In languages with differential object marking the distribution of direct object markers is often explained based on definiteness, specificity, prominence and other concepts with binary features (specific vs. non-specific, prominent vs. non-prominent). In Permic languages three types of direct object markers are distinguished: absence of marking, accusative marker and the fused markers of possession and direct object. I show that in Beserman Udmurt the accusative is a non-marked means of encoding definite direct objects, while the possessive suffixes have the following functions: 1) ethical function, 2) marking of null NP heads and 3) marking of non-unique familiar direct objects. Non-referential and indefinite direct objects are not marked.
Keywords: differential object marking, direct object, accusative, possessive morphemes, possession, definiteness, uniqueness, familiarity, Udmurt, Beserman dialect, Finno-Ugric, Uralic