Projection of Direct Objects

The existence of two distinct structural positions for the direct object has been argued for in languages such as Hindi, Turkish, Persian and Scottish Gaelic. In all of these approaches, the different structural positions give rise to distinct semantic interpretations. In this paper, I show that Eastern Armenian provides clear evidence for two object positions, displaying a strong correlation between case morphology, specificity, phrasal stress pattern and adjacency to the verb. 1 Case Morphology in Eastern Armenian Eastern Armenian (EArmenian) is a verb-final Indo-European language. The direct objects can be classified into four distinct categories based on NP type and case morphology as shown in the examples below. Sentence (1) contains a definite object, which consists of a noun carrying an overt accusative morpheme. If the object lacks overt case morphology, such as the one illustrated in (2), it is interpreted as an indefinite (a book/books). The presence or absence of accusative case, however, does not correspond to the definiteness of the NP as the examples containing quantified indefinite objects in (3) clearly suggest. Quantified indefinites consist of a numeral, an optional classifier and a noun, and may appear with or without overt case morphology. (1) Ara-n girk- ∂ ayr-ets definite Ara-Nom book-Acc burnt ‘Ara burnt the book.’ (2) Ara-n girk ayr-ets bare indefinite Ara-Nom book burnt ‘Ara burnt a book/books.’ (3) a. Ara-n mi girk ayr-ets quantified indefinite (without case) Ara-Nom one book burnt ‘Ara burnt a book.’ b. Ara-n mi girk- ∂ ayr-ets quantified indefinite (with case) Ara-Nom one book-Acc burnt ‘Ara burnt one book/one of the books.