1887
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2452-1949
  • E-ISSN: 2452-2147
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Gurindji Kriol, a mixed language spoken in northern Australia, combines a Kriol VP with a Gurindji NP, including case suffixes ( Meakins 2011a ). The Gurindji-derived case suffixes have undergone a number of changes in Gurindji Kriol, for example the ergative suffix - now marks nominative case ( Meakins 2011b , 2015 ). This study explores a new innovation in case morphology among Gurindji Kriol-speaking children: the use of -/ to mark possessors as well as subjects, i.e. the emergence of a relative case system. Although rare in Australian languages, syncretism between agents and possessors is not uncommon cross-linguistically, reported in Caucasian Eskimo-Aleut, Mixe-Zoquean and Yucatecan-Mayan languages ( Allen 1964 ; Blake 1994 ; Palancar 2002 ). In the case of Gurindji Kriol, the relative case system found its origins in allomorphic reduction which led to syncretism between ergative and dative case forms. This syncretism was shaped by the syntactic grouping of subjects and possessors as dependents of verbs and possessums, respectively. Although partial syncretism between ergative and dative case is not unusual in Australian languages historically, it has gone to completion in Gurindji Kriol and can be observed in two other instances of rapid linguistic change in Australia: Ngiyambaa ( Donaldson 1980 ) and Dyirbal ( Schmidt 1985 ). The re-organisation of the case system can be traced back to a small group of second-generation Gurindji Kriol speakers at Nitjpurru (Pigeon Hole) and this change has since been transmitted laterally through familial connections to other children at Daguragu. There are also indications that it has begun propagating to other children at Kalkaringi and is now being acquired by the next generation of Gurindji Kriol speakers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/le.1.1.02van
2017-06-29
2019-10-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allen, W. S.
    1964 Transitivity and possession. Language40(3): 337–343. doi: 10.2307/411499
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411499 [Google Scholar]
  2. Berry, R. and J. Hudson
    1997Making the Jump: A Resource Book for Teachers of Aboriginal Students. Broome: Catholic Education Office, Kimberley Region.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blake, B.
    1977Case-marking in Australian Languages. Canberra: AIAS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1994Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowern, C.
    2012A Grammar of Bardi. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110278187
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110278187 [Google Scholar]
  6. Campbell, L. and M.C. Muntzel
    1989 The structural consequences of language death. In N.C. Dorian , ed.Investigating Obsolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 181–196. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620997.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620997.016 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chappell, H. and W.B. McGregor
    1996The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110822137
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822137 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dench, A.
    2001 Descent and diffusion: The complexity of the Pilbara situation. In A.Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon , eds.Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 122–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Disbray, S. and J. Simpson
    2005 The expression of possessive in Wumpurrarni English, Tennant Creek. Monash University Linguistics Papers4(2): 65–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dixon, R.M.W.
    1972The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139084987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084987 [Google Scholar]
  11. 1980The Languages of Australia. London: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  13. Donaldson, T.
    1980Ngiyambaa: The Language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dorian, N.
    1978 The fate of morphological complexity in language death: Evidence from East Sutherland Gaelic. Language54(3): 590–609. doi: 10.1353/lan.1978.0024
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1978.0024 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gal, S.
    1989 Lexical innovation and loss: Restricted Hungarian. In N. Dorian , ed.Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 313–331. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620997.024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620997.024 [Google Scholar]
  16. Handschuh, C.
    2015A Typology of Marked-S Languages. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Heine, B.
    1997Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge, U.K.; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511581908
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581908 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hercus, L.A.
    2005 The influence of English on possessive systems as shown in two Aboriginal languages, Arabana (northern SA) and Paakantyi (Darling River, NSW). Monash University Papers4(2): 29–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hofling, C.A.
    1990 Possession and ergativity in Itzà Maya. International Journal of American Linguistics56(4): 542–560. doi: 10.1086/466174
    https://doi.org/10.1086/466174 [Google Scholar]
  20. Huffines, M.L.
    1989 Case usage among the Pennsylvania German sectarians and nonsectarians. In N. Dorian , ed.Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 211–226. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620997.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620997.018 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jaggar, P.J.
    2001Hausa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/loall.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.7 [Google Scholar]
  22. Janse, M. and S. Tol
    eds. 2003Language Death and Language Maintenance: Theoretical, Practical and Descriptive Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.240
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.240 [Google Scholar]
  23. Langlois, A.
    2004Alive and Kicking: Areyonga Teenage Pitjantjatjara. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lehmann, C.
    1995Thoughts on Grammaticalization. München: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Matras, Y.
    2007 The borrowability of structural categories. In Y. Matras and J. Sakel , eds.Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 31–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. McConvell, P.
    1988 Nasal cluster dissimilation and constraints on phonological variables in Gurindji and related languages. Aboriginal Linguistics1: 135–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Meakins, F.
    2009 The case of the shifty ergative marker: A pragmatic shift in the ergative marker in one Australian mixed language. In J. Barddal and S. Chelliah , eds.The Role of Semantics and Pragmatics in the Development of Case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 59–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2011a Borrowing contextual inflection: Evidence from northern Australia. Morphology21(1): 57–87. doi: 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9163‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9163-4 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2011bCase Marking in Contact: The Development and Function of Case Morphology in Gurindji Kriol. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cll.39
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.39 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2015 From absolutely optional to only nominally ergative: The life cycle of the Gurindji Kriol ergative suffix. In F. Gardani , P. Arkadiev and N. Amiridze , eds.Borrowed Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 189–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2016 No fixed address: The grammaticalisation of the Gurindji locative as a progressive suffix. In F. Meakins and C. O'Shannessy , eds.Loss and Renewal: Australian Languages Since Colonisation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 128–161. doi: 10.1515/9781614518792‑018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614518792-018 [Google Scholar]
  32. Meakins, F. , P. McConvell , E. Charola , N. McNair , H. McNair , and L. Campbell
    2013Gurindji to English Dictionary. Batchelor, Australia: Batchelor Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Meakins, F. and C. O'Shannessy
    2005 Possessing variation: Age and inalienability related variables in the possessive constructions of two Australian mixed languages. Monash University Linguistics Papers4(2): 43–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2010 Ordering arguments about: Word order and discourse motivations in the development and use of the ergative marker in two Australian mixed languages. Lingua120(7): 1693–1713. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  35. Musgrave, S.
    2005 Language contact, hybrids and new varieties: Emergent possessive constructions. Introduction to special volume. Monash University Papers4(2): 3–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Nordlinger, R.
    1998A Grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. O'Shannessy, C.
    2004The Monster Stories: Picture Stimulii to Elicit Lexical Subject NPs. Nijmegen, Holland: Max-Planck-Institut-für-Psycholinguistik.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Palancar, E.
    2002The Origin of Agent Markers. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. doi: 10.1524/9783050081410
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050081410 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pensalfini, R.
    2003A Grammar of Jingulu, an Aboriginal Language of the Northern Territory. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schmidt, A.
    1985Young People's Dyirbal: An Example of Language Death from Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Taylor, J.R.
    2001Possessives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Trask, R.L.
    1979 On the origins of ergativity. In F. Plank , ed.Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press. 385–404.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Watkins, C.
    2001 An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the comparative method. In A.Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon , eds.Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 61–80.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/le.1.1.02van
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/le.1.1.02van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): case system , child language , children’s agency , Gurindji Kriol , language change and language contact
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