1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Diachronica
  4. Volume 41, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 41, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates the grammaticalization and subsequent pragmaticization of an applicative construction in Tibetic. Based on linguistic data ranging from the 8th century to modern times, we show how successive linguistic changes link a verb phrase originally meaning ‘to act as a companion (of sb.)’ to an imperative marker, through an applicative construction. Despite the scarcity of data, we document the different stages of evolution of this particular construction: the lexicalization of a verb phrase; its grammaticalization into a sociative-benefactive applicative marker; the pragmaticization of particular use patterns of this applicative construction into markers of complaints, wishes and commands; and eventually a secondary grammaticalization into an imperative marker. As they developed, most of these stages have been retained in the modern Tibetic languages and co-exist with lexicalized units based on the same morphological material. Our analysis adds to the recently discussed cross-linguistic data by demonstrating that applicative markers can directly grammaticalize from nouns without an intermediate stage of noun incorporation or adposition. We also show that the range of functions taken over by this construction in synchrony can only be understood by referring to its diachronic evolution.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23035.bia
2024-11-05
2024-12-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dia.23035.bia
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/dia.23035.bia.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23035.bia&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. BDRC = The Buddhist Digital Resource Center
    BDRC = The Buddhist Digital Resource Center; https://library.bdrc.io/
  2. BDSN = Brda gsar rñiṅ gi rnam par dbye ba of Dbus-pa Blo-gsal
    BDSN = Brda gsar rñiṅ gi rnam par dbye ba of Dbus-pa Blo-gsal (apud Mimaki 1992)
  3. Betholia, Chandam
    2005 Politeness and power: An analysis of Meiteilon suffixes. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area28(1). 71–87. 10.32655/LTBA.28.1.03
     https://doi.org/10.32655/LTBA.28.1.03 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bialek, Joanna
    2020a Old Tibetan verb morphology and semantics: An attempt at a reconstruction. Himalayan Linguistics19(1). 263–346. 10.5070/H919145017
     https://doi.org/10.5070/H919145017 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2020b Towards a standardisation of Tibetan transliteration for textual studies. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines561. 28–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2021 Naming the empire: From Bod to Tibet. A philologico-historical study on the origin of the polity. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines611. 339–402.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 2022 A textbook in Classical Tibetan. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2023 Emergence of the honorific register in Tibetic languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area46(2). 294–331. 10.1075/ltba.23010.bia
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.23010.bia [Google Scholar]
  9. Bielmeier, Roland, Katrin Häsler, Chungda Haller, Felix Haller, Veronika Hein, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, inter alia and Marius Zemp
    2018 Comparative dictionary of Tibetan dialects (CDTD), vol.21: Verbs. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110554076
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110554076 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bodt, Timotheus Adrianus
    2023 East Bodish revisited. Bulletin of Tibetology54(1). 49–212.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bosse, Solveig, Benjamin Bruening and Masahiro Yamada
    2012 Affected experiencers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory30(4). 1185–1230. 10.1007/s11049‑012‑9177‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9177-1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bugaeva, Anna
    2010 Ainu applicatives in typological perspective. Studies in Language34(4). 749–801. 10.1075/sl.34.4.01bug
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.4.01bug [Google Scholar]
  13. Creissels, Denis
    2006 Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique, vol.21. Paris: Lavoisier.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. DeLancey, Scott
    2008 Kurtoep and Tibetan. InBrigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart and Paul Widmar (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 29–38. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dotson, Brandon
    2017 On “personal protective deities” (’go ba’i lha) and the Old Tibetan verb ’go. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies80(3). 525–545. 10.1017/S0041977X1700088X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X1700088X [Google Scholar]
  16. Driem, George van
    2012 The Trans-Himalayan phylum and its implications for population prehistory. Communication on Centemporary Anthropology51. 135–142.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. DSM = Bcan-lha Ṅag-dbaṅ Chul-khrims
    DSM = Bcan-lha Ṅag-dbaṅ Chul-khrims 1997 Brda dkrol gser gyi me loṅ [The golden mirror ellucidating signs]. Beijing: Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khaṅ.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gallica =BnF Gallica [Digital portal of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and its partners]
    Gallica =BnF Gallica [Digital portal of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and its partners]https://gallica.bnf.fr (accessed03/08/2024)
  19. Gerdts, Donna B., and Mercedes Q. Hinkson
    2004 The grammaticalization of Halkomelem ‘face’ into a dative applicative suffix. International Journal of American Linguistics70(3). 227–250. 10.1086/425600
     https://doi.org/10.1086/425600 [Google Scholar]
  20. GLR = Bsod-nams Rgyal-mchan
    GLR = Bsod-nams Rgyal-mchan 1750–60 [1368] Rgyal rabs gsal baɣi me loṅ [The Mirror illuminating the royal genealogies]. edited byBla-ma čhen-po Kun-dgaɣ Ɣphrin-las Rgya-mcho. Sde-dge.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gong, Xun
    2020 How many vowels are there in Lhasa Tibetan?Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area43(2). 225–254. 10.1075/ltba.19004.gon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.19004.gon [Google Scholar]
  22. Heine, Bernd
    2003 Grammaticalization. InBrian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch18
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch18 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heine, Bernd and Mechthild Reh
    1984 Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hill, Nathan W.
    2019 The historical phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316550939
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316550939 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hopper, Paul J.
    1991 On some principles of grammaticization. InElizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  26. Hugjiltu, W.
    2003 Bonan. InJuha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 325–345. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. IDP = International Dunhuang Project
    IDP = International Dunhuang Project; idp.bl.uk/ (accessed03/08/2024).
  28. Jacques, Guillaume
    2013 Applicative and tropative derivations in Japhug Rgyalrong. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area36(2). 1–13. 10.32655/LTBA.36.2.01
     https://doi.org/10.32655/LTBA.36.2.01 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2021 A grammar of Japhug. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Jong, Jan Willem de
    1959 Mi la ras paʼi rnam thar: Texte tibétain de la vie de Milarépa. The Hague: Mouton & Co. 10.1515/9783112313008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112313008 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1989 The story of Rāma in Tibet: Text and translation of the Tun-huang manuscripts. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog, and Seongha Rhee
    (eds.) 2019 World lexicon of grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316479704
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316479704 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lazard, Gilbert
    1994 L’actance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Michailovsky, Boyd and Martine Mazaudon
    1994 Preliminary notes on the languages of the Bumthang group. InPer Kværne (ed.), Tibetan Studies, Proceedings of the 6th seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes 1992, 545–557. Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mimaki, Katsumi
    1992 Index to two brDa gsar rñiṅ treatises. The works of dBus pa blo gsal and lCaṅ skya Rol pa’i rdo rje. 成田山仏教研究所紀要 (Bulletin of the Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies) 15(2). 479–503.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. ML = Mi-la Ras-pa’s Rnam thar, apud de Jong
    ML = Mi-la Ras-pa’s Rnam thar, apud de Jong 1959.
  37. Nordlinger, Rachel
    2019 From body part to applicative: Encoding ‘source’ in Murrinhpatha. Linguistic Typology23(3). 401–433. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0023
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0023 [Google Scholar]
  38. Nugteren, Hans
    2003 Shira Yughur. InJuha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 265–285. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Oisel, Guillaume
    2017 Re-evaluation of the of the evidential system of Lhasa Tibetan and its atypical functions. Himalayan Linguistics16(2). 90–128.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. OTDO = Old Tibetan Documents Online
    OTDO = Old Tibetan Documents Online; https://otdo.aa-ken.jp/
  41. Pacchiarotti, Sara and Fernando Zúñiga
    (eds.) 2022 Applicative morphology: Neglected syntactic and non-syntactic functions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110777949
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110777949 [Google Scholar]
  42. Padma Rdorje
    (eds.) 2005 [1979] དག་ཡིག་གསར་བསྒྲིགས།Dag yig gsar bsgrigs [New compilation of orthography]. Xining: མཚོ་སྔོན་མི་རིགས་དཔེ་སྐྲུན་ཁན།Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Peterson, David A.
    2007 Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Polinsky, Maria
    2013 Applicative constructions. InMatthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.info
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Róna-Tas, András
    1966 Tibeto-Mongolica: The Tibetan loanwords of Monguor and the development of the archaic Tibetan dialects. London: Mouton & Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 1985 Wiener Vorlesungen zur Sprach — und Kulturgeschichte Tibets. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Rose, Françoise
    2019 From classifiers to applicatives in Mojeño Trinitario: A new source for applicative markers. Linguistic Typology23(3). 435–466. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0024 [Google Scholar]
  48. Simon, Camille
    2011 Dérivation causative en tibétain (Lhasa). Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2014 ལྷ་སའི་ཁ་སྐད་ནང་སྐུལ་འདེབས་ཀྱི་ངག་སྟོན་པའི་རྗོད་སྟངས་ཀྱི་ཁྱད་ཆོས་འགའ་ཤས་ངོ་སྤྲོད། [Some semantic properties of causative expressions in Tibetan]. Kobe City University of Foreign Studies Journal of Research Institute511. 489–503.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 2016 Morphosyntaxe et sémantique grammaticale du salar et du tibétain de l’Amdo. Analyse d’un contact de langues. Paris: Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle dissertation. https://www.theses.fr/2016USPCA124
  51. 2022 The sociative/benefactive applicative construction and the introduction of attitude holders in Tibetan. InSara Pacchiarotti and Fernando Zuñiga (eds.), Applicative morphology: Neglected syntactic and non-syntactic functions, 373–404. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110777949‑013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110777949-013 [Google Scholar]
  52. Slater, Keith
    2003 A grammar of Mangghuer: A Mongolic language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Sun, Jackson T.-S.
    2003 Phonological profile of Zhongu: A new Tibetan dialect of Northern Sichuan. Language and Linguistics4(4). 769–836.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Thomas, Frederick William
    1957 Ancient folk-literature from North-Eastern Tibet. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Tournadre, Nicolas
    1996 L’ergativité en tibétain, approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2009 Core grammatical roles in Tibetan, with special reference to their syntactic behaviour in subordinate clauses. Paper given atTübingen Universität, January 2009.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 2014 The Tibetic languages and their classification. InThomas Owen-Smith and Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area, 105–129. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Tournadre, Nicolas and Hiroyuki Suzuki
    2023 The Tibetic languages: An introduction to the family of languages derived from Old Tibetan. Villejuif, France: Lacito Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Uray, Géza
    1954 Comptes-Rendus: Mathias HERMANNS. (1952). Tibetische Dialekte von A mdo. Anthropos, 47(1–2). 193–202. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae41. 308–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Zeisler, Bettina
    2007 Case patterns and pattern variation in Ladakhi. InRoland Bielmeyer and Felix Haller (eds.), Linguistics of the Himalayas and beyond, 399–426. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110968996.399
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110968996.399 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2019 Ambiguous verb sequences in Ladakhi (a Tibetic language spoken in Ladakh, India, formerly part of the state Jammu and Kashmir). InÉva Á. Csató, Lars Johanson and Birsel Karakoç (eds.), Ambiguous verb sequences in Transeurasian languages and beyond, 313–340. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 2021 Semantically related verb verb combinations in Tibetan and Ladakhi : 1300 years of stable transition. InTaro Kageyama, Peter E. Hook and Prashant Pardeshi (eds.), Verb-verb complexes in Asian languages, 354–394. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198759508.003.0014
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759508.003.0014 [Google Scholar]
  63. Zemp, Marius
    2018 A grammar of Purik Tibetan. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004366312
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004366312 [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhang, Shuya
    2020 Le dialecte de Brag-bar du rgyalrong situ et sa contribution à la typologie de l’expression des relations spatiales : Le mouvement associé et l’orientation. Paris: Institut national des languaes et civilisations oritentales (INALCO) dissertation.
  65. Zhuang, Lingzi
    2022 GL-impsing Bodish: Agentive transitivization prefix g- in Tamangic and Tibetan. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale51(2). 139–174. 10.1163/19606028‑bja10024
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19606028-bja10024 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23035.bia
Loading
The cycle of applicative in Tibetic
Diachronica 41, 437 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.23035.bia
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23035.bia
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23035.bia
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): applicative voice; benefactive; diachronic syntax; grammaticalization; imperative marker; lexicalization; noun incorporation; pragmaticization; secondary grammaticalization; sociative; Tibetic languages; “attitude holder”

Most Cited

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