In languages with overt case-marking of direct objects, the marking may depend on semantic and pragmatic features; a phenomenon known as differential object marking (DOM) (Aissen 2003). This question asks whether differences in object marking are conditioned by certain characteristics of an object, such as topicality, animacy, or definiteness. For example, in Komi, definite inanimate objects can be either marked or unmarked (1a), whereas animate objects obligatorily take the accusative case (1b).

(1) Komi Zyrian

a. Ме любита Сыктывкарöс ~ Сыктывкар**
me ʎubit-ɑ Sɨktɨvkɑr-ɘs ~ Sɨktɨvkɑr
1SG love-PRS.1SG Syktyvkar-ACC ~ Syktyvkar[ACC]
‘I like Syktyvkar’

b. Ме любита Бобикöс**
me ʎubit-ɑ Bobik-ɘs
1SG love-PRS.1SG Bobik-ACC
‘I like Bobik'
(Klumpp 2012:345)

Cf. the prominecy scale (Aissen 2003): - Animacy scale: HUMAN > ANIMATE > INANIMATE - Definiteness scale: PERSONAL PRONOUN > PROPER NAME > DEFINITE NP > INDEFINITE SPECIFIC NP > NON-SPECIFIC NP

Coding

The value is '1' if at least one of the above mentioned characteristics of an object referent causes differences in direct object marking. When answering the question, only finite clauses are considered.