1887
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The present paper describes a transitivity distinction that is attested in some Tibeto-Burman (TB) languages of the West Himalayish (WH) subgroup. The relevant distinction is encoded by a set of dedicated markers that occur between verb stems and inflectional endings and group verbs into transitivity classes. The paper first offers a synchronic description of transitivity classes in the WH language Bunan, discussing their formal realization and functional motivation. Subsequently, the relevant transitivity classes are discussed from a historical-comparative perspective. It is argued that the transitivity distinction developed when an object agreement marker was reanalyzed as a marker of transitive verbs. The paper thus offers new perspectives on transitivity in TB from both a synchronic and a diacronic point of view, and adduces evidence for a hitherto underscribed reanalysis from “object agreement marker” > “marker of transitive verbs”.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.17011.wid
2018-07-20
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bailey, Thomas G.
    1909A brief grammar of the Kanauri language. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft63, 661–687.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benedict, Paul K.
    1972Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus (Princeton-Cambridge Studies in Chinese Linguistics 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511753541
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753541 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bradley, David
    1997 Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In David Bradley (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas (Papers in South East Asian linguistics, 14), 1–71. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beyer, Stephan V.
    1992The classical Tibetan language. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Croft, William
    2000Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach (Longman Linguistics Library). Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2012Verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DeLancey, Scott
    2011 Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Foong, Ha Yap , Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: diachronic and typological perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 96), 343–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.96.12del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.96.12del [Google Scholar]
  8. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    1979 Ergativity. Language55(1): 59–138.10.2307/412519
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010Basic linguistic theory, volume II: grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Francke, August H.
    1909 Tabellen der Pronomina und Verba in den drei Sprachen Lahoul’s: Bunan, Manchad und Tinan. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft63. 65–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Genetti, Carol
    2007A grammar of Dolakha Newar (Mouton Grammar Library 40). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198812
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198812 [Google Scholar]
  12. Givón, Talmy
    2001Syntax: an introduction, 2vols., rev. edn.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Grierson, George A.
    (ed.) 1909Tibeto-Burman family, part I: general introduction, specimens of the Tibetan dialects, the Himalayan dialects, and the North Assam group (Linguistic Survey of India 3). Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56(2): 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  15. Huber, Christian
    2011Some notes on gender and number marking in Shumcho. In: Gerda Lechleitner & Christian Liebl (eds.), Jahrbuch des Phonogrammarchivs der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften2, 52–90. Göttingen: Cuvillier.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2014 Subject and object agreement in Shumcho. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics: historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 266), 221–274. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jacques, Guillaume
    2004Phonologie et morphologie du Japhug (rGyalrong). Paris: University of Paris VII – Denis Diderot dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kemmer, Suzanne
    1993The middle voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.23 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kittilä, Seppo
    2010 Transitivity typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 346–367. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Krishan, Shree
    2001 A sketch of Chaudangsi grammar. In Yasuhiko Nagano & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), New research on Zhangzhung and related Himalayan languages (Bon Studies 3 = Senri Ethnological Reports 19), 401–448. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. LaPolla, Randy J.
    2011 On transitivity in two Tibeto-Burman languages. Studies in Language35(3): 636–649.10.1075/sl.35.3.05lap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.3.05lap [Google Scholar]
  22. Matisoff, James A.
    2016The Sino-Tibetan etymological dictionary and thesaurus. Berkeley: The Regents of the University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Næss, Åshild
    2007Prototypical transitivity (Typological Studies in Language 72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.72
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.72 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2009 How transitive are EAT and DRINK verbs?In John Newman (ed.), The linguistics of eating and drinking (Typological Studies in Language 84), 27–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.84.03nae
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.84.03nae [Google Scholar]
  25. Nishi, Yoshio
    1991 Himarayashogo no bunpu to bunrui (II) [The distribution and classification of the Himalayan languages (II)], Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology16(1): 31–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Pons, Marie-Caroline
    2017Morphological evidence for “Raji-Raute” and its genetic position within Trans-Himalayan. Paper presented atthe Berner Zirkel für Sprachwissen-schaft, University of Bern, December 13.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Shafer, Robert
    1967Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sharma, Devidatta
    1989aStudies in Tibeto-Himalayan linguistics: a descriptive analysis of Paṭṭani (a dialect of Lahaul) (Panjab University Indological Series 28). Hoshiarpur: Vishveshvaranand Vishva Bandhu Institute of Sanskrit and Indological Studies, Panjab University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1989bTribal languages of Himachal Pradesh, part I (Studies in Tibeto-Himalayan Languages 2). Delhi: Mittal.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sharma, Suhnu Ram
    2007Byangsi grammar and vocabulary (People of India, National Series, 2). Pune: Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. . forthcoming. A grammar of Manchad.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Takahashi, Yoshiharu
    2001 A descriptive study of Kinnauri (Pangi dialect): a preliminary report. In Yasuhiko Nagano & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), New research on Zhangzhung and related Himalayan languages (Bon Studies 3 = Senri Ethnological Reports 19), 97–119. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Thurgood, Graham
    2003 A subgrouping of the Sino-Tibetan languages: the interaction between language contact, change, and inheritances. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 3–21. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. van Driem, George
    1987A grammar of Limbu (Mouton Grammar Library 4). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110846812
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846812 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2001Languages of the Himalayas: an ethnolinguistic handbook of the greater Himalayan region: containing an introduction to the symbiotic theory of language, 2vols. (Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abt. 2, Indien, 10). Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla
    1997Syntax: structure, meaning, and function (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  37. Watters, David E.
    2002A grammar of Kham (Cambridge Grammatical Descriptions). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486883
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486883 [Google Scholar]
  38. Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp
    2017 The epistemization of person marking in reported speech. Studies in Language41(1): 33–75.10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid [Google Scholar]
  39. Widmer, Manuel
    2015 The transformation of verb agreement into epistemic marking: evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Jürg Fleischer , Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 287), 53–73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110399967‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110399967-004 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2017aA grammar of Bunan (Mouton Grammar Library 71). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2017b The evoution of egophoricity and evidentiality in the Himalayas: the case of Bunan. Journal of Historical Linguistics7(1): 245–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Willis, Christina M.
    2007A descriptive grammar of Darma: an endangered Tibeto-Burman language. Austin: University of Texas dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Zoller, Claus P.
    1983Die Sprache der Rang pas von Garhwal (Raṅ pɔ Bhāsa). Grammatik, Sprache, Wörterbuch (Neuindische Studien 8). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.17011.wid
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.17011.wid
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): historical linguistics , object agreement , reanalysis , Tibeto-Burman and transitivity
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