ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-119-013 · ATLAS 260

Dependency Marker

A grammatical pattern in which a relationship is marked primarily on the dependent element.

Part of the subject path Morphology and Word Formation

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

A · Analytical concept R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Dependent marking examines a relation encoded on the dependent element. It adds an alternative distribution to head marking; the English heading must identify a pattern, not merely a single marker.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

Dependent marking is a typological pattern in which the grammatical relation between a head and a dependent is encoded primarily on the dependent element. Case on a noun can signal its relation to a verb, and a genitive can mark a possessor's relation to the possessed noun. The decisive issue is locus of marking, not linear position or a blanket language type. One language may use dependent, head, double, or zero marking in different constructions. The conceptual movement reconstructs a structural relation, follows its visible trace to the dependent pole, and compares what information is carried there rather than on the organising head.

Movement of thought

1. A construction is first analysed into a head and at least one structurally dependent element. 2. An ending, particle, or other form indicates the grammatical relationship between them. 3. When this indication occurs on the dependent, the feature instantiates dependent marking. 4. A counter-test separates marking locus from mere postposition, semantic subordination, and whole-language types. 5. Comparison across constructions reveals mixed systems and different distributions of relational information.

Scientific use case

Typology, case research, and syntactic annotation record dependent marking construction by construction. Comparative data need explicit criteria for adpositions, clitics, agreement, and morphologically unexpressed relations.

Example

The noun meaning traveller receives a case ending identifying it as the recipient of giving, while the verb does not separately mark that role. The relation becomes visible on the dependent expression.

Counterexample

A noun following a verb is not dependent-marked for that reason alone. If no relational form occurs on the dependent, word order may indicate the relation, or head marking or zero marking may apply.

Distinction

Distinguish dependent marking from head, double, and zero marking, and from dependency as the structural relation itself. The term names only the coding of that relation on the dependent pole.

Effect on thought and perception

Dependent marking gives participating expressions a visible relational address. It may support flexible word order while distributing information across several elements of a construction.

Resonance

The dependent bears the trace of its bond on its own body. Its form says not only what it is but also how it enters a larger order.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Dependency Marker“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-119-013. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-119-013

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-119-013

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.

Historical background

Nichols and Bickel’s WALS chapter defines dependent marking by the location of relational marking on a dependent expression. It reports a methodological move from Nichols’s broader 1986 and 1992 surveys to selected representative constructions. Those earlier works remain indirect references here. Locus of marking is distinct from the alignment of arguments; one classification does not establish the other.

How conceptual history changes the analysis

State the marked relation and the expression carrying its marker. A single construction does not automatically establish a whole-language type.

References for the historical section

Historical source evidence and Atlas applications remain separate; this import does not assert new first attestations or a fresh exhaustive source verification.