ergative-absolutive pat-
tern; Filimonova 2005: 104, after Dixon 1972: 50). Similarly, inverse sys-
tems in many Algonquian languages rank plural first and second person
verbal suffixes higher than their singular counterparts (Zúñiga 2008).
As Filimonova observes, Silverstein (in his classic [1976] paper dealing
with ergative splits and animacy) states that the marking of some nominals
(particularly pronouns) with number features can result in their being more
highly ranked within split systems, as appears to be the case in languages
like Giramay. This is clearly analogous to what we see in the differential
object marking of nominals generally in Hup. Yet Filimonova (2005: 105),
98 Patience Epps

like Comrie, notes that this phenomenon is not consistent across languages,
and that in many cases it is singular nouns that are elevated over plurals.
While more conclusive cross-linguistic generalizations about the inter-
action between number and other animacy-informed grammatical subsys-
tems must await more data from a broader sample of languages, the Hup
case shows that a clear motivation can in fact be identified for the ranking
of plural nouns over singular nouns in systems such as differential object
marking: Where number and object marking are both informed by the
Animacy Hierarchy, number marking may provide a default basis for ob-
ject marking, allowing for a more efficient DOM system. At the same time,
the fact that object marking tends to register a relatively high degree of
individuation of the nominal entity will encourage the ranking of singular
nouns over plurals. Thus there appear to be at least two competing patterns
of interaction between number and animacy, which may account for some
of the cross-linguistic variation that Comrie and others have observed.

5. Conclusion

While the identification of cross-linguistic tendencies is the bread and but-

ter of typology, it is also widely recognized that identifying and explaining
the exceptions is a priority if we are to truly understand how language
works and why the generalizations exist in the first place. One well-known
source of explanations for such linguistic irregularities is found in transi-
tional areas of various types – points of intersection between languages,
linguistic areas, historical phases, etc. For example, historical transitions
between grammatical categories or subsystems can give rise to typologi-
cally idiosyncratic features, as in the case of the unusual tripartite or con-
trastive case marking found in some Iranian languages (such that S, A, and
P arguments are all marked differently), which may be understood as an
intermediate phase in a shift from an ergative to an accusative alignment
pattern (Filimonova 2005: 87–93).8 Similarly, languages that are geo-
graphically sandwiched between two distinct language families or contact
zones may come to share features with both neighbours through language
contact, leading to unusual combinations of characteristics – such as the
deviations in word order patterns in languages of northern Iran that are
located between Turkic and Semitic groups (Stilo 2005).
This paper suggests that another point of intersection – that between
grammatical subsystems viewed synchronically within a single language –
is also a relevant source of typological anomalies, and can accordingly
 Differential object marking and split plurality 99

deepen our understanding of each of the subsystems themselves. This is

particularly true for grammatical subsystems that share some organizing
principle, such as the Animacy Hierarchy, but in which this organizing
principle applies in slightly different ways. In Hup, as we have seen, the
intersection of object marking and number marking patterns yields just
such a typologically unusual result – the obligatory object marking of plu-
ral-marked nouns regardless of their animacy. While this phenomenon
appears highly anomolous from the perspective of either subsystem taken
on its own, it makes good typological sense when we consider the language
as a system of interrelated parts, rather than as a set of independent subsys-
tems.
Accordingly, the Hup case also provides a clue to the somewhat myste-
rious relationship between number marking and other animacy effects
noted cross-linguistically. The situation in Hup, and its explanation, sug-
gest that the seeming randomness of this interaction in other languages
may in fact be attributable to two competing motivations: the ranking of
more individuated entities over less individuated ones, and the use of ani-
macy-based number marking as a default basis for object marking in the
interest of efficiency.

Notes

1. The data in this paper come from original fieldwork on the Rio Tiquié, Ama-
zonas, Brazil, conducted in 2000–2004. I am grateful to the Hupd’ǝh for
teaching me their language, and to the Museu Parense Emílio Goeldi and the
Instituto Socioambiental for their assistance; support from a Fulbright-Hays
Dissertation Research Grant, National Science Foundation Dissertation Im-
provement Grant no. 0111550, and by the Max Planck Institute for Evolution-
ary Anthropology (Leipzig) is also gratefully acknowledged. In addition, I
would like to thank Georg Bossong, Orin Gensler, and Fernando Zúñiga for
their very helpful comments on the material discussed here.
2. Hup (aka Hupda, Jupde) is spoken by approximately 1500 people in northwest
Brazil and eastern Colombia. The Hup people live in scatterered villages
throughout this region and subsist by hunting, gathering, and small-scale man-
ioc farming. The family name ‘Nadahup’ is preferred to ‘Makú’ because the
latter name is used as an ethnic slur in the region and has also been applied to
several unrelated language groups in Amazonia. ‘Nadahup’ combines the
names of the four established member languages in this family (Hup, Yuhup,
Dâw, Nadëb). The name Vaupés-Japura (Uaupés-Japura) has also been used in
place of Makú (see Ramirez 2001).
100 Patience Epps

3. Differential object marking and its role of disambiguating subjects and objects
applies primarily to nominative-accusative languages; ergative-absolutive sys-
tems often make use of DOM’s mirror image, differential subject marking (cf.
Silverstein 1976, de Hoop and de Swart 2008).
4. Most of the examples appearing in this paper come from natural discourse
(texts, conversation, etc.). The following abbreviations are used: COOP -
cooperative, DECL declarative, DEP dependent, DIR directional, DIST distribu-
tive, DST.CNTR distant contrast, DYNM dynamic, EMPH emphasis 1, EXCL2 sec-
ondary exclusive, FLR filler syllable, FUT future, INCH inchoative, INFR inferred
evidential, ITG intangible (demonstrative), MSC masculine, NEG negative,
NEG:EX negative existance, NEG:R negative reinforcement, NMLZ nominalizer,
OBJ object, OBL oblique, PERF perfective, PL plural, POSS possessive, REP re-
ported evidential, SEQ sequential, SG singular, TEL telic, VENT venitive.
5. A further result of the frequent co-occurrence of these two markers is their
phonological fusion into the portmanteau form =n’ǎn – a typical outcome of
such grammaticalization processes, but one which occurs only rarely else-
where in Hup.
6. The same explanation probably accounts for another context in which object
marking occurs obligatorily in Hup, regardless of the position of the referent
along the Animacy Hierarchy: the goal of a ditransitive clause. Given that
goals of ditransitives are almost always animate, they are an obvious place in
which default object marking might be expected to occur.
7. Both split plurality and DOM exist in many of the other Vaupés languages, but
there is no evidence that their interaction results in anything unexpected.
8. Note, however, that some tripartite systems appear to be relatively stable, so
these are not all easily explained as representing a transitional stage.

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2002 Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.
Aissen, Judith
2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Lan-
guage and Linguistic Theory 21 (3): 435–483.
Blake, Barry J.
2001 Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bossong, Georg
1983 Animacy and markedness in universal grammar. Glossologia 2: 7–
20.
 Differential object marking and split plurality 101

1985a Empirische Universalienforschung: DOM in den neuiranischen

Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
1985b Markierung von Aktantenfunktionen im Guaraní. Zur Frage der dif-
ferentiellen Objektmarkierung in nicht-akkusativischen Sprachen. In
Relational Typology, Frans Plank (ed.), 1–29. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
1991 Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New Analy-
ses in Romance Linguistics, Douglas Kibbee and Dieter Wanner
(eds.), 143–170. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 69.) Amster-
dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1998 Le marquage differéntiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In
Actance et Valence, J. Feuillet (ed.), 193–258. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Comrie, Bernard
1977 Subjects and direct objects in Uralic languages: a functional explana-
tion of case-marking systems. Études Finno-Ougriennes 12 (1975):
5–17.
1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Mor-
phology, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Corbett, Greville G.
2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William C.
1990 Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, Robert M. W.
1972 The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Drabbe, P.
1955 Spraakkunst von het Marind: Zuidkust Nederlands Nieuw-Guinea.
(Studia Instituti Anthropos 11.) Wien-Mödling: Drukkerij van het
Missiehuis St. Gabriel.
Epps, Patience
2007 Birth of a noun classification system: the case of Hup. In Language
Endangerment and Endangered Languages: Linguistic and Anthro-
pological Studies with Special Emphasis on the Languages and Cul-
tures of the Andean-Amazonian Border Area, Leo Wetzels (ed.),
107–128. (Indigenous Languages of Latin America series [ILLA].)
Leiden University, The Netherlands: The Research School of Asian,
African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS).
2008 A Grammar of Hup, (Mouton Grammar Library 43). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Filimonova, Elena
2005 The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: problems and
counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9.1: 77–113.
102 Patience Epps

Haspelmath, Martin
2005a Universals of differential case marking. Handout for the course ‘Ex-
plaining Syntactic Universals’, LSA Institute, July 2005. (Available
at http://email.eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/2.DiffCaseMarking.pdf.)
2005b Occurrence of nominal plurality. In World Atlas of Language Struc-
tures, Matthew S. Dryer, Martin Haspelmath, David Gil, and Bernard
Comrie (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Hoop, Helen, and Peter de Swart (eds.)
2008 Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56 (2): 251–299.
Lazard, Gilbert
2001 Le marquage différentiel de l’objet. In Language Typology and Lan-
guage Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 2, Martin
Haspelmath (ed.), 873–885. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Martins, Silvana
2004 Fonologia e gramática Dâw [Phonology and grammar of Dâw]. Ph.D.
dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Amsterdam: LOT.
Ospina Bozzi, Ana María
2002 Les structures élémentaires du Yuhup Maku, langue de l’Amazonie
Colombienne: Morphologie et syntaxe. Ph.D. diss., Université Paris
7 – Denis Diderot.
Øvrelid, Lilja
2004 Disambiguation of grammatical functions in Norwegian: Modeling
variation in word order interpretations conditioned by animacy and
definiteness. In Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of
Linguistics, F. Karlsson (ed.). University of Helsinki: Department of
General Linguistics.
Ramirez, Henri
1997 A Fala Tukano dos Ye’pa-Masa, Vol. 1: Gramática [The Tucano
Language of the Ye’pa-Masa: Grammar]. Manaus: Inspetoria Salesi-
ana Missionária da Amazônia, CEDEM.
2001 Família Makú ou família Uaupés-Japura? [Makú family or Uaupés-
Japura family?]. Paper presented at the meeting of ANPOLL, Belém,
Brazil.
Rice, Keren
1989 A Grammar of Slave. (Mouton Grammar Library 5.) Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in
Australian Languages, R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
 Differential object marking and split plurality 103

Smith-Stark, T. Cedric
1974 The plurality split. In Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chi-
cago Linguistic Society, Michael La Galy, R. A. Fox and A. Bruck
(eds.), 657–671. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Stenzel, Kristine
2004 A reference grammar of Wanano. Ph.D. diss., University of Colo-
rado.
2008 Kotiria ‘differential object marking’ in cross-linguistic perspective.
Manuscript, Museu Nacional / Universidade Federal do Rio de Ja-
neiro.
Stilo, Donald
2005 Iranian as buffer zone between the universal typologies of Turkic and
Semitic. In Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion. Case Stud-
ies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, E.A. Csato, B. Isaksson and C.
Jahani (eds.), 35–63. London: Routledge Curzon.
de Swart, Peter
2007 Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Ph.D. diss., Radboud
Universiteit Nijmegen.
Zeevat, Henk, and Gerhard Jäger
2002 A reinterpretation of syntactic alignment. In Proceedings of the 3rd
and 4th International Symposium on Language, Logic and Computa-
tion, D. de Jongh, H. Zeevat and M. Nilsenova (eds.). Amsterdam:
ILLC. At http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/lili/personen/gjaeger/.
Zúñiga, Fernando
2007 The discourse-syntax interface in northwestern Amazonia. Differen-
tial object marking in Makú and some Tucanoan languages. In Lan-
guage Endangerment and Endangered Languages: Linguistic and
Anthropological Studies with Special Emphasis on the Languages
and Cultures of the Andean-Amazonian Border Area, Leo W. Wet-
zels (ed.), 209–227. Leiden: Publications of the Research School of
Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), University of Lei-
den.
2008 How many hierarchies, really? Evidence from several Algonquian
languages. In Scales (Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86), Marc Rich-
ards and Andrej Malchukov (eds.), 99–129. Leipzig: University of
Leipzig.