1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language and Linguistics
  4. Volume 22, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Birhor (Birhoɽ) is a Kherwarian Munda language spoken in small enclaves in India, primarily in Hazaribagh, Ranchi, and Singhbhum districts and other small pockets in Jharkhand state. Birhor has to date been poorly documented, and even the basic properties of its core grammatical systems remain largely undescribed. All data used in this study come from field notes collected in several trips dating back to 2015. This paper is a preliminary attempt to identify the basic templatic structures of positive and negative finite conjugations in Birhor of both monovalent and polyvalent predicates. We discuss here two basic intersecting inflectional oppositions in the grammar of Birhor: (i) between perfective and imperfective tense-aspect forms (the imperfective includes imperfective and imperfect forms, and the perfective includes the past, the anterior and the perfect); and (ii) between monovalent predicates and polyvalent ones. Like all Kherwarian languages, Birhor has a nominative-accusative alignment of argument indexing and a complex templatic verb structure. It encodes subjects with monovalent stems. Polyvalent predicates encode two arguments, a first argument/syntactic subject and a second argument/syntactic ‘object’ following a primary object pattern. A complex array of different templates is thus found across positive and negative conjugations that contrast polyvalent vs. monovalent imperfective, perfective, and imperative forms. Many different formal templatic patterns are attested within each of the paradigmatic oppositional sets in Birhor. There are two formal subtypes of monovalent predicates. They contrast in both positive and negative conjugations, for both the imperfective and the perfective series of inflections. Polyvalent predicates also contrast the imperfective and the perfective series. Lastly, there are distinct templates for imperative and prohibitive of monovalent and polyvalent predicates as well.

© ILAS
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00076.and
2020-12-16
2024-09-15

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lali.00076.and
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lali.00076.and.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00076.and&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adhikary, Ashim Kumar
    1984 Society and world view of the Birhor (Memoir 60). Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India, Ministry of Education and Culture, Government of India.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Gregory D. S.
    2007 The Munda verb: Typological perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110924251
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924251 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2011 Auxiliary verb constructions (and other complex predicate types): A functional-constructional typology. Language and Linguistics Compass5(11). 795–828. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2011.00311.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00311.x [Google Scholar]
  4. 2015 Prosody, phonological domains and the structure of roots, stems and words in the Munda languages in a comparative/historical light. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics2(2). 163–183. 10.1515/jsall‑2015‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2015-0009 [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, Gregory D. S. & Jora, Bikram
    2018 Negation, TAM and person-indexing interdependencies in the Munda languages: A preliminary report. In Ring, Hiram & Rau, Felix (eds.), Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics (JSEALS Special Publication 3), 36–59. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson, Gregory D. S. & Zide, Norman H.
    2002 Issues in proto-Munda and proto-Austroasiatic nominal derivation: The Bimoraic Constraint. In Macken, Marlys A. (ed.), Papers from the 10th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 55–74. Tempe: Arizona State University, Southeast Asian Studies Program.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1962 The Menomini language. New Haven: Yale University.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bodding, Paul Olaf
    1929 Santal grammar for beginners. Dumka: Santal Mission of Northern Churches.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Dahlstrom, Amy
    1993 The syntax of discourse functions in Fox. In Peterson, David A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session on Syntactic Issues in Native American Languages, 11–21. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 1995 Topic, focus, and word order problems in Algonquian (The Belcourt Lectures). Winnipeg: Voices of Rupert’s Land.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dash, Jagannatha
    1998 Human ecology of foragers. A study of Khariā (Savara), Ujiā (Savara) and Birhor in Similipāl Hills. New Delhi: Commonwealth.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dryer, Matthew S.
    1986 Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language62(4). 808–845. 10.2307/415173
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415173 [Google Scholar]
  13. Epps, Patience
    2008 A grammar of Hup. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199079
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199079 [Google Scholar]
  14. Firdos, Sohel
    2005 Forest degradation, changing workforce structure and population redistribution: The case of Birhors in Jharkhand. Economic and Political Weekly40(8). 773–778.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ghosh, Arun
    1994 Santali: A look into Santal morphology. New Delhi: Gyan Pub. House.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2008 Santali. In Anderson, Gregory D. S. (ed.), The Munda languages, 11–98. Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Good, Jeff C.
    2003 Strong linearity: Three case studies towards a theory of morphosyntactic templatic constructions. Berkeley: UC Berkeley. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2005 Reconstructing morpheme order in Bantu: The case of causativization and applicativization. Diachronica22(1). 3–57. 10.1075/dia.22.1.02goo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22.1.02goo [Google Scholar]
  19. 2007 Strong linearity, weak linearity, and the typology of templates. In Miestamo, Matti & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), New challenges in typology: Broadening the horizons and redefining the foundations, 11–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 2011 The typology of templates. Language and Linguistics Compass5(10). 731–747. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2011.00306.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00306.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Grierson, George A.
    (ed.) 1906 Linguistic survey of India, volume IV: Munda and Dravidian languages. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hyman, Larry M.
    2003 Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2002, 245–281. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/0‑306‑48223‑1_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48223-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  23. Inkelas, Sharon
    1993 Nimboran position class morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory11(4). 559–624. 10.1007/BF00993014
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993014 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kari, James
    1989 Affix positions and zones in the Athapaskan verb. International Journal of American Linguistics55(4). 424–454. 10.1086/466129
     https://doi.org/10.1086/466129 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kiran, Savita & Peterson, John M.
    2010 Sadani/Sadri language. (English version of Russian text it appears based on side by side comparison.) (www.southasiabibliography.de/uploads/Sadri.pdf) (Accessed2015-06-15.)
  26. 2011 Sadani/Sadri jazyk (Sadani/Sadri language). In Oranskaja, T. I. , Mazurov, Ju. V. , Kibrik, A. A. , Kulikov, L. I. & Rusakov, A Ju . (eds.) Jayki Mira: Novye indoarijskie jazyki–Languages of the world: New Indo-Aryan languages, 367–379. RAN Institut Jazykoznanija. Moscow: Akademija.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kumar, Sudhir
    2004 The Birhors of Chotanagpur region (A study in tribal geography). New Delhi: Rajesh Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lounsbury, Floyd G.
    1953 Oneida verb morphology. New Haven: Yale University.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Maganga, Clement & Schadeberg, Thilo
    1992 Kinyamwezi: Grammar, texts, vocabulary (East African Languages and Dialects 1). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. McLendon, Sally
    1975 A grammar of Eastern Pomo. Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mishra, Ramesh Chandra & Sinha, Durganand & Berry, John Widdup
    1996 Ecology, acculturation and psychological adaptation: A study of adivasis in Bihar. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mukherjee, Mohua
    2000 The Birhor towards the next millennium: Glimpses of a primitive tribal group at Kodarma in Bihar. Howrah: Sujan Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Muysken, Pieter
    1988 Affix order and interpretation: Quechua. In Everaert, Martin & Evers, Arnold & Huybregts, Riny & Trommelen, Mieke (eds.), Morphology and modularity: In honour of Henk Schultink, 259–279. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110882674‑015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110882674-015 [Google Scholar]
  34. Neukom, Lukas
    2001 Santali (Languages of the World/Materials 323). München: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Nordlinger, Rachel
    2010 Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for templates. Morphology20(2). 321–341. 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9184‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9184-z [Google Scholar]
  36. Osada, Toshiki
    1993 Field notes on Birhor. In Nara, Tsuyoshi (ed.), A computer-assisted study of South-Asian languages, 30–40. Tokyo: ILCAA.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Ota, A. B. & Sahoo, Trilochan
    2010 The Birhor. Bhubaneswar: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute (SCSTRTI).
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Roy, Sarat Chandra
    1925 The Birhors: A little-known jungle tribe of Chota Nagpur. Ranchi: G. E. L. Mission Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Sahu, Chaturbhuj
    1995 Birhor tribe: Dimensions of development. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Sarkar, Sangita
    2012 Birhor: A sociolinguistic study of language endangerment. (Manuscript.)
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Vajda, Edward
    2004 Ket. München: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00076.and
Loading
Introduction to the templatic verb morphology of Birhor (Birhoɽ), a Kherwarian Munda language
Language and Linguistics 22, 1 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00076.and
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00076.and
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00076.and
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Birhor language; morphosyntax; Munda languages; templatic morphology; typology; verbs

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