Volume 38, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Previous theoretical discussion about inverse systems has largely revolved around the synchronic and diachronic relationship between the inverse and the passive. In contrast, this study argues for the antipassive origins of two inverse constructions in Monsang (Trans-Himalayan), which are used for 3→SAP and 2→1 scenarios. This questions central assumptions from previous accounts about the functional motivation underlying inverse systems, and suggests that strategies of avoiding overt reference may be at play. The diachronic pathway proposed here connects the traditional inverse with other special marking patterns that involve speech act participant objects, in particular the “pseudo-inverse” construction of innovative first person object indexation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bauman, James
    1975 Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Ph.D. dissertation, Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bickel, Balthasar, Walter Bisang & Yogendra P. Yādava
    1999 Face vs. empathy: The social foundation of Maithili verb agreement. Linguistics37(3): 481–518. 10.1515/ling.37.3.481
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.3.481 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bickel, Balthasar & Martin Gaenszle
    2015 First person objects, antipassives, and the political history of the Southern Kirant. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics2(1): 63–86. 10.1515/jsall‑2015‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2015-0003 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chelliah, Shobhana L. & Gwendolyn Hyslop
    2011 Introduction to special issue on optional case marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area34(2): 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chhangte, Lalnunthangi
    1993 Mizo syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cooreman, Ann
    1994 A functional typology of antipassives. InBarbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds.) Voice: Form and function, 49–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.27.05coo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.27.05coo [Google Scholar]
  7. Cristofaro, Sonia
    2013 The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence in diachronic perspective. InDik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.) Languages across boundaries: Studies in the memory of Anna Siewierska, 69–93. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110331127.69
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110331127.69 [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, William
    2001Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. DeLancey, Scott
    1981 An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language57 (3): 626–57. 10.2307/414343
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414343 [Google Scholar]
  10. 1989 Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies52(2): 315–33. 10.1017/S0041977X00035485
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00035485 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2010 Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics9 (1): 1–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2011 Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. InFoong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta, & Janick Wrona (eds.) Nominalization in Asian languages: diachronic and typological perspectives, 343–59. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.96.12del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.96.12del [Google Scholar]
  13. 2014 Second person verb forms in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area37(1): 3–33. 10.1075/ltba.37.1.01lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.1.01lan [Google Scholar]
  14. 2018 Deictic and sociopragmatic effects in Tibeto-Burman SAP indexation. InSonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.) Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 343–76. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 10.1075/tsl.121.10del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.10del [Google Scholar]
  15. Denniss, Jessica
    2007 Antipassives in Yukulta. InRobyn Loughnane, Cara Penry Williams, & Jana Verhoeven (eds.) In between wor(l)ds: transformation and translation, 167–81. Melbourne, Australia: School of Languages and Linguistics, The University of Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
    1997 A typology of argument-determined constructions. InJoan Bybee, John Haiman, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.) Essays on language function and language type. Dedicated toT. Givón, 71–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.82.08dix
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.08dix [Google Scholar]
  18. Driem, George van
    1993 The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies56(2): 292–334. 10.1017/S0041977X00005528
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00005528 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ebert, Karen H.
    1991 Inverse and pseudo-inverse prefixes in Kiranti languages: evidence from Belhare, Athpare and Dungmali. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area14(1): 73–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Filimonova, Elena
    (ed.) 2005Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive Distinction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.63
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.63 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fleck, David W.
    2006 Antipassive in Matses. Studies in Language30(3): 551–73. 10.1075/sl.30.3.03fle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.30.3.03fle [Google Scholar]
  22. Forrest, Linda B.
    1994 The de-transitive clauses in Bella Coola: passive vs. inverse. InTalmy Givón (ed.) Voice and inversion, 147–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.28.09for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.28.09for [Google Scholar]
  23. Gildea, Spike & Fernando Zúñiga
    2016 Referential hierarchies: A new look at some historical and typological patterns. Linguistics54(3): 483–529. 10.1515/ling‑2016‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0007 [Google Scholar]
  24. Givón, Talmy
    1994a The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. InTalmy Givón (ed.) Voice and inversion, 65–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.28.03giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.28.03giv [Google Scholar]
  25. ed. 1994bVoice and inversion, vol.28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.28 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2001Syntax: An introduction, 2nd edn., vol.2. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Haude, Katharina & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    2016 Referential hierarchies and alignment: An overview. Linguistics54(3): 433–41. 10.1515/ling‑2016‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0008 [Google Scholar]
  28. Heath, Jeffrey
    1991 Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. InFrans Plank (ed.) Paradigms: the economy of inflection, 75–89. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110889109.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889109.75 [Google Scholar]
  29. 1998 Pragmatic skewing in 1↔2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics64(2): 83–104. 10.1086/466351
    https://doi.org/10.1086/466351 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56(2): 251–99. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jacques, Guillaume & Anton Antonov
    2014 Direct/inverse systems. Language and Linguistics Compass8(7): 301–18. 10.1111/lnc3.12079
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12079 [Google Scholar]
  32. Keen, Sandra
    1972 A description of the Yukulta language – an Australian Aboriginal language of North-West Queensland. M. A. thesis, Melbourne: Monash University.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1983 Yukulta. InR. M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.) Handbook of Australian Languages, 3:190–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Klaiman, Miriam H.
    1991Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Konnerth, Linda
    . forthcoming. On the phylogenetic status of the northwestern subbranch of South-Central (‘Kuki-Chin’): A case study in historical phonology. InToni Huber, Stephen Morey, & Mark W. Post eds. Ethno-Linguistic Prehistory of the Eastern Himalayas. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Konnerth, Linda & Koninglee Wanglar
    2019 Person indexation in Monsang from a diachronic perspective. Himalayan Linguistics18(1). 10.5070/H918142775
    https://doi.org/10.5070/H918142775 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mang, Kee Shein
    2006 A syntactic and pragmatic description of verb stem alternation in K’Chò, a Chin language. M.A. thesis, Chiang Mai, Thailand: Payap University.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Michailovsky, Boyd
    2001 Limbu nous autres and 1st person morphology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area24(1): 145–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Mithun, Marianne
    1996 New directions in referentiality. InBarbara Fox (ed.) Studies in Anaphora, 33: 413–35. Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.13mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.13mit [Google Scholar]
  40. 2007 Integrating approaches to diversity: Argument structure on the NW Coast. InYoshiko Matsumoto, David Y. Oshima, Orrin R. Robinson, and Peter Sells (eds.) Diversity in language: perspectives and implications, 9–36. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2012 Core argument patterns and deep genetic relations. InBernard Comrie (ed.) Argument structure and grammatical relations: a crosslinguistic typology, 257–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.126.12mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.126.12mit [Google Scholar]
  42. Noonan, Michael
    1997 Versatile nominalizations. InJoan Bybee, John Haiman, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.) Essays on language function and language type. In honor ofT. Givón, 373–94. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.82.21noo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.21noo [Google Scholar]
  43. Ozerov, Pavel
    2019 Person indexation in Anal. Himalayan Linguistics18(1): 26–53. 10.5070/H918142426
    https://doi.org/10.5070/H918142426 [Google Scholar]
  44. Peterson, David A.
    2003 Agreement and grammatical relations in Hyow. InDavid Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky, & Graham Thurgood (eds.) Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 173–83. Canberra, Australian National University: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Polinsky, Maria
    2017 Antipassive. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam, & Lisa D. Travis (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Round, Erich R.
    2017The Tangkic languages of Australia: Phonology and morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. linguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-159
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Sansò, Andrea
    2017 Where do antipassive constructions come from? A study in diachronic typology. Diachronica34(2): 175–218. 10.1075/dia.34.2.02san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.34.2.02san [Google Scholar]
  48. Siewierska, Anna & Maria Papastathi
    2011 Towards a typology of third person plural impersonals. Linguistics49(3): 575–610. 10.1515/ling.2011.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.018 [Google Scholar]
  49. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. InR. M. W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–71. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Thompson, Chad
    1994 Passive and inverse constructions. InTalmy Givón (ed.) Voice and inversion, 28: 47–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.28.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.28.05tho [Google Scholar]
  51. Zúñiga, Fernando
    2006Deixis and alignment: Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.70 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error