Differential argument marking

There are several sub-types of differential argument marking depending on the grammatical function and/or semantic role of the differentially-marked argument: and optional ergative marking. Differential object marking Differential subject marking Case-marking is one of the formal guises of differential subject marking, along with agreement, inverse systems and voice alterations, which goes hand in hand with differential subject marking. The use of case marking on subject is to differentiate prominence in arguments. It can be used on subjects of transitive verbs and intransitive verbs. The definiteness and animacy scale of differential subject marking has the same hierarchical structure exhibited in the section on differential object marking. The functional motivation for the implementation of differential subject and object marking is to avoid ambiguity as to what is subject and object in transitive clauses. The most natural hierarchy of animacy and definiteness places transitive subjects higher than transitive object. An optional system is one in which the case marker can be either present or absent. This can be illustrated from Persian: {{interlinear|number=(1a) {{interlinear|number=(1b) An alternating system is one in which two different case markers alternate in marking the same argument. This can be illustrated from Finnish: {{interlinear|number=(2a) {{interlinear|number=(2b)|abbreviations=PART:partative case == Patterns of differential marking ==

Differential marking is known to be affected by a range of semantic and information structure factors. It also includes properties related to the event semantics, such as the affectedness of arguments or the level of volitionality or control. Finally, in many languages, differential marking is related to the status of arguments as either topical or focal. {{fs interlinear|number=(3a)|abbreviations=PRF:perfective participle {{fs interlinear|number=(3b) {{fs interlinear|indent=4 Definiteness and specificity Differential marking can also be affected by discourse-related semantic features, such as definiteness and specificity. {{interlinear|number=(4a) {{interlinear|number=(4b) {{interlinear|indent=4 An example of differential agent marking that is affected by information structure is Tibetan. In Central Lhasa Tibetan, an agent in a transitive clause can either be marked with ergative marking or unmarked. When the agent is a topic, which is the most common role for agents cross-linguistically, it is normally unmarked, as in (5a). However, when the agent is contrasted, it will be marked with ergative case, as in (5b). {{interlinear|number=(5a)|abbreviations=GNOM:GNOM {{interlinear|number=(5b)|abbreviations=GNOM:GNOM == Differential case marking vs differential agreement ==

It remains a matter of debate whether differential argument marking (i.e. the presence or absence of case markers) and differential argument indexing (i.e. the presence or absence of verbal agreement) are part of the same phenomenon or not. Some have argued that differential case marking and differential agreement should be treated as the same phenomenon on the basis that the share many functional similarities. Others have argued that they are different, pointing to different functions, motivations and historical development. == References ==