This study provides a descriptive account of differential object marking (DOM) in the (endangered) Tver Karelian variety of the Karelian language. DOM in Tver Karelian is primarily based on the referential boundedness of a verb phrase, which in turn is determined according to the divisibility and cumulativity of the referents of the verbal and nominal predicates of the verb phrase in question. In addition to boundedness, DOM in Tver Karelian is also affected by the word class of a given object (noun or pronoun), as well as verbal morphology and semantics.
Aissen, J. 2003, Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. - Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21 (3), 435-483.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573
Bickel, B., Witzlack-Makarevich, A. 2008, Referential Scales and Case Alignment: Reviewing the Typological Evidence. - Scales, Leipzig (Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86), 1-37.
Bossong, G. 1985, Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen, Tübingen (Ars Linguistica 14).
Grünthal, R. 2008, Transitivity in Erzya Mordvin. - Ünnepi írások Havas Ferenc tiszteletére, Budapest (Urálisztikai Tanulmányok 18), 235-246.
Grünthal, R. 2015, Vepsän kielioppi, Helsinki (Apuneuvoja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten opintoja varten XVII).
Grünthal, R. 2016, Transitivity in Erzya: Second Language Speakers in a Grammatical Focus. - Mordvin Languages in the Field, Helsinki (Uralica Helsingiensia 10), 291-318.
Kiparsky, P. 1998, Partitive Case and Aspect. - The Projection of Arguments. Lexical and Compositional Factors, Stanford (CSLI Lecture Notes 83), 265-307.
Kiparsky, P. 2001, Structural Case in Finnish. - Lingua 111 (4-7), 315-376.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00035-8
Klumpp, G. 2012, Differential Object Marking and Information Structure: On the Function of Two Different Pronoun Accusatives in Komi and Khanty Dialects. - ESUKA 3 (1), 343-372.
https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2012.3.1.17
Kont, K. 1963, Käändsõnaline objekt läänemeresoome keeltes, Tallinn (KKIU IX).
Kroik, D. 2016, Differential Object Marking in South Saami, Umeå.
Lallukka, S. 1996, The Breakdown of Tver’ Karelian Demographic Continuity. - Ethnic and Racial Studies 19 (2), 316-338.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1996.9993912
Larsson, L.-G. 1981, Studier i de östersjöfinska språkens partitivbruk, Uppsala.
Larsson, L.-G. 1983, Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen, Uppsala (Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 15).
Lees, A. 2015, Case Alternations in Five Finnic Languages, Leiden.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004296367
Ojajärvi, A. 1950, Sijojen merkitystehtävistä Itä-Karjalan Maaselän murteissa, Helsinki.
Ogren, D. 2015, Differential Object Marking in Estonian: Prototypes, Variation, and Construction-Specificity. - SKY Journal of Linguistics 28, 277-312.
Ritter, R.-P. 1989, Untersuchungen zum Partitiv im Vepsischen, Wiesbaden (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica. Band 26).
Sinnemäki, K. 2014, A Typological Perspective on Differential Object Marking. - Linguistics 52 (2), 281-313.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0063
Tveite, T. 2004, The Case of the Object in Livonian. A Corpus-Based Study, Helsinki (Castrenianumin toimitteita 62).
Virtanen, S. 2013, Informaatiorakenteen vaikutus suoran objektin merkintään mansin itämurteissa. - JSFOu 94, 293-335.
https://doi.org/10.33340/susa.82601
Virtanen, S. 2014, Pragmatic DO Marking in Eastern Mansi. - Linguistics 52 (2), 391-413.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0067
Witzlack-Makarevich, A., Seržant, I. 2018, Differential Argument Marking: Patterns of Variation. - Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, Berlin, 1-40.
Wratil, M. 2018, Structural Case and Objective Conjugation in Northern Samoyedic. - Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, Berlin, 348-380.
Пунжина А. В. 1994, Словарь карельского языка (тверские говоры), Petrozavodsk.
