English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This papers offers an explanation for a seemingly inconsistent Differential Object Marking phenomenon in Komi, a Uralic language. In Komi identifiable denotations may be referred to by expressions which (i) are not specified for identifiability and (ii) in case these expression come as direct objects they may be zero marked, i.e., they take the same form as objects with non-identifiable denotations do. In practice within a specific discourse a referential object may be object marked in one instance and zero marked in the next. This kind of zero-marked objects is not predicted by prominence-based accounts on Differential Object Marking in which according to the sub-parameter of definiteness referential objects are rather expected to be accusative marked than zero marked. It is argued that in Komi object marking is triggered by identifiability marking which itself may be suppressed in contexts of givenness. Consequently, zero-marking in contrast to accusative marking can be interpreted as a  givenness feature  (Krifka 2007).

Identifiability, givenness and zero-marked referential objects in Komi