Volume 40, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Pragmatic agentivity is widespread in the Tibeto-Burman family. Some analyses suggest that its main purpose is to mark the agent in structurally ambiguous clauses, such as those in which agents and patients share the same degree of animacy or where the patient is absent due to zero anaphora. Others question the role of disambiguation, pointing out that it is often superfluous or inconsistent in resolving the agent role and thus likely not the primary purpose. Instead, disambiguation is seen as an outcome of highlighting agency, volition or choice. Exploring the multiple discourse functions of the agent marker in Khatso (Burmese-Ngwi; Yunnan, China), this paper shows that disambiguation is the primary motivation for marking agents, a feature that becomes more important in newer functions. This analysis builds on previous studies and broadens our understanding of the phenomenon in the Tibeto-Burman family.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bisang, Walter
    2009 On the evolution of complexity: Sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Geoffrey Sampson , David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, 34–49. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chelliah, Shobhana L.
    2001 The role of text collection and elicitation in linguistic fieldwork. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic Fieldwork, 152–165. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511810206.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.008 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chelliah, Shobhana L. & Gwendolyn Hyslop
    2011 Introduction to special issue on optional case marking in Tibeto-Burman. LTBA34: 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Coupe, Alexander R.
    2011 On core case marking patterns in two Tibeto-Burman languages of Nagaland. LTBA34: 21–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DeLancey, Scott
    2011 “Optional” “Ergativity” in Tibeto-Burman languages. LTBA34: 9–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    1979 Ergativity. Language55: 59–138. doi: 10.2307/412519
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  7. Donlay, Chris
    2014 The pragmatic agent marker in Khatso. Paper presented atthe 46th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Kunming, China, October 17, 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2015 A functional grammar of Khatso. PhD dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara.
  9. Du Bois, John W.
    1987 The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63: 805–855. doi: 10.2307/415719
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2013 Representing discourse. Ms, University of California at Santa Barbara.
  11. Gerner, Matthias
    2013A Grammar of Nuosu. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110308679
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110308679 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gil, David
    2004 Riau Indonesian sama: Explorations in macrofunctionality. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 58], 371–426. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.58.20gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.58.20gil [Google Scholar]
  13. Haspelmath, Martin
    2004 Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 58], 3–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.58.03has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.58.03has [Google Scholar]
  14. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2004World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hopper, Paul J.
    1991 On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19], 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  16. Huang, Chun
    2009Mengguzu jianshi (Concise history of Mongolians). Kunming: Yunnan Renmin Chubanshe.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hyslop, Gwendolyn
    2010 Kurtöp case: The pragmatic ergative and beyond. LTBA33: 1–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jenny, Mathias & San San Hnin Tun
    2013 Differential subject marking in Burmese. Studies in Language37: 693–735. doi: 10.1075/sl.37.4.01jen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.4.01jen [Google Scholar]
  19. LaPolla, Randy J.
    1993 Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology63: 759–813.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1995 ‘Ergative’ marking in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi , James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New Horizons in Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax, 189–228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lewis, M. Paul , Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig
    (eds.) 2013Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 17th edn.Dallas, TX: SIL International. www.ethnologue.com
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lidz, Liberty
    2011 Agentive marking in Yongning Na (Mosuo). LTBA34: 49–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. McGregor, William B.
    2006 Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua116: 393–423. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2009 Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass3: 480–508. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00118.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00118.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Morey, Stephen
    2012 The Singpho agentive–functions and meanings. LTBA35: 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Moseley, Christopher
    (ed.) 2010Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mu, Shihua
    2002Kazhuoyu yanjiu (A study of Kazhuo). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ozerov, Pavel
    2014 The system of information packaging in colloquial Burmese. PhD dissertation, La Trobe University.
  29. Peterson, David A.
    2011 Core participant marking in Khumi. LTBA34: 73–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sawada, Hideo
    2012 Optional marking of NPs with core case functions: P and A in Lhaovo. LTBA35: 15–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Stassen, Leon
    2000  and-languages and with-languages. Linguistic Typology4: 1–54. doi: 10.1515/lity.2000.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2000.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  33. Suzuki, Hiroyuki
    2012 Ergative marking in Nyagrong-Minyag (Xinlong, Sichuan). LTBA35: 35–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Teo, Amos
    2012 Sumi agentive and topic markers: no and ye . LTBA35: 49–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Tonghaixian Xingmengxiang 2010 nian tongji nianjian (Tonghai County Xingmeng Village 2010 Statistical Yearbook. Xingmeng: Tonghaixian Xingmengxiang Tongjizhan.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Tournadre, Nicolas
    1991 The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. LTBA14: 93–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Willis, Christina M.
    2011 Optional case marking in Darma (Tibeto-Burman)LTBA34: 101–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Zeisler, Bettina
    2012 Practical issues of pragmatic case marking variations in the Kenhat varieties of Ladakh. LTBA35: 75–106.
    [Google Scholar]
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