Volume 47, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In Gutob (Munda, India) S/A indexes can attach to other hosts apart from the verb, unconstrained by syntax. Previous studies have described non-verbal index placement in Gutob as exceptional, establishing verbal indexes as the default. This paper presents the first case study on the placement of Gutob indexes based on corpus data. Our analysis shows that although index placement in Gutob is in fact conditioned by discourse effects, non-verbal clitics cannot be considered particularly exceptional. They are employed to allocate attention to constituents and express engagement with a particular piece of information. In other languages where index placement is similarly flexible, it has been ascribed to the host being in focus. However, we argue although the effects of index placement in Gutob might pertain to what is usually subsumed under this category, other effects like newness, quantification, requested information or negation are not necessarily associated with index placement in Gutob.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2003 Typological parameters for the study of clitics, with special reference to Tariana. InRobert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 42–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486241.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486241.003 [Google Scholar]
  2. Amha, Azeb
    2007 Questioning forms in Zargulla. InRainer Voigt (ed.), From beyond the Mediterranean: Akten des 7. Internationalen Semitohamitistenkongresses, 197–210. Düren: Shaker Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2009 The morphosyntax of negation in Zargulla. InW. Leo Wetzels (ed.), The linguistics of endangered languages, 197–220. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, Gregory
    2001 A new classification of South Munda: Evidence from comparative verb morphology. Indian linguistics62(1–4). 21–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, Gregory D. S.
    2007The Munda verb: Typological perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110924251
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924251 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2008The Munda languages. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderson, Gregory D. S. & Norman H. Zide
    2001 Recent advances in the reconstruction of the Proto-Munda verb. InLaurel J. Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999, 13–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.215.03and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.215.03and [Google Scholar]
  8. Anderson, Stephen R.
    1993 Wackernagel’s revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second position. Language69(1). 68–98. 10.2307/416416
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416416 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2005Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279906.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279906.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Arkadiev, Peter
    2010 Clitic doubling: Towards a typology. Paper presented at theWorkshop on Clitics and Syntactic Typology. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/1695634/Clitic_doubling_Towards_a_typology (last access12 November 2022).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Baker, Brett J.
    2002 How referential is agreement?InNicholas D. Evans & Hans-Jürgen Sasse (eds.), Problems of polysynthesis, 51–85. Berlin: Akademieverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Barbosa, Pilar
    1996 Clitic placement in European Portuguese and the position of subjects. InAaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Approaching second: Second position clitics and related phenomena, 1–40. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Benveniste, Émile
    1971Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Berger, Peter
    2015Feeding, sharing, and devouring: Ritual and society in Highland Odisha, India. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614513636
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513636 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols
    2007 Inflectional morphology. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol.31, 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003 [Google Scholar]
  16. Butt, Miriam & Wilhelm Geuder
    2003 Light verbs in Urdu and grammaticalization. InRegine Eckardt, Klaus von Heusinger & Christoph Schwarze (eds.), Words in time: Diachronic semantics from different points of view, 295–350. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110899979.295
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899979.295 [Google Scholar]
  17. Capell, Arthur
    1972 The affix-transferring languages of Australia. Linguistics10(87). 5–36. 10.1515/ling.1972.10.87.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1972.10.87.5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cysouw, Michael
    2003 Towards a typology of pronominal cliticization. Handout presented at the5th International Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology. Available atcysouw.de/home/presentations_files/cysouwCLITICS_handout.pdf (last access12 November 2022).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2004 The rise of person inflection with special reference to the Munda languages. Paper presented at the11th International Morphology Meeting2004.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dahl, Östen
    2000 Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language7(11). 37–77. 10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah [Google Scholar]
  21. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    2002Australian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486869
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486869 [Google Scholar]
  22. Donegan, Patricia & David Stampe
    2004 Rhythm and the synthetic drift of Munda. The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics71. 3–36. 10.1515/9783110179897.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110179897.3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Facundes, Sidney da Silva
    2000 The language of the Apurinã people of Brazil (Maipure/Arawak). Buffalo, NY: SUNY PhD dissertation.
  24. Forker, Diana
    2016 Floating agreement and information structure: The case of Sanzhi Dargwa. Studies in Language40(1). 1–25. 10.1075/sl.40.1.01for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.1.01for [Google Scholar]
  25. Gaby, Alice Rose
    2006 A grammar of Kuuk Thaayorre. Melbourne: University of Melbourne PhD dissertation.
  26. Givón, Talmy
    2011Ute reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clu.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clu.3 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gómez González, María de los Ángeles
    1997 On Theme, Topic and Given-ness: The state of the art. Moenia135–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Griffiths, Arlo
    2008 Gutob. InGregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 633–681. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Haig, Geoffrey & Diana Forker
    2018 Agreement in grammar and discourse: A research overview. Linguistics56(4). 715–734. 10.1515/ling‑2018‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0014 [Google Scholar]
  30. Harris, Alice C.
    2000 Where in the word is the Udi clitic?Language76(3). 593–616. 10.2307/417136
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417136 [Google Scholar]
  31. Haspelmath, Martin
    2013 Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms. InDik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 197–226. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110331127.197
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110331127.197 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hellenthal, Anneke Christine
    2010 A grammar of Sheko. Leiden: University of Leiden PhD dissertation.
  33. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2014 Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: Another look at the suffixing preference. Language90(4). 927–960. 10.1353/lan.2014.0105
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0105 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoffmann, Johann Baptist
    1903Mundari grammar. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Iemmolo, Giorgio
    2011 Towards a typological study of Differential Object Marking and Differential Object Indexation: Pavia: Università degli Studi di Pavia PhD dissertation.
  36. Just, Erika & Slavomír Čéplö
    2022 Differential object indexing in Maltese – a corpus based pilot study. InPrzemyslaw Turek & Julia Nintemann (eds.), Maltese: Contemporary changes and historical innovations, 105–132. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110783834‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110783834-005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Just, Erika & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    . accepted. A corpus-based analysis of P indexing in Ruuli (Bantu, JE103).
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kibrik, Aleksandr E.
    1997 Beyond subject and object: towards a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology11. 279–346. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.3.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.3.279 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lambrecht, Knud & Maria Polinsky
    1997 Typological variation in sentence-focus constructions. Proceedings from the Thirty-Third Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Panels on Linguistic Ideologies in Contact. 198–206. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood
    2013 The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics49(1). 127–163. 10.1017/S0022226712000345
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000345 [Google Scholar]
  42. McConvell, Patrick
    1996 The functions of split-wackernagel clitic systems: Pronominal clitics in the Ngumpin languages. InAaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Approaching Second: Second position clitics and related phenomena, 299–332. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mereu, Lunella
    1999 Agreement, pronominalization and word order in pragmatically-oriented languages. InBoundaries of Morphology and Syntax, 231–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.180.15mer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.180.15mer [Google Scholar]
  44. Mithun, Marianne
    1992 Is basic word order universal?InDoris L. Payne (ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility, 15–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.22.02mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.22.02mit [Google Scholar]
  45. Mushin, Ilana
    2006 Motivations for second position: evidence from North-Central Australia. Linguistic Typology10(3). 287–326. 10.1515/LINGTY.2006.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2006.010 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mushin, Ilana & Jane Simpson
    2008 Free to bound to free? Interactions between pragmatics and syntax in the development of Australian pronominal systems. Language84(3). 566–596. 10.1353/lan.0.0048
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0048 [Google Scholar]
  47. Neukom, Lukas
    2001Santali. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Okrand, Marc
    1977 Mutsun grammar. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley PhD dissertation.
  49. Osada, Toshiki
    2008 Mundari. InGregory D. S. Anderson & Norman H. Zide (eds.), The Munda languages, 99–164. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ouhalla, Jamal
    1993 Subject-extraction, negation and the anti-agreement effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory11(3). 477–518. 10.1007/BF00993167
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993167 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ozerov, Pavel
    2018 Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics1381. 77–97. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.017 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2021 Multifactorial Information Management (MIM): Summing up the emerging alternative to Information Structure. Linguistics Vanguard7(1). 1–17. 10.1515/lingvan‑2020‑0039
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0039 [Google Scholar]
  53. Peterson, John
    2011A grammar of Kharia. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004187207.i‑474
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004187207.i-474 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pinnow, Heinz-Jürgen
    1966 A comparative study of the verb in the Munda languages. Studies in comparative Austroasiatic linguistics51. 96–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Press, Margaret L.
    1979Chemehuevi: A grammar and lexicon. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Priestley, Carol
    2008 A grammar of Koromu (Kesawai), a Trans New Guinea language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Australian National University PhD dissertation.
  57. Rajan, Jamuna & Herold Rajan
    2001Grammar write-up of Gutob-Gadaba. Lamptaput: Asha Kiran Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Schikowski, Robert
    2013 Object-conditioned differential marking in Chintang and Nepali. Zürich: University of Zürich PhD dissertation.
  59. Schnell, Stefan
    2018 Whence subject-verb agreement? Investigating the role of topicality, accessibility, and frequency in Vera’a texts. Linguistics56(4). 735–780. 10.1515/ling‑2018‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0010 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sidwell, Paul
    2015The Palaungic languages: Classification, reconstruction and comparative lexicon. München: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Siewierska, Anna
    2004Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511812729
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
  62. Skopeteas, Stavros & Gisbert Fanselow
    2010 Focus types and argument asymmetries: a cross-linguistic study in language production. InCarsten Breul & Edward Göbbel (eds.), Comparative and contrastive studies of information structure, 169–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.165.07sko
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.165.07sko [Google Scholar]
  63. Smith, Ian & Steve Johnson
    1985 The syntax of clitic cross-referencing pronouns in Kugu Nganhcara. Anthropological linguistics271. 102–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Strom, Eva-Marie
    2013 The Ndengeleko language of Tanzania. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet PhD dissertation.
  65. Voß, Judith
    2015 Person markers in Gutob. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics2(2). 215–240. 10.1515/jsall‑2015‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2015-0011 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2018 Documentation and Grammar of Gutob (Munda). Endangered Languages Archive. Available at: hdl.handle.net/2196/00-0000-0000-000F-CB59-B (last access12 November 2022).
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Wackernagel, Jacob, George Walkden, Christina Sevdali & Morgan Macleod
    2020On a law of Indo-European word order (Classics in Linguistics 7). Berlin: Language Science Press. CitetononCRdoi:10.5281/zenodo.3978908
    https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3978908 [Google Scholar]
  68. Wistrand Robinson, Lila & James Armagost
    1990Comanche dictionary and grammar. Arlington. Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Ilja A. Seržant
    2018 Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. InIlja A. Serzant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Zide, Norman H.
    1997 Gutob pronominal clitics and related phenomena elsewhere in Gutob-Remo-Gta. InAnvita Abbi (ed.), Languages of tribal and indigenous peoples of India: The ethnic space, 307–334. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): clitic placement; corpus study; differential marking; discourse effects; indexing
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