1887
Volume 40, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

It is widely recognized that Khamti Shan is unique among Tai languages in evidencing a basic (A)OV word order, quite likely due to extensive language contact with Tibeto-Burman languages. Much less recognized in Khamti Shan is that some functional objects take a postposition marker, revealing a striking, but not necessarily unexpected, resemblance to a Tibeto-Burman-like anti-ergative construction. The deictic ‘here’ grammaticalizes an anti-ergative function in which it acts as a marker for certain monotransitive ‘objects’ which are analyzed as pragmatically foregrounded referents in the information structure of the sentence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.17001.ing
2018-04-05
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andrews, Avery D.
    2007[1985] The major functions of the noun phrase. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol.I: Clause Structure, 2nd edn, 132–223. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.003 [Google Scholar]
  2. Blansitt, Edward
    1988 Datives and allatives. In Michael Hammond , Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 17], 173–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.17.14bla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.17.14bla [Google Scholar]
  3. Chamberlain, James R.
    1975 A new look at the history and classification of the Tai languages. In Jimmy G. Harris & James R. Chamberlain (eds), Studies in Tai Linguistics in Honor of William J. Gedney, 49–66. Bangkok: Central Institute of English Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cheng, Lisa L. & Rint Sybesma
    1998 On dummy objects and the transitivity of run. In Renée van Bezooijen & Rene Kager (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands, Vol.15, 81–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, Eve V.
    1978 Locationals: A study of ‘existential,’ ‘locative,’ and ‘possessive’ sentences. Universals of Human Language, Vol4: Syntax, 85–126. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Coupe, Alexander R.
    2017 On the diachronic origins of converbs in Tibeto-Burman and beyond. In Picus Ding & Jamin Pelkey (eds), Sociohistorical Linguistics in Southeast Asia: New Horizons for Tibeto-Burman Studies in Honor of David Bradley, 210–237. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004350519_013
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004350519_013 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
    2011Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511993473
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511993473 [Google Scholar]
  8. Diessel, Holger
    1999Demonstratives: Forms, Function, and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2006 Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics17(4): 463–489. doi: 10.1515/COG.2006.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  10. Diller, Anthony
    1992 Tai languages in Assam: daughters or ghosts?In Carol J. Compton & John F. Hartmann (eds), Papers on Tai Languages, Linguistics and Literatures: In Honor of William J. Gedney on his 77th Birthday, 5–43. DeKallb, IL: Center for Southeast Asian Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Diller, Anthony , Jerold A. Edmondson & Yongshian Luo
    (eds) 2008The Tai-Kadai Languages. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dockum, Rikker
    2014 A tale of two Khamtis: Language classification in Southwestern Tai. SYNC 2014. Stony Brook University.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dryer, Matthew S.
    2007 Clause types. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, VolI: Clause Structure, 224–275. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.004 [Google Scholar]
  14. Edmondson, Jerold A.
    2008 Shan and other northern tier southwest Tai languages of Myanmar and China: Themes and variations. In Anthony Diller , Jerold A. Edmondson & Yongshian Luo (eds), The Tai-Kadai Languages, 184–206. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Edmondson, Jerold A. & David B. Solnit
    1997Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics & The University of Texas at Arlington.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Enfield, Nicholas J.
    2007A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110207538
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207538 [Google Scholar]
  17. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
    1991 The de dicto domain in language. In Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol.1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19], 219–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.19.1.11fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.11fra [Google Scholar]
  18. Frawley, William
    1992Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Genetti, Carol
    1991 From postposition to subordinator in Newari. In Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol.2: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19], 227–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.19.2.13gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.13gen [Google Scholar]
  20. 1997 Object relations and dative case in Dolakha Newari. Studies in Language21(1): 37–68. doi: 10.1075/sl.21.1.03gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21.1.03gen [Google Scholar]
  21. Givón, Talmy
    1979On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
    1995Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  23. Haspelmath, Martin
    1997From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbials in the World’s Languages. Munich: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heine, Bernd
    1990 The dative in Ik and Kanuri. In William Croft , Keith Denning & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Studies in Typology and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language 20], 129–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.20.09hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.20.09hei [Google Scholar]
  25. 1997aPossession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Gramaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511581908
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581908 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1997bCognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2011 The areal dimension of grammaticalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 291–301. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Inglis, Douglas
    2014 This here thing: Specifying morphemes an³, nai¹, and mai² in Tai Khamti reference-point constructions. PhD dissertation, University of Alberta.
  30. 2017 Myanmar-based Khamti Shan orthography. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society10(1): xlvii–lxi.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Janssen, Theo A. J. M.
    1995 Deixis from a cognitive point of view. In Ellen Contini-Morava & Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds), Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory, 245–270. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110907575.245
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907575.245 [Google Scholar]
  32. Karapurkar, Pushpa
    1976Kokborok Grammar [CIIL Grammar Series 3]. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  35. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1993 Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics4(1): 1–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2009Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  37. LaPolla, Randy J.
    1992 Anti-ergative marking in Tibeto-Burman. LTBA15(1): 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1994 Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman languages: Evidence of Sapir’s ‘Drift’. LTBA17(1): 61–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2004 On nominal relational morphology in Tibeto-Burman. In Fung-min Hsu , Ying-chin Lin , Chun-chih Lee , Jackson, T. -S. , Hsiu-fung Yang & Dah-an Ho (eds.), Studies on Sino-Tibetan Languages: Papers in Honor of Professor Hwang-cherng Gong on his Seventieth Birthday, 23–74. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lichtenberk, Frantisek
    2002 The possessive-benefactive connection. Oceanic Linguistics41(2): 439–412. doi: 10.1353/ol.2002.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2002.0008 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lyn, Shan Tieu
    2008 Complements in non-referential contexts: Comparing English and Chinese. Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–15. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Matisoff, James A.
    1973The Grammar of Lahu [University of California Publications in Linguistics 75]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mel’čuk, Igor
    2001Communicative Organization in Natural Language: The Semantic-communicative Structure of Sentences [Studies in Language Companion Series 57]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.57
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.57 [Google Scholar]
  44. Morey, Stephen
    2006 Constituent order change in the Tai languages of Assam. Linguistic Typology10(3): 327–367. doi: 10.1515/LINGTY.2006.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2011 Transitivity in Cholim Tangsa. Studies in Language35(3): 676–701. doi: 10.1075/sl.35.3.07mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.3.07mor [Google Scholar]
  46. Needham, Jack Francis
    1894Outline Grammar of the Khamti Language: As Spoken by the Khamtis Residing in the Neighborhood of Sadiya. Rangoon, Burma: Superintendent of Governement Printing.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Newman, John
    (ed.) 1996The Linguistics of Giving [Tyological Studies in Language 36]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 1998Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rice, Sally
    1992 Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 14), 89–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2005 Moving for thinking: The pervasiveness of motion imagery in ideation and emotion. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Alina Kwiatkowska (eds), Imagery in Language: Festschrift in Honour of Professor Ronald W. Langacker [Łódź Studies in Language 10], 343–359. Berlin: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata
    2007 Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology11(3): 451–514. doi: 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.031
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.031 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sankoff, Gillian
    2001 Linguistic outcomes of language contact. In Peter Trudgill , J. Chambers & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 638–668. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Simons, Gary F. , M. Paul Lewis & Charles D. Fennig
    (eds.) 2009Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 16th edn.Dallas, TX: SIL International. www.ethnologue.com/language/kht
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Timberlake, Alan
    1977 Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 141–177. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Wang, Y.
    1992 Discourse grounding: The morphosyntax of Mandarin direct objects. Proceedings of the 19th conference of the linguistic association of Canada and the United States (LACUS), 143–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Watters, David E.
    1973 Clause patterns in Kham. In Austin Hale (ed.), Clause, Sentence, and Discourse Patterns in Selected Languages of Nepal, I: General Approach, 39–202. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Weinreich, Uriel
    1968[1953]Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Wilaiwan, Khanittanan
    1986 Kamti Tai: from an SVO to an SOV Language. In B. H. Krishnamurti (ed.), South Asian Linguistics: Structure, Convergence, and Diglossia, 174–178. Delhi: Motilal Barnarsidas.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.17001.ing
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.17001.ing
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): anti-ergative , grammaticalization , language contact , Tai Khamti and Tibeto-Burman
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