Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages 9783110292671, 9783110292534

Citation preview

Saartje Verbeke Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages

Empirical Approaches to Language Typology

Editors Georg Bossong Bernard Comrie Kristine Hildebrandt Yaron Matras

Volume 51

Saartje Verbeke

Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages

ISBN 978-3-11-029253-4 e-ISBN 978-3-11-029267-1 ISSN 0933-761X Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: PTP-Berlin Protago-TEX-Production GmbH, Berlin Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Contents  ix Acknowledgments   x List of Abbreviations   1 Introduction   8 1 Theoretical preliminaries   8 1.1 Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   9 1.1.1 Ergativity: the standard functional-typological definition      1.1.2 Core arguments and grammatical relations 13  14 1.1.2.1 The subject issue   21 1.1.2.2 Grammatical relations   28 1.1.2.3 Case   32 1.1.2.4 Verb agreement   34 1.1.3 Alignment splits based on referential hierarchies   35 1.1.3.1 Silverstein’s hierarchy   36 1.1.3.2 Differential object marking: the markedness discussion      1.1.3.3 Differential subject marking 39  41 1.1.4 Tense/Aspect/Mood and head- vs. dependent-marking   41 1.1.4.1 Tense/Aspect/Mood split   42 1.1.4.2 Case marking and verb agreement   44 1.2 Direct and indirect motivations of ergativity   46 1.2.1 Ergativity in discourse-functional and cognitive linguistics   46 1.2.1.1 Du Bois: “The discourse base of ergativity”   48 1.2.1.2 Cognitive accounts   54 1.2.2 Historical motivations      1.2.3 Case and transitivity 56  56 1.2.3.1 An alternative view of ergativity   60 1.2.3.2 Transitivity: from Sapir to Hopper and Thompson      1.3 Conclusions 63  65 2 Indo-Aryan  2.1 Geographical distribution of the Indo-Aryan languages   68 2.2 Alignment in Hindi   75 2.3 Origin of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan   75 2.3.1 Historical overview   75 2.3.1.1 Old Indo-Aryan   78 2.3.1.2 Middle Indo-Aryan   80 2.3.1.3 New Indo-Aryan: Early Hindi   80 2.3.2 Passive reanalysis 

 65

vi    2.3.3 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.2.1 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.3 2.4.2.4 2.4.2.5 2.4.3 2.4.4

   Contents

 83 Ergative remains ergative?   89 Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages      Masica’s layer system 89  91 The verb system in Indo-Aryan   91 The participial base of the verb system in Indo-Aryan   92 Light verbs and lexical compound predicates   94 Perfect, perfective, and past      Passives 96  97 Causatives   98 Experiencer constructions      Unergatives 108

 111 3 Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya   113 3.1 Asamiya: description   113 3.1.1 Case marking in Asamiya     115 3.1.2 Case marking of the subject 3.1.3 Differential object marking and the dual marking of IO   119 3.1.3.1 O-marking   121 3.1.3.2 Dual marking of IO   124 3.1.3.3 Experiencer constructions   126 3.1.4 Verb agreement in Asamiya   127 3.2 The transitive verb   128 3.2.1 The transitive verb in Eastern Indo-Aryan     131 3.2.1.1 The transitive verb in the Bihari languages  134 3.2.1.2 Honorific agreement in Maithili   137 3.2.1.3 Honorific agreement in Magahi   139 3.2.2 The transitive verb in an Eastern Hindi variety      3.3 Ergative marking in Eastern Indo-Aryan 142  144 3.4 Conclusion   146 4 Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali      4.1 Nepali: description 147  147 4.1.1 Case marking in Nepali   148 4.1.2 Case marking of the core arguments      4.1.3 Verb agreement in Nepali 152 4.2 Reanalysis and extension of the postposition le   159 4.2.1 Previous accounts   159 4.2.1.1 Focalization   161 4.2.1.2 Syntactic restrictions 

 156

 119

Contents   

4.2.1.3 4.2.1.4 4.2.2 4.3 4.4

   vii

 161 Disambiguation hypothesis   163 Stage- vs. individual-level predicates      Perfective aspect expressed by le 165  170 Language contact   173 Conclusion: alignment in Nepali 

 175 5 Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri      5.1 Kashmiri: description 176  176 5.1.1 Case marking in Kashmiri   180 5.1.2 Verb agreement in Kashmiri      5.1.2.1 The verb system 180  182 5.1.2.2 Imperfective constructions   185 5.1.2.3 Ergative case marking in the perfective   188 5.2 Pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan      5.2.1 Bound pronouns or agreement markers? 188  191 5.2.2 Pronominal suffixes in Kashmiri   199 5.2.3 Pronominal suffixes in Poguli   201 5.2.4 Pronominal suffixes in Sindhi      5.2.5 Pronominal suffixes in Siraiki 204 5.3 Second person importance:  206 hierarchical relations and Marathi   208 5.4 Conclusion  6 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.4

 212 Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani   213 Description of Marwari   213 Case marking   214 Verb system and agreement in Marwari      Differential marking 218 Marwari subject marking: a historical perspective   223 Differential marking in Harauti   230 Object marking in Marwari and Gujarati 

 218

The marking of subjects and experiencers  234 in Gujarati and Punjabi   239 Differential marking: summary  Central Indo-Aryan and Hindi: variation on a micro-scale   240 Hindi and Braj: O-marking and agreement   244 Bundeli and Bagheli   246 Varieties of Hindi: conclusion     246 Central Indo-Aryan: Conclusion

 240

viii   

   Contents

 248 7 Conclusion   248 7.1 The definition of ergativity: summary      7.2 Splits 251  252 7.2.1 The influence of referential hierarchies   252 7.2.1.1 Referentiality of O   254 7.2.1.2 Referentiality of A   256 7.2.2 Tense/Aspect/Mood splits   259 7.2.3 Classifying the Indo-Aryan languages   260 7.2.4 Case marking versus verb agreement   261 7.3 Core arguments and grammatical relations  7.4 The motivation of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan   266 7.5 Final observations  8 8.1 8.2

 268 Appendix  Appendix 1  Appendix 2 

9

References 

 268  274

 296

 316 Index of subjects   320 Index of languages 

 263

Acknowledgments This book is a revision of my 2011 doctoral dissertation, defended at Ghent University and made possible by a grant from the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Klaas Willems and Peter Hook. I am also thankful for the insightful comments given by Eva De Clercq, Annie Montaut, Omkar N. Koul, Seppo Kittilä and Yaron Matras. This book would not have been possible without the help of my native speakers: Rudhira Mitra, Jayeeta Mazumder, Alpha Maheshwari, Sarit Ray, Pratik Udeshi, Rohit Goyal, Jeanne Vaz, Prof. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Durgesh, Khemchand and Suman Sharma, Ria De, Meenaxi Barkati-Ruscheweyh, Dr. Jyotiprakash Tamuli, Vishma Raj Thapaiya, Chand Mati Pokharel, Saraswati Chaudhary and Satish. Most importantly, for their love and support, I wish to thank my parents, friends and family. And my handsome husband, Bram Vincent.

List of Abbreviations The glosses of the examples follow the “Leipzig glossing rules” (2008). The transcription of the examples follows the traditional conventions in Indological studies (I do not provide a phonetic transcription, but an orthographic transliteration). ABL ABS ACC AOR AUX CAUS CL CONT CVB DAT DEF DES DET DOM DSM EDOM ERG EMPH F FUT GEN H INCL INJ INS INT INTS IPRF ITR LNK LOC MH N

ablative absolutive accusative aorist auxiliary causative class continuous converb dative definite desiderative determiner differential object marking differential subject marking extended differential object marking ergative emphasizing particle feminine future genitive honorific inclusive injunctive instrumental interrogative intensivum imperfect intransitive linker locative middle honorific neuter

List of Abbreviations   

NEG NFUT NH NOM OBJ OBL PASS PL PRF PROG PST PTCP PURP Q QUOT SAP SBJV SG TAM TR VOC WITN

negation non-future non-honorific nominative objective oblique passive plural perfect progressive past/perfective participle purposive question marker quotation marker Speech Act Participant subjunctive singular tense/aspect/mood transitive vocative witnessed

   xi

Introduction A certain construction in the Indo-Aryan language Hindi-Urdu has long attracted the attention of linguists, due to its rarity among the languages of the Indo-European family. In this construction, the particle ne is used, which does not appear in any other construction in the language. The following example may serve as an illustration (the example is taken from Harris and Sharma 1968: 81): (1)

maiṃ=ne us-e tumhār-ī gand-ī kamiz-eṃ I=erg (s)he.obl-obj your-f dirty-f shirt[f]-nom.pl de+dīṃ give+give.pst.f.pl ‘I gave him/her your dirty shirts back.’

To language learners, the ne-construction is something of a mystery, because the subject in ex. (1), maiṃ, is followed by ne, and because the transitive verb, dīṃ, does not agree with the subject of the sentence but agrees with the direct object tumhārī gandī kamizeṃ. This type of construction occurs only with transitive verbs in the perfect aspect/past tense in Hindi-Urdu. Imperfective constructions follow the traditional Indo-European pattern of syntactic constructions; that is, the verb agrees with the subject, and the subject takes the nominative case. In older accounts such as Kellogg’s Grammar of the Hindi language (1938: 239–240), the ne-construction is presented as a passive; with dīṃ being a passive verb, and ne the postposition of the passive agent. However, there is no active construction that could be regarded as the counterpart of this “passive” in HindiUrdu. Quite on the contrary, if one seeks a corresponding construction in another voice in the language, then one finds a construction that resembles a periphrastic passive of the “passive” construction. Moreover, other Indo-Aryan languages, such as Punjabi and Gujarati, display the same unusual pattern in their grammar; however, importantly, pronominal arguments pattern differently in these languages. Upon closer investigation, we may find a number of additional dissimilarities, but the important point is that several Indo-Aryan languages have a construction that is very similar to the ne-construction encountered in Hindi-Urdu. Recent accounts have indicated that the type of Indo-Aryan construction exemplified by the Hindi-Urdu ne-construction has the same pattern as the construction that is typically called the “ergative construction” in descriptions of other language families, particularly Australian and Caucasian languages. Before long, it was suggested that the Hindi-Urdu ne-construction is also an ergative construction, and the ne particle was labeled an ergative case marker accordingly. However, this conclusion, which is primarily based on a number of cross-lin-

2   

   Introduction

guistic similarities, raises more questions than it answers. After all, Hindi-Urdu is an Indo-European language, whereas the ergative construction has traditionally been associated with “exotic” languages, such as Australian and Caucasian languages, or language isolates, such as Basque. Moreover, Hindi-Urdu derives from Sanskrit, which is a highly “accusative” language with at least eight cases, but none of these cases remotely resembles the ergative case. In other words, the belief that Hindi-Urdu possesses an ergative construction, requires a very convincing explanation. Most accounts of ergativity in Hindi-Urdu have traditionally been diachronic. These accounts focus on the developments from Old Indo-Aryan to New IndoAryan in search of a possible foundation from which the ergative pattern may have emerged in the course of time. However, the discussion of the historical origins of the Hindi-Urdu ergative construction encounters considerable difficulties. The analysis and interpretation of the historical material are all but straightforward, and there exists the more fundamental problem of finding sufficient and reliable historical data. Furthermore, the evolution from Old Indo-Aryan to New Indo-Aryan has sometimes been reduced to a simplified evolution from Sanskrit to Hindi-Urdu. Frequently, evidence of other related languages and dialects spoken at a certain point of time in the long history of the Indo-Aryan languages (which covers a period ranging from ca. 1500 BCE to the present) is ignored. The present study approaches the matter of ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages from a different angle. This study aims to elucidate the structure and form of ergative constructions in Indo-Aryan languages from a synchronic point of view, based on a broad cross-linguistic comparison of a range of different IndoAryan languages. To this end, in addition to Hindi-Urdu, less studied Indo-Aryan languages are duly taken into account. The research reported in the study is conducted within a typological framework. Thus, the study’s objectives are consistent with the goal of modern typological research on ergativity; that is, to describe, compare and analyze the “alignment” patterns of languages across the world. Below, I will briefly explain the concept of “alignment” patterns and then clarify my stance vis-à-vis typological research. My use of the term “alignment” refers to the ways in which transitive and intransitive sentences are constructed and their often complex morphosyntactic properties. The concept of ergativity has been extensively discussed in the typological literature. As I noted above, the ergative construction in Hindi-Urdu has primarily been identified on the basis of cross-linguistic comparison. However, I believe that a full-fledged typological framework must also pay due attention to less frequent or even exceptional patterns in different languages. The present study aims to contribute to this evolving line of research by comparing the alignment patterns in a number of modern Indo-Aryan languages in a comprehensive

Introduction   

   3

manner. This study focuses on the distribution of ergative and not-so-ergative features occurring in the Indo-Aryan languages currently spoken on the South Asian subcontinent. It should be noted from the outset that the focus of the study is not restricted to Hindi-Urdu. Undoubtedly, most of the currently available literature on ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages is strongly directed at Hindi-Urdu. However, an important secondary aim of this study is to question the central position of Hindi-Urdu in the research on ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages. Other languages (including varieties) are often equally as relevant as Hindi-Urdu, and occasionally even more revealing in view of a comprehensive study of ergativity in the Indo-Aryan languages. The present study is entirely devoted to comparing different languages within a language family. It is emphatically not a cross-linguistic study that discusses a representative sample of the languages of the world. The “sample” of languages that will be analyzed in the subsequent chapters is explicitly biased because it is derived from a single language family. Languages that are spoken in the area on which the study focuses but that belong to other language families, such as a number of Tibeto-Burman and Iranian languages (Iranian of course being more closely related to Indo-Aryan), are briefly taken into account when this is considered relevant, but they are not discussed extensively. This qualification is important in view of the scope and typological aspirations of the present study. It should be borne in mind that any statement regarding the linguistic phenomena discussed in the study only applies to this phenomenon as it is attested in the language family of Indo-Aryan languages, and does not apply beyond the confines imposed by this focus. This study does not intend to derive language “universals” from the observations pertaining to the Indo-Aryan languages to be discussed. Nevertheless, a study of one language family is far from irrelevant. Compared with a typological study based on a large number of sample languages from across the world, a contrastive comparison of the languages of one (admittedly diverse) language family may have several advantages. For instance, this type of study avoids the vexing problem of selecting an adequate sample of languages. A sample should be representative of all languages of the world, but it is common knowledge even among typologists that samples are often biased in a particular direction simply because the languages of a particular family, a specific area or a particular sociolinguistic layer are more extensively described than others, and thus more likely to be included in the sample. Another complicating factor is that many historical situations of linguistic contact and genetic relations between languages are not yet fully understood and described. Furthermore, by extracting one particular construction from a sample of languages, one derives abstraction from the language systems (or “grammars”) in which different constructions show specific relations and contrasts with one another. Therefore, typological research is

4   

   Introduction

constantly at risk of tearing apart what language systems join together. In short, it is extremely difficult to compose a representative sample that simultaneously includes a satisfactory quantity of the variation to be examined and depicts the individual languages with sufficient accuracy to prevent false generalizations. By focusing on the languages within a single language family, we are able to carefully observe the limits and restrictions of the sample. However, the choice of one language family allows us to study each language of the sample in detail, and it is also an invitation to pay close attention to the systematic relationships between different constructions within the particular languages and the way they interact and influence each other. This level of research extends beyond the simple comparison of one specific construction in different languages. Because the Indo-Aryan languages have the same historical ancestor, it is possible to define a number of concepts that are valid for all the languages to be analyzed in the present study; however, without losing sight of some of the fundamental differences between them. The material used in this study primarily consists of textbooks, a corpus of texts that have been sampled particularly for this purpose, and various existent grammars. The choice of written sources rather than spoken languages is deliberate and is based on the conviction that one should take advantage of such sources whenever the opportunity presents itself. Furthermore, textual evidence has the not inconsiderable advantage of providing a clear and, importantly, fairly consistent picture of the grammars of particular languages (or varieties). This advantage is especially relevant to the present study, which is based on a comparison of a considerable number of different Indo-Aryan languages (and varieties). The choice of written, often literary, material is arguably not entirely uncontroversial, and relying on printed texts has unquestionably certain drawbacks, particularly with respect to the questions of how many texts one must consult and how many examples one must find in the corpus before one can claim to offer a representative picture of a language, variety, or construction. However, when these types of problems occurred, I was able to obtain the knowledge and judgments of at least two native speakers for every main language analyzed in the study. These informants were consulted in all cases of doubt, particularly when the textual evidence was insufficient to produce a convincing interpretation of certain examples. Native speakers were also asked to formulate their opinions about the grammaticality of certain variations in constructions that did not regularly occur in the texts of our corpus. The present study is organized as follows. In Chapter 1, I address the theoretical preliminaries of ergativity from a typological perspective. The basic assumptions expounded in this Chapter  are derived from cross-linguistic comparative studies, and some of these assumptions are claimed to be universally valid.

Introduction   

   5

Therefore, any reference to Indo-Aryan languages is avoided when possible in this chapter, in order to ensure an unprejudiced view of the general literature on ergativity. The research questions to be addressed in the subsequent chapters are formulated on the basis of this first chapter. Broadly speaking, the questions guiding Chapters 2 through 6 are the following: – What are the syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of case marking and verb agreement in the Indo-Aryan languages spoken on the South Asian subcontinent? To provide a balanced overview of these properties across the Indo-Aryan languages, Chapters 3 through 6 each focus on the languages of one particular region, viz. Eastern Indo-Aryan, Northern Indo-Aryan, Western Indo-Aryan, and Central Indo-Aryan, respectively. Chapter 2 is conceived as an introductory Chapter to Indo-Aryan in general and contains illustrations from Hindi-Urdu. – To what extent do the properties of case marking and verb agreement that we encounter in Indo-Aryan languages conform to the generally accepted typological definition of ergativity, and in what respects can the properties of case marking and verb agreement attested in Indo-Aryan languages modify the general typological view of ergativity and alignment? These questions further develop the theoretical background provided in Chapter 1 and relate the concept of ergativity to the empirical attestation of ergative constructions in the Indo-Aryan languages. – What are the alignment types that are shared by all Indo-Aryan languages, and in what respects do these alignment types vary in our sample languages? These questions draw on the findings based on the previous questions and allow us to make general observations regarding alignment and ergativity in Indo-Aryan. – A final (admittedly more speculative) question concerns the conceptual status of ergativity. If ergativity occurs in Indo-Aryan, does this occurrence imply that the Indo-Aryan speakers have a different conceptualization of the state of affairs expressed in their language as compared with speakers of languages in which ergativity is absent? Although I will not tackle this question head on in the present study, this issue will run as an undercurrent through several chapters. Chapters 2 through 6 each contribute to obtaining a comprehensive answer to the questions listed above. Chapter 2 is a transitional Chapter between the theoretical Chapter 1 and the empirical Chapters 3 through 6. The Chapter begins with a brief geographical overview of the spread of the Indo-Aryan languages across the South Asian subcontinent. Additionally, relevant findings of earlier scholarly research on Hindi-Urdu are presented, particularly with respect to the diachronic

6   

   Introduction

developments in Indo-Aryan that are assumed to have led to the emergence of the ergative construction. Subsequently, various key concepts that are important in the grammars of the Indo-Aryan languages are illustrated by a large number of examples that are predominantly drawn from Hindi-Urdu. These “key concepts”, such as postpositional case marking, the formation of the tenses, unergative verbs and converbial constructions, refer to properties that are recurrent in the grammars of Indo-Aryan languages. These concepts are introduced in this chapter, but their language-particular instantiations are discussed in detail in the ensuing chapters that examine the Indo-Aryan languages of particular regions. The chapters following the theoretical Chapter  1 and the presentation of the Indo-Aryan languages and some of their basic properties in Chapter 2 each focus on languages and varieties in one specific area in the Indo-Aryan region. In Chapter 3, I explore Eastern Indo-Aryan, particularly the language Asamiya. In contrast with Hindi-Urdu, modern Eastern Indo-Aryan is assumed to possess no ergative constructions, although ergative constructions are attested in early sources. However, I defend the view that modern Asamiya shows clear evidence of ergative case marking. The second issue discussed in this Chapter is the difference in conjugation between the transitive and intransitive verbs in Asamiya. By comparing Asamiya with the Eastern Indo-Aryan Bihari languages, I show that this difference in conjugation can be traced to a particular type of object agreement. Chapter  4 examines the North Indo-Aryan languages, particularly Nepali. Nepali is an unusual language among the Indo-Aryan languages. Associated with Nepal and substantially influenced by – and, in turn, influencing – the TibetoBurman languages spoken in this country, Nepali is usually only briefly mentioned in older comparative grammars of Indo-Aryan. In typological linguistics, Nepali is never considered in its identity of a branch of Indo-Aryan but is simply considered as a cross-linguistically interesting language with respect to its alignment pattern. I will adduce evidence for the view that the fascinating alignment pattern found in Nepali occupies an intermediary position between Eastern IndoAryan and Central Indo-Aryan, by simultaneously showing ergative case marking and subject agreement. After Nepali, Chapter  5 proceeds to examine Western Indo-Aryan, particularly the Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages, which are represented in this study by Kashmiri. Kashmiri and the Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages are interesting because they display “pronominal suffixes” on the verbs, which indicate the person of core arguments. In this respect, the alignment in Kashmiri is very different from the alignment in Nepali. However, both languages have in common that they are spoken in mountainous regions in which there is frequent language contact with Tibeto-Burman languages. Indeed, if we look beyond the differences

Introduction   

   7

in formal marking of the arguments and the different types of verb agreement, there is evidence of influences due to language contact in Western and Northern Indo-Aryan. These influences are particularly evident in the case marking pattern and occur in different degrees. In Chapter 6, I discuss Central Indo-Aryan. Although Hindi-Urdu is arguably the best known and most important of all the Central Indo-Aryan languages, I choose to treat Hindi-Urdu only as a frame of reference in this chapter. Chapter 5 focuses on the Rajasthani languages and, albeit to a lesser extent, a number of varieties of Hindi-Urdu. The Rajasthani languages provide an extremely complex picture of alignment in Indo-Aryan. The variation in alignment patterns, the local preferences for one or another case marker, and the dialectal divergences in general prove to be more complex in the Rajasthani languages than in any other Indo-Aryan language. In Chapter  5, a substantial part of the discussion is devoted to agreement features, particularly the phenomenon of pronominal suffixes in Western IndoAryan. In contrast, Chapter  6, on Central Indo-Aryan, focuses on a number of fundamental issues concerning the nature of case marking in Indo-Aryan languages. Central Indo-Aryan differentiates between postpositional case marking and inflectional case marking. However, postpositions and inflectional case morphemes also have different functions on the semantic and the syntactic level. These functional differences, which run parallel to the formal differences, have not yet been given the attention they deserve. In addition, the relationship between verb agreement and postpositional/inflectional case marking must be specified. Chapter  7 concludes the study and summarizes the evidence for ergativity in the different Indo-Aryan languages. This Chapter retreats from the areal focus that guided the previous chapters and focuses on structural similarities between the Indo-Aryan languages.

1 Theoretical preliminaries 1.1 Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective Contemporary views on ergativity in functional typology depart from two articles written in the 1970s by Comrie (1978) and Dixon (1979). These authors described ergative features in different languages and analyzed the ergative pattern as a system that exists for reasons beyond those of other argument structuring systems. As a result of these thorough analyses of the phenomenon, ergativity has been discussed primarily in the functional-typological literature.¹ Comrie (1978) and Dixon (1979) demonstrated that non-ergative constructions occur in every language that has been termed an “ergative language”. Therefore, no language is entirely ergative. Deviating constructions often display the accusative pattern, but other constructions have also been reported. Evidence from the description of an increasing number of languages demonstrates the extent of the variation. Since the 1990s, linguistic typology has more and more become a distinct branch of linguistics in its own right (cf. Song 2011). As a result of the ever increasing body of descriptive data, every linguistic category that had been quite generally accepted as universally valid has been questioned. For instance, the traditional category of “subject” became problematic in view of ergativity, because the ergative pattern displays a different morphosyntactic coding of the transitive “subject” compared with the accusative pattern. The definitions of categories were subsequently broadened, and categories began to be defined as either cross-linguistic prototypes or clusters of features. Dryer (1997) has maintained that the effort to obtain a universal definition of “subject” is beside the point as long as “subject” remains a heuristically useful category that is defined in terms of one language. In addition to linguistic categories, Greenbergian “universals” have been questioned (Greenberg 1966). In contemporary linguistic typology, every concept has been subjected to scrutiny, and among all of Greenberg’s famous language universals only one or two universals remain undisputed (cf. Haspelmath 2010).

1 In addition to functional-typological comparisons and descriptions, ergativity has been treated in functionally inspired theoretical frameworks, such as Relational Grammar (Perlmutter 1983), Functional Grammar (Dik 1978, 1980) and later Role and Reference Grammar (Foley and Van Valin 1980, 1984). For a critical overview of the conception of ergativity in these frameworks, see Dixon (1994: 232–236).

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   9

In the following Sections 1.1.1–1.1.4, the functional-typological perspective of ergativity will be presented. Section 1.1.1 outlines the standard functional-typological definition of ergativity. The consequences of this definition for grammatical relations, and particularly for the “subject”, are discussed in Section 1.1.2. Split patterns and their motivations are examined in Sections 1.1.3 and 1.1.4.

1.1.1 Ergativity: the standard functional-typological definition The articles by Comrie (1978) and Dixon (1979) are considered fundamental in establishing the definition of ergativity. The two articles appeared during a period of general interest in universal patterns in syntax. For instance, a volume edited by Plank (1979) discussing ergativity was published around the same period (also, Tchekhoff 1972; Li 1976, 1977). Plank (1979: 4) used the term “alignment” to indicate the argument structure of a language, i.e. the way the arguments are coded.² Both Comrie and Dixon preferred the terms “system” or “pattern”, but “alignment” became a common term in later works on ergativity and argument structure in general (e.g., Harris 1990, Comrie 2008, Wichmann 2008, Bickel and Nichols 2009: 305). According to Comrie (1978: 329), ergativity is “a system of nominal case marking where the subject of an intransitive verb has the same morphological marker as a direct object, and a different morphological marker from the subject of a transitive verb”. Comrie distinguishes five possible types of systems in the languages of the world. To define these systems, he uses the terms S, A and P. In Comrie (1978), the definitions of these terms are quite rudimentary, and are primarily based on the subject/object distinction from the accusative system. S is

2 “Argument coding” is a general term that refers to the various ways an argument can be identified in an argument structure; such ways may include the argument’s case, postposition, or cross-reference on a verb. In this study, “marking” will be used only to refer to the formal marking on the argument itself; the term “verb agreement” will be used for cross-referencing on a verb. The term “marked” refers here exclusively to formal markedness (syntagmatic complexity, Moracvcsik and Wirth 1980); for example, an unmarked argument refers to an argument with a nominative (zero) case marking, as opposed, for instance, to an accusative-marked argument. Whenever “marked” is used differently in other theoretical approaches discussed in the present study, the meaning of the term will be specified. I am aware that formal markedness often coincides with “semantic markedness”; for instance, a formally unmarked term occurs more frequently and is semantically more “expected”. However, to allow for exceptions to this correlation (cf. Haspelmath 2006) and to avoid any confusion, “markedness” is restricted to form in this study.

10   

   Theoretical preliminaries

“the single argument of an intransitive verb” and is “clearly reminiscent of the word subject”. A is “the argument of a transitive verb which would be its subject in a non-ergative language like English”, and “P refers to the argument that would be the direct object” (Dixon 1979 uses O rather than P). Comrie (1989: 125) describes the five possible systems of a language as follows: The nominative-accusative system groups S and A (nominative) together against P (accusative). The ergative-absolutive system groups S and P (absolutive) together against A (ergative). Both of these systems are widespread across the languages of the world. The neutral system would have the same form for all three primitives, but since this is tantamount to lack of case marking for these relations, it is not directly relevant to our considerations: as a system, it is, of course, widespread in the languages of the world, but most languages with this system have other means, such as verb agreement or word order, to indicate which noun phrase is A and which is P in the transitive construction. The fourth possible type, tripartite, would have distinct cases for each of the three primitives. The fifth type would group A and P together as against S.

He considers the fourth and fifth types to be extremely rare; these types are either absent from the languages of the world or occur as exceptional patterns in languages with otherwise ergative or accusative systems.³ In defining the different patterns, Comrie focuses on the “nominal” morphological marking of the arguments. The case markings that are relevant to determining the type of system are the nominative and accusative cases for the accusative system, and the ergative and absolutive cases for the ergative system. Of these pairs, the accusative and ergative are typically the formally marked cases. Therefore, it is customary to refer to an “accusative system” rather than a “nominative-accusative system” and to an “ergative system” rather than an “ergative-absolutive system”. The nominative and absolutive are normally the unmarked cases. Although the distinction between the terms “nominative” and “absolutive” may be convenient to emphasize the differences between the two systems, the nominative and absolutive are not necessarily formally different in so-called split alignment systems (cf. Section 1.1.2.3). As a rule, nominal marking constitutes the grounds for the division in different alignment systems. Comrie also mentions verb agreement as a parameter that can be used to distinguish between the five possible systems (Comrie 1978: 338, cf. also Mallinson and Blake 1981: 55–58). However, Comrie seems to assign secondary importance to verb agreement. He points out that verb

3 For example, certain Iranian languages display some constructions that group A and P vs. S as a stage in the evolution from a predominantly ergative system to a predominantly accusative system (Comrie 1989: 125), and the Australian language Ritharngu displays the tripartite pattern but only with arguments referring to humans and intelligent animals (Comrie 1989: 131).

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   11

agreement may determine neutral case marking systems “as another mechanism besides case marking”. Thus, whereas case marking is of primary importance in determining different alignment types, verb agreement has a role inasmuch as it modifies the alignment pattern that is determined by the case marking. The next fundamental study of ergativity was conducted by Dixon (1979). Dixon begins by extending the concept of alignment-determining coding from case marking to pre- and postpositional marking, verbal coding in the form of cross-referencing of arguments on the verb (agreement), and eventually word order. For instance, in an ergative word order pattern, the O-argument is considered to be placed in the same position with regard to the verb as the S-argument, whereas the A-argument is considered to be placed in a different position. Word order is considered the least efficient strategy for determining the alignment type because one can only compare the word order pattern of an intransitive sentence with that of a transitive sentence when the verb is in a medial position. For example, one could conjecture that a language in which O precedes the verb and A follows it (OVA) is ergative if S precedes the verb (SV). Conversely, if S follows the verb (VS) in a verb-medial language, the OVA construction would be accusative. However, in verb-initial and verb-final languages, it is impossible to determine the alignment pattern on the same basis. In languages with verb-initial and verbfinal constituent orders, the order of the arguments may vary but not with respect to the verb position. Therefore, one cannot compare the position of one of the two arguments in a transitive construction with the position of a single argument with respect to the verb in an intransitive construction (all arguments are positioned either before the verb in verb-final constructions or after the verb in verb-initial constructions). Because only verb-medial languages can distinguish ergative patterns from accusative patterns through word order and because it is generally acknowledged that word order may be determined by a host of different factors, word order is commonly considered an unreliable factor in establishing alignment patterns (Dixon 1979: 65–68, Givón 1995: 255–256). In some recent accounts, inflectional cases and pre- and postpositions generally have been united under the single heading of “case marking” in contradistinction to “verb agreement” (see, e.g., Nichols 1986, Blake 2001). Dixon (1979: 60) defines ergativity as follows: “a language is said to show ergative characteristics if intransitive subject is treated in the same manner as transitive object, and differently from transitive subject”. The “treatment” includes every possible type of argument coding, and in this sense, Dixon’s definition is more general than the definition provided by Comrie’s, who focused on nominal marking. Although both Comrie and Dixon emphasized that different patterns may occur in one language, they also suggested that each language has a “predominant”

12   

   Theoretical preliminaries

system, upon which variations may occur, yielding so-called “split systems”.⁴ In practice, any alignment is subject to various conditions and occurs only in circumstances that are often not easily defined (cf. Creissels 2008, Section 1.1.3 and 1.1.4). Although no language in which all constructions are ergative has yet been discovered, the term “ergative language” frequently occurs in the literature (e.g., Dik 1978; Cooreman et al. 1984: 24; Farrell 2005) and surprisingly in Dixon (1994) (cf. Harris 1997: 362). Such a language is considered to have a dominant ergative pattern, but it is difficult to determine exactly how many constructions in a language must be ergative to consider the language ergative. Though Dixon and Comrie have acknowledged that ergative alignment always occurs in combination with other alignment patterns, their objective is to find properties that might elevate ergativity above the status of “a superficial morphological phenomenon” (Comrie 1978: 334). The formal coding of ergative features is regularly denoted as “morphological ergativity”. Dixon’s description of syntactic ergativity (1979: 64, 1994: 143, Section 1.1.2.1) is one such attempt to establish that ergativity is more than simply a morphological phenomenon. However, morphological ergativity is undoubtedly more common than syntactic ergativity (Comrie 1978: 350). A number of linguists have considered the idea of sorting languages according to alignment types. For instance, the division of all languages into discrete types of alignment is an explicit aim of the typological branch of Russian linguists; indeed, Russian linguists contributed extensively to early ergative studies (cf. Bokarev 1950; Mescaninov 1967; Kibrik 1979, 1997 among others). Klimov (1973: 5, 1979; Nichols 1990) is the founder of the “content-oriented typological framework”, also known as “contentive typology”, in which three language systems/types are distinguished: the ergative type, the active type, and the nominative type. These types are diachronically related to each other; in particular, a language can change from the accusative type through the active type to the ergative type. The distinction between language types is based on syntactic features relating to verb agreement and case marking, but also on factors relating to “content”. In this context, “content” refers to various other grammatical features with semantic bases. For instance, Klimov (1973: 5) associates languages with an “active” alignment with the distinction between agent and patient in argument coding, yet also with grammatical distinctions between constructions of alienable and inalienable possession, the distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person pronouns, and the formal distinction between animate and inanimate

4 Note that according to Comrie and Dixon, “system” means a method of argument coding rather than referring to the Saussurian “language system”. However, in this respect, “alignment” is arguably a more suitable term than “system”.

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   13

nouns etc. (Nichols 1990: 95). In contrast, he argues that ergative systems are based on “the opposition of so-called agentive and factitive functions” (Klimov 1979: 331; Kibrik 1979); the agentive function is exemplified by the ergative case and possessive verbs, amongst other structural features, and the factitive is exemplified by the absolutive case and affective verbs, etc. (Tournadre 1996: 20). Nichols (1990) claims that her own typology, which associates a coding pattern with certain alignment types, is more applicable to the languages of the world than Klimov’s essentially content-based typology. Nichols distinguishes headmarking (marking on the head of a clause, e.g., verb agreement) from dependentmarking (marking on the dependent element in a clause, e.g., case marking). She argues that head-marking often occurs in combination with ergative or accusative alignment; this argument is not surprising considering Comrie’s definition, in which the identification of ergative and accusative alignment patterns is primarily dependent on the overt case markings of the arguments. Nichols further argues that Klimov’s association between certain “content” features (e.g., possessive constructions, grammatical gender etc.) and ergative/accusative alignment should be attributed to a tendency of these features to occur in either a headmarking or dependent-marking language rather than to the ergativity or accusativity of the language. In contemporary linguistics, the content-based typology has largely been abandoned, at least in the form proposed by Klimov (cf. Wichmann 2008: 6).⁵ However, Comrie’s and Dixon’s definitions have been adopted in modern functional typology, and their definitions are still widely accepted as standard definitions of ergativity (cf. Primus 2011: 304).

1.1.2 Core arguments and grammatical relations Core arguments are the arguments in a clause that stand in a syntactic and semantic relationship with the verb, and the number and nature of the arguments are determined by the valency of the verb (cf. Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 26–30). In the traditional linguistics of Standard European languages, the two core arguments of a transitive verb have been labeled as “subject” and “object” on the basis of their morphosyntactic behavior. The ergative pattern jeopardizes this traditional labeling because the ergative coding properties of the core arguments do not allow one to identify the subject in a transitive clause with the subject of an

5 Even in current Russian linguistics, the tradition of content-based typology has not been further pursued (Yakov Testelets, p.c.).

14   

   Theoretical preliminaries

intransitive clause. Given that it is impossible to identify the subject and object cross-linguistically on the basis of identical formal coding properties in different alignment patterns, difficulties arise because the categories of subject and object are no longer efficient for comparing argument structures across different languages. The subject of a construction in one language has coding properties that differ from the subject of a construction in another language. Furthermore, even in a single language, “subject” can become a problematic category if this particular language possesses more than one type of alignment pattern. Therefore, other criteria beyond the formal properties must be employed in order to identify the subject and the object. For instance, the identical syntactic behaviors of certain arguments or their indistinguishable semantic roles are also instrumental in defining the subject cross-linguistically. The discussion regarding the “subject” in languages primarily pertains to the question of how morphological, syntactic and semantic conditions treat arguments in terms of their alignment with each other.

1.1.2.1 The subject issue In the traditional account of core arguments, the subject is distinguished from the (direct) object (Farrell 2005: 4–6) in a straightforward grammatical way, as illustrated by the following German sentences: (2)

Der Mann läuft (‘The man walks’)

(3)

Der Mann sieht den Jungen (‘The man sees the boy’).

Formally, the verb forms läuf-t and sieh-t agree with der Mann. Der Mann is in the unmarked nominative case in German. Due to these morphosyntactic factors of case marking and agreement, der Mann is traditionally called the “subject” of the clause. Conversely, the accusative case is considered to be the case of the “(direct) object”, and in the German example we find the accusative de-n Junge-n (nominative: der Junge). The subject and the direct object are the “grammatical relations” that are distinguished in most Standard European languages. The subject, direct object and verb constitute the building blocks of a sentence. In languages such as German and English, the arguments are also ordered in a well-defined way; as a rule, this ordering also contributes to their identification (e.g., subject before direct object, albeit with a considerable amount of variation across and within languages). In a language with an ergative pattern, the ostensible subject of a transitive verb does not have the same morphosyntactic properties as the sole argument of an intransitive clause, nor does it control the verb agreement. In the following

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   15

examples from Tsez (Polinsky and Comrie 1999: 112), there is agreement between bikori ‘snake’ and the verb b-exu-s; the morpheme b- indicates the specific noun class of the argument (viz., class 3): (4)

bikori b-exu-s snake.cl3 cl3-die-pst.witn ‘The snake died.’

(5)

už-ā bikori b-exu-r-si boy-erg snake.cl3 cl3-die-caus-pst.witn ‘The boy killed the snake.’

If the morphosyntactic features illustrated above by the German examples (2) and (3) are applied to examples (4) and (5), then bikori is the “subject” in both sentences, whereas už-ā ‘boy’ is the direct object in example (4). Several older accounts have indeed identified the ergative argument in constructions such as (4) as the direct object and the nominative argument as the subject (e.g., Tchekhoff 1978). However, the translations of ex. (4) and (5) suggest another analysis. It seems plausible to identify the subject ‘the boy’ in the English translation with the Tsez so-called direct object užā and the direct object ‘the snake’ with the supposed subject bikori. It would seem counterintuitive to consider den Jungen in ex. (3) as the direct object but bikori in ex. (5) as the subject. This discordance partially explains why most scholars have abandoned the idea that the ergative argument is the direct object. Identifying the subject and direct object in an ergative construction on the sole basis of morphosyntactic features is not a cross-linguistically valid method. In addition to the above-mentioned morphosyntactic properties, purely syntactic factors can be used to identify core arguments (Donohue and Wichmann 2008). For instance, Dixon (1979: 113–115) observes that the subjects of transitive verbs (A) and intransitive verbs (S) in many languages behave identically in certain constructions, whether or not they display the same morphosyntactic features of verb agreement and nominative case marking. He argues, for instance, that A and S are both potential addressees of imperative and jussive constructions. For instance, compare the construction, I ordered him to go, in which go is intransitive, with the construction I ordered him to bring the water, in which the verb bring is transitive. Both the S of go and the A of bring are coreferential with the O of the main clause. According to Dixon (1979: 114), this observation is universally true in every language, regardless of each language’s alignment pattern. Similarly, in coreferential NP’s in constructions with main verbs meaning ‘can’, ‘begin’, ‘finish’ etc. – e.g., I began to laugh, I began to paint the wall – Dixon notes

16   

   Theoretical preliminaries

that the S of laugh and the A of paint are treated identically because each can be raised to be arguments of the main verb (but see Bhat 1991: 101). The above constructions illustrate that S and A are syntactically treated the same way, regardless of the dominating alignment pattern. This finding suggests that there is a syntactic basis for identifying a cross-linguistically valid category of subject in almost every language, irregarding of whether the languages’ prevailing morphological patterns are ergative or accusative. The linking of O and S on a syntactic level is much rarer. Morphological ergativity might still be explained as a “surface” phenomenon that is caused, for instance, by purely formal rules along the lines of “agreement with the closest unmarked argument” (cf. Saxena 1984; Anderson 1976). However, if syntactic ergativity were common, this tendency would strongly indicate that the ergative grouping of S and O profoundly influences every aspect of a language. It would also corroborate the claim that there are two inherently different language systems, i.e., ergative and accusative languages, which have nothing in common as far as case marking and alignment is concerned. Syntactic ergativity is especially problematic in defending the subject category because languages with syntactically ergative patterns show that S and A pattern differently in both morphology and syntax. The Australian language Dyirbal is one of the few languages in the world that display syntactic ergativity. Ex. (6) (Dixon 1995; Bickel 2011: 423) is an example of conjunction reduction with a control verb. The O-argument of the verb that means ‘to see’ – simultaneously with the S of the verb that means ‘to want’ – is omitted. Note that walŋgarra is intransitive in Dyirbal. Ex. (7) (Dixon 1994) is an example of coordination in which the O of the coordinated verb that means ‘to see’ is the same as the S-argument of the first verb meaning ‘return’. Thus, S and O are syntactically treated the same way in both examples. In sum, syntactic ergativity transgresses the merely formal level of coding properties and, according to some authors (Dixon 1979; Anderson 1976), pertains to the “deeper” level of syntactic structures rather than the more “shallow” level of morphological structures. (6)

bayi yara walŋgarra-nyu baŋgun det.m.sg man want-nfut det.f.sg.erg yibi-ŋgu bura-li woman-erg see-purp ‘The man wanted the woman to see him.’

(7)

ŋuma banaga-nyu yabu-ŋgu bura-n father return-nfut mother-erg see-nfut ‘Father returned and mother saw him.’

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   17

Dixon (1979) proposes to use the concept of “pivot” to refer to the grouping of arguments with identical syntactic behavior. In syntactically ergative constructions, the pivot is {S, O}. In ex. (7), the pivot is ŋuma, ‘father’, which is the S of the verb banaga-nyu ‘return’ and the O of the verb bura-n ‘see’. In accusative constructions and morphologically ergative constructions, the pivot is {S, A}. For instance, in the English sentence Father returned and saw mother, the NP father is the S of return and the A of saw. Thus, the ‘pivot’ is essentially a construction- and language-particular category; for example, in Dyirbal, {S, O} is the pivot, and in English the pivot is {S, A}. Syntactic ergativity is, to say the least, rare in the languages of the world. Even in Dyirbal, it is not the only pattern attested. According to Heath (1979, 1980) syntactically ergative constructions do not often occur in Dyirbal and most of these constructions can be explained by other mechanisms such as the “indefinite-NP deletion” rule (Heath 1979: 415). In his view, all indefinite NP’s can be deleted in Dyirbal, irrespective of whether they are A, S, or O. Dixon’s interpretation that S and O are treated in the same way in coordination patterns is nothing but a misunderstanding of this “indefinite-NP deletion” rule. Heath further argues that the apparent syntactic ergative pattern is in fact caused by mechanisms that primarily function to distinguish nominal from pronominal coreferential arguments. In the following examples from Dyirbal, according to Heath, there is no {S, O} pivot but only coreferential deletion of A. In the first example, the “deleted” A of the coordinated clause is coreferential with the A baŋgul+yaṛaŋgu of the preceding sentence. In the second example, the “deleted” A of the verb buŋal-ma-n is coreferential with the S bayi (Heath 1979: 428–429, examples from Dixon 1972: 134, 376; but with Heath’s glossing): (8)

bala+yugu baŋgul+yaṛaŋgu nudi-n bayi+ñalŋga bunju-n the+stick the+man cut-pst the+child spank-pst ‘The man cut the tree and (the man) spanked the child.’

(9)

añja bayi bili-ñu midi+ban bilŋgiŋga buŋal-ma-n as for he climb-pst small+the on thighs go down-ins-pst ‘He climbed up and brought the small one down across his thighs.’

Not surprisingly, Heath’s (1979) account has been strongly criticized by Dixon (1979b, later also by Thomsen 1994). It should be borne in mind, however, that the aim of Heath (1979) is not to show that Dyirbal is an “accusative language”; his aim is to demonstrate that the evidence in support of the view that there is syntactic ergativity in Dyirbal is scant, and that other functional motivations for the patterns in which S and O are treated alike must not be ignored. Dixon

18   

   Theoretical preliminaries

(1979b) reiterates his own thesis that there is syntactic ergativity in Dyirbal and that Heath misinterprets the evidence (for instance, ex. (9) is not a coordinated construction, but simply two separate sentences, according to Dixon). However, Dixon (1979b: 1003) acknowledges, in a quite contradictory fashion, that “there is not too much evidence that Dyirbal is ergative”. In more recent linguistic literature on the subject, Dixon’s approach to Dyirbal has generally been followed, although it is widely accepted that the same extreme pattern of syntactic ergativity has never been attested in any other language. Insight in Dixon’s data could give the opportunity to revaluate the theories on syntactic ergativity; however, thus far the data on Dyirbal has not been made public. The core arguments in a clause also have semantic functions. For instance, der Mann in ex. (2) and (3) fulfils the semantic function of the agent of the action expressed in the clause, whereas den Jungen in the second sentence is the patient. Agent and patient are “semantic roles”, which are typically assumed by core arguments. Because they rely on semantics, semantic roles can be cross-linguistically distinguished in a fairly straightforward manner. For instance, every language can express an agent that performs an action. Fillmore (1968) has introduced a number of semantic roles (also called “thematic” or “notional” roles, Palmer 1994), including “Agent”, “Patient”, “Theme”, and “Recipient”. In subsequent studies, the number of semantic roles has varied considerably and these roles have not always been defined consistently or exhaustively (cf. Dowty 1991: 548; Palmer 1994: 5). The naturalness of semantic roles partially explains why the identification of the subject on the basis of morphosyntactic properties comes across as counterintuitive. As discussed above, the direct object den Jungen in ex. (3) fulfils the patient role, but in the ergative construction in ex. (5), the patient bikori is morphosyntactically the “subject”. Based on our knowledge of “Standard European” languages, the subject has been identified with the agent (the argument performing the action) and the direct object has been identified with the patient (the argument undergoing the action). Because the subject is also the argument that displays the morphosyntactic features of nominative case and the control of agreement, the observation that the patient in an ergative construction displays the morphosyntactic features of a subject is, to say the least, surprising. Semantic roles do not have a direct bearing on the argument coding of ergative patterns; for instance, in ex. (10) from Tsez (Polinsky and Comrie 1999: 110), žek’u is the agent but remains unmarked, in contrast with the agent už-ā in ex. (5). (10)

žek’u Ø-ik’i-x man.cl1 cl1-go-prs ‘The man goes.’

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   19

Additionally, it is worth pointing out that in accusative constructions, the agent is not always the subject of the sentence. For instance, Mary in Mary falls from the table is not a volitional agent, she rather undergoes the action. In one type of alignment the semantic roles do determine the morphosyntactic coding of the arguments. Wichmann (2008: 3–4) has labelled this type of alignment “semantic alignment”. Semantic alignment includes various types of constructions in which the only argument of an intransitive sentence is coded on a semantic rather than a syntactic basis. As a result, the argument coding of S can differ according to the circumstances. Whereas ergative alignment jeopardizes the distinction between subjects and direct objects, semantic alignment led Wichmann to question the existence of an intransitive subject, because this “S” can be formally coded in various ways. Prior to the proposal of semantic alignment, linguists commonly referred to “active” or “agentive” languages to indicate languages with predominantly semantically-based argument coding (cf. Klimov 1974; Tuite et al. 1985). One type of semantic alignment is indeed based on an active-stative and agent-patient distinction (cf. Nichols 1990; Mithun 1991). In an active-stative construction, the semantics of the verb determines the argument coding. For example, if the verb is active (e.g., ‘dance’, ‘jump’ and most transitive verbs), S is coded in the same way as A. If the verb is stative (e.g., ‘fall’, ‘sleep’), S is coded in the same way as O. Conversely, in an agent-patient construction, the semantics of the arguments (i.e., whether S is agentive or patientive) determine the coding; for instance, in John falls, John may fall either intentionally, to draw attention, or John may accidentally stumble and fall (cf. DeLancey 1981; McGregor 2009: 487). Dixon (1979) uses the terms “split S-marking” and “fluid S-marking” to indicate the difference between the active and agentive constructions respectively; Merlan (1985, Creissels 2008) opts for the term “split intransitivity” for the same phenomenon.⁶ In summary, due to the attestation of ergative and semantic alignment, the terms “subject” and “object” can no longer be used to indicate core arguments of a clause. Semantic roles were previously considered an alternative means, but although semantic roles are convenient universal descriptive tools, they are not always reflected by the coding properties of arguments, particularly not in accu-

6 Donohue and Wichmann (2008) find both Dixon’s and Merlan’s terms ill-chosen because the terms “split/fluid S-marking” and “split intransitivity” are based on the notion of “S”, although S is exactly the argument whose existence is being criticized in these accounts. In both Dixon’s and Merlan’s terminology, the idea of a “split” S is involved. However, according to Donohue and Wichmann, when “S” is split, S no longer exists as a homogeneous, unitary category in the language. Therefore, they consider any reference to S in, e.g., “split-S” marking, as misguided.

20   

   Theoretical preliminaries

sative or ergative alignment patterns (cf. Comrie 1973). A further complication is that Fillmore’s roles could be endlessly extended because properties of events are conceptually without limit (for instance, the “killer” role with the verb ‘to kill’, the “sitter” role with the verb ‘to sit’, etc.). For these reasons, Dowty (1991) abandons semantic roles and the traditional subject/object distinction altogether and argues in favor of “protoroles”. Protoroles are prototypical semantic roles based on clusters of semantic and grammatical features that have irregular distributions in different languages. This way, Dowty avoids the vexing problem of endlessly extending the list of possible semantic roles and creates the possibility for cross-linguistic comparison on a basis that differs from the controversial subject/object distinction. As semantic prototypes, “Proto-agent” and “Proto-patient” correlate with syntactic features for argument selection. Foley and Van Valin (1984, Van Valin and LaPolla 1991) opt for “macroroles”, i.e., “Actor” and “Undergoer”. The concepts of protoroles and macroroles are similar but not identical. For Dowty, protoroles are themselves prototypes of certain semantic roles, whereas for Van Valin macroroles can have prototypes: “The prototypical Actor is an agent and the prototypical Undergoer a patient” (Van Valin 1990: 226). In a sense, both accounts attempt to replace the subject and object categories, which are cross-linguistically considered as purely syntactic relations, with concepts that are based on semantics. However, although macroroles are semantically motivated, Van Valin (1990: 226) remarks that they are primarily “the two primary arguments of a transitive predication, either one of which may be the single argument of an intransitive verb”. In his view, therefore, proto- or macroroles are similar to what has been proposed by Comrie (1978) and Dixon (1979) with S, A and O/P. Comrie (1978) defines S as “the single argument of an intransitive verb”, and A and P in a distinctly more semantic way, i.e. A and P are “reminiscent of the semantic terms agent and patient”. However, despite the correlation between A/P and the semantic roles of agent/ patient, A and P are in “syntactic opposition”, rather than “semantic opposition” like agent/patient (Comrie 1978: 330–331). The agent and the patient are the participants in a “prototypical transitive situation”, irrespective of the syntax (Comrie 1989: 111). The grammatical roles A and P have the advantage over the semantic roles of agent and patient because grammatical roles may be identified even in non-prototypical transitive situations. They are “syntactic terms, whose prototypes are defined in semantic terms”, and Comrie considers them as “primitives” of every language. Similar to the subject and object before them, A, S and P have been interpreted as purely syntactic categories (cf. Farrell 2005: 8), but Comrie’s definition indicates that they are not and that they do rely on semantics in their definitions.

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   21

Dixon too defines S, A and O as “semantico-syntactic” categories (i.e., as a mix of both semantics and syntax). Dixon (1979: 108) distinguishes A, S and O as “primitives”. His definition of S is identical to Comrie’s definition; A is “the NP in a TRANSITIVE clause which CAN BE AGENT”, and O is “the OTHER OBLIGATORY NP in a TRANSITIVE clause”. Dixon continues to rely on the value of a “universal category” of subject, which groups {A, S} because they can both be the “initiating/controlling agents”. This grouping is visible in constructions in which S and A are treated the same way, such as jussives, imperatives and ‘can’-verbs (cf. Dixon 1979: 112). Furthermore, in most morphologically ergative constructions, {S, A} functions as the pivot. Hence, although S and A are morphologically different, their syntactic behaviour is identical in these constructions. Comrie (1973) also notes that in the final analysis there are more arguments to retain the concept of subject than to reject it. Furthermore, recent psycholinguistic research has demonstrated that A and S are cognitively processed in the same way; this observation seems to indicate that “subject” is actually a cognitive reality (cf. BornkesselSchlesewsky et al. 2008). Although S, A and O (or P) have become common in typological linguistics (whereas protoroles and macroroles are limited to more formal frameworks, e.g., Primus 1999 and studies conducted in the spirit of Role-and-Reference grammar), these terms continue to be criticized. A common criticism is that the definition of S differs completely from the definitions of A and O. While A and O refer to semantic-syntactic relations, S is simply defined as the only argument present in the clause, as Chafe and Mithun (1999) have rightly indicated (cf. also Andrews 2001, Creissels 2009). Moreover, following Dixon’s definition, O is the “other obligatory NP in a clause”. Hence, if A cannot be identified (e.g., because of ellipsis) O cannot be identified either because the identification of O is dependent on that of A. Note that Comrie’s definition of P as the “most patient-like argument” is clearer in that respect. A second criticism is related to how different types of S are coded in semantic alignment patterns; thus the category of S must be split. Dixon (1979) uses Sa and So, to refer to the S coded as A and the S coded as O, respectively, in languages with semantic alignment. However, he also remarks that S functions as the “syntactic prime”, whereas a grouping of {A, Sa} would overemphasize the semantic agency and disregard the different coding of A and S in an ergative pattern (Dixon 1979: 108–109).

1.1.2.2 Grammatical relations Grammatical relations are exclusively identified by morphosyntactic features, and they relate core arguments with the verb (Palmer 1994: 10; Cole and Sadock 1977; Plank 1979; Comrie 1989: 65–66; Bickel 2011: 399). Other names for these rela-

22   

   Theoretical preliminaries

tions are “syntactic relations” or “syntactic roles”. The traditional grammatical relations are the subject and object, the latter including both direct and indirect object. Palmer (1994) differentiates between grammatical relations and “grammatical roles”, which are A, O and S.⁷ The grammatical relations determine the alignment. For instance, the grammatical relation subject is S=A when expressed in terms of grammatical roles, and the grammatical relation direct object is O. If the grammatical relations are S=A vs. O (subject vs. direct object), the alignment is accusative. Palmer calls this the “Subject-Object relation”. For lack of a better term that parallels the Subject-Object relation in accusative alignment, Palmer uses the term “Ergative-Absolutive relation” to refer to the grammatical relations (S=O vs. A) determining an ergative pattern. He draws on the case terminology (ergative/absolutive) rather than using separate names referring to grammatical relations (subject/object). According to Palmer, every language has one dominating type of grammatical relation, either the Subject-Object relation or the Ergative-Absolutive relation and these relations distinguish accusative and ergative “languages” (Palmer 1994: 14). Comrie (1989: 66) notes that many scholars take the universality of grammatical relations cross-linguistically for granted; that is, they hypothesize that subjects, direct objects and indirect objects can be identified across languages. However, Comrie argues that one must find criteria that establish the grammatical relations in a language independently. These criteria may be identified, for instance, by the cross-linguistic comparison of subject properties. Comrie refers to Keenan (1976), who proposed various properties of how the subject in the languages of the world can be described. These “subject properties” include formal “coding properties” such as case marking, word order and verb agreement; “behaviour-and-control properties” such as deletion, coordination properties and reflexivization; and “semantic properties” such as agency and autonomous existence. However, Keenan does not indicate the importance of each property, which seems to vary for each language, nor does he identifies a property that is indispensable for proving that an argument is a subject (cf. Dixon 1979: 110–112). Givón (2001: 195–196; 1995: 230) takes issue with the properties advanced by Keenan. He argues that the semantic properties are in fact “functional referenceand-topicality properties” and suggests that topicality is the main factor that determines the subject of a sentence. Givón excludes “agency” from the subjectidentifying properties and argues that, if agency were a determining property of subjects, arguments of non-agentive (often intransitive) verbs would not be

7 Palmer (1994) himself uses the abbreviations A, P and S, A and P standing for Agent and Patient respectively, S for “Single argument”.

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   23

considered subjects. This result would be undesirable, however, because these arguments generally do not display fewer subject properties than, for instance, ergative subjects of transitive clauses (Givón 1995: 301). Givón orders the properties hierarchically from most universal to least universal. The most universal properties are also the most strongly related to topicality: functional reference-and-topicality properties < behaviour-and-control properties < word order < grammatical agreement < nominal case-marking

The category of subject can be universally determined if one observes the leftmost properties within the hierarchy (Givón 1995: 251–252, Cole et al. 1980). Case marking, the rightmost property, is considered to be highly language-particular and hence much less helpful in determining the subject. Givón’s take on the matter showed that not all of Keenan’s subject properties are equally basic to the definition of the subject category. Keenan’s subject properties are arguably so diverse and general that they fail to meet the goal of establishing independent criteria that are necessary and sufficient to define the category of “subject” across languages (cf. Barđdal and Eythórsson 2012). The aim of describing the properties of arguments that are ostensibly subjects in particular languages is precisely to identify an argument as a subject in a language. According to Comrie (1989: 66), if arguments in different languages show “a reasonable degree of overlap” in their properties, then these arguments may be assigned the subject relation. However, the extent to which the overlap is “reasonable”, seems to be determined by the language specialist, and is not cross-linguistically settled. In contrast with the above attempts to find a cross-linguistic basis to compare grammatical relations, Dryer (1997) claims that the question “Are grammatical relations universal?” is a non-issue because, in his view, grammatical relations are not even “cross-linguistic notions” (Dryer 1997: 115). According to Dryer, if a category cannot be applied cross-linguistically without changing its definition to a cluster definition of different features (clearly, the category of subject is such a case), then it is irrelevant whether the category of subject occurs in every language of the world. No subject in one language has exactly the same properties as any subject in another language.⁸ Subjects and similar concepts such as “object” or even “case” can be found and defined language-internally, but in a comparison between languages, an identical subject or case category is impossible. The grammatical relation of the indirect object is also questioned. Dryer (1986)

8 Though one can find pairs of languages in which the subject properties are nearly identical; for instance, because of a historical or dialectal relationship between the two languages.

24   

   Theoretical preliminaries

observes that languages can code the arguments in ditransitive constructions differently. He distinguishes indirective alignment, in which the O-argument of a monotransitive construction patterns as the O-argument of a ditransitive construction, from secundative alignment, which differentiates the primary object (O of a monotransitive construction and the recipient-object from a ditransitive one) from the secondary object (i.e. the patient-object of a ditransitive construction) (cf. Haspelmath 2001; Croft 2003: 152; Siewierska 2004: 57; Kittilä 2006, 2007b). The following examples from German illustrate the in directive alignment: the O den Apfel remains in the same case, whether the construction is monotransitive or ditransitive (Malchukov et al. 2010: 4): (11)

ich aß den Apfel I.nom ate the.acc apple ‘I ate the apple.’

(12)

ich gab dem Kind I.nom gave the.dat child ‘I gave the child the apple.’

den Apfel the.acc apple

The following examples from West Greenlandic illustrate secundative alignment (Fortescue 1984: 193, 88; Malchukov, Haspelmath and Comrie 2010: 4). The O, takurnata.q in the monotransitive construction in ex. (13) is absolutive, whereas in the ditransitive construction in ex. (14), the O aningaasa-nik is instrumental. The recipient in ex. (14) is in the absolutive case.⁹ (13)

piita-p takurnarta.q peter-erg.sg stranger.sg ‘Did Peter kill the stranger?’

tuqup-paa? kill-int.3sg->3sg

(14)

(uuma) niisi aningaasa-nik (that.erg) Nisi.sg money-ins.pl ‘He gave Nisi money.’

tuni-vaa give-ind.3sg->3sg

9 Secundative and indirective alignment can occur in different constructions in the same language. For instance, in West Greenlandic, O can be expressed by means of an absolutive case instead of an instrumental as in ex. (14), and the recipient by means of an allative case or an absolutive case (Fortescue 1984: 89).

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   25

In some languages, the recipient and the patient are marked in the same way; an example of such marking is the double object construction in English (Malchukov, Haspelmath and Comrie 2010: 4). The arguments of tritransitive constructions (e.g., double causatives) are also coded differently in the languages of the world (Kittilä 2007). Hence, even the indirect object is not a universally identifiable category. In typology, Dryer’s successful argumentation that a cross-linguistic definition of a category is worthless if one cannot define the categories conclusively has led to the opinion that every notion of universal categories must be revaluated. For instance, Haspelmath (2010) follows Dryer and suggests a distinction between comparative concepts and descriptive categories. According to Haspelmath, descriptive categories are used to describe one particular language but are not a basis for cross-linguistic comparison. Conversely, comparative concepts are tools of the linguists constructed for cross-linguistic comparison. They must be defined in very general terms that may be universally applied. However, this extreme view of typology has received due criticism, e.g., from Newmeyer (2010), who claims that “descriptive categories” inevitably form the basis for the definition of “comparative concepts” because any definition of comparative concepts necessarily draws on language-particular definitions of categories. Therefore, Newmeyer concludes that the relation between comparative concepts and descriptive categories is to a certain extent circular, particularly because determining the descriptive categories in a non-described language, one has to resort to definitions that are based on comparative concepts. In this view, interaction between comparative concepts and descriptive categories cannot be avoided. Goddard’s (1982: 169) observation regarding case may be applicable in this respect: “[b]ehind the case terminology is a history of usage that has established a certain core or criterial meaning for each case label”. Case labels and terms such as “subject” etc. have a long history in the linguistic research of many languages; thus it is impossible to consider them as purely descriptive categories (i.e., as categories that are defined on the basis of data from one particular language). Another view of grammatical relations has been proposed by Bickel (2011). Following Van Valin (1990: 226), Bickel (2011: 402) claims that the best way to define grammatical roles (or proto- or macroroles) is to define them as “the minimal set distinguished by numerical valence, i.e. by the distinction between intransitive (one-place), transitive (two-place) and ditransitive (three-place) verbs”. He identifies S, A and O in the same way as Comrie (1978) and Dixon (1979). As many scholars before him, Bickel (2011) observes that the identification of grammatical relations is a complicated matter both cross-linguistically and language-internally. Even within one language, one can find different types of alignment patterns. For instance, S and O can be marked identically, as in an erga-

26   

   Theoretical preliminaries

tive pattern, although the verb agrees with S and A, as in the accusative pattern. Due to these inconsistencies in alignment within one language, Bickel (2011: 401) advances the view that grammatical relations are not determined by a language but by particular constructions. Cross-linguistically, a transitive construction in one language can have different grammatical relations compared with a transitive construction in another language. Language-internally, Bickel also espouses a clear differentiation between the “agreement construction” and the “case construction”. The “agreement construction” (i.e. the morphosyntactic rule of verb agreement) has a particular set of grammatical relations (for instance, the verb only agrees with S and A). The “case construction” (i.e. the rule of case marking) possesses its own set of grammatical relations, which are not necessarily similar to the set of the agreement construction (for instance, S and O are marked in the same way). Bickel explains as follows: In general, then, a GR [grammatical relation] is defined as the set of arguments that is selected by a construction for a particular syntactic purpose, for example, for agreement rules or case government. This means that an argument can bear as many GRs as it enters constructions in a given syntactic context, and these GRs need not be the same across constructions. How GRs are selected, how they are defined for each construction, to what degree their distribution overlaps across constructions, how types of GRs correlate with each other, and how they are distributed in the languages of the world – these are the core issues that define research in GR typology. (Bickel 2011: 401)

Bickel’s approach resolves a number of contradictions with respect to argument coding patterns. For instance, the combination of an ergative case marking pattern with an accusative agreement pattern within a language is due to different selections of grammatical relations. In languages in which all other constructions are ergative, the syntactic grouping of A and S, for instance as addressees of imperatives (cf. Dixon 1979), is associated with a particular choice of grammatical relations in a particular construction. The dissociation of “grammatical relations” from “languages” is advantageous because it is no longer necessary to maintain that there is one dominant alignment pattern in a language and that the deviant patterns are idiosyncratic “exceptions”. On the contrary, all types of alignment can in principle be considered equally “eligible” in any construction. However, Bickel’s definition of “construction” is not completely clear in his approach; he seems to equate the term with “rule” (cf. Dryer 1986). He maintains that “[w]hile the difference among rules, constructions and ordered constraint sets is of critical importance for the architecture of formal grammar models, it is irrelevant to defining typological variables” (Bickel 2011: 401). However, if one considers a construction to be a form-meaning unit, then referring to “agreement construc-

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   27

tion” seems unfortunate because “agreement construction” refers to only the syntactic rule of agreement and not to any semantic property of the construction. According to Bickel, the term that I have used thus far, “ergative construction” consists of a number of “constructions” that differ with respect to verb agreement, case marking, and a number of other syntactic patterns. Although Bickel’s approach may have some drawbacks with respect to the theoretical issue of what a “construction” entails, the view that grammatical relations are construction-specific allows us to give an unbiased overview of every possible alignment pattern in any one language without treating certain constructions as exceptional and requiring an additional explanation. The question of primary interest in this kind of typological research is no longer how one can group languages according to their alignment; the important questions ask what combinations of alignment types occur in languages and what alignment patterns show cross-linguistic restrictions. As indicated above, Bickel’s view entails that one language is no longer restricted to one set of grammatical relations. Bickel (2011: 404) provides an overview of possible grammatical relations and their commonly used names, presented here in Table 1.1.

Grammatical relation

Commonly used name

{S} {S, A} {A} {O, T} {O, G} {T} {G} {S, O, T} {S, O, G}

intransitive subject, nominative subject, nominative; accusative alignment transitive subject, ergative direct object, accusative; indirective alignment primary object, dative; secundative alignment secondary object indirect object, dative absolutive; nominative; ergative alignment absolutive; nominative; ergative alignment

Table 1.1 Bickel (2011: 404) on grammatical relations

Table 1.1 shows that the terminology is far from consistent in the literature, which refers to alignment types, cases, and grammatical relations without any clear differentiations. The advantage of using abbreviations and curly brackets such as “{S, A}” is that this type of nomenclature is consistent and treats every conceivable grammatical relation in the same, unbiased way. Nevertheless, Bickel continues to use “subject” for {S, A} and “object” for any relation with O. The indication of the grammatical relations by curly brackets used by Bickel resembles the “pivot” term used by Dixon (1979). Bickel restricts the notion of ‘pivot’ to a type of

28   

   Theoretical preliminaries

grammatical relation found in certain “biclausal constructions”, such as in subordinate constructions with non-overtly expressed arguments (ex. (7)). The terminology used for the grammatical roles associated with recipients varies considerably from one linguist to another. As illustrated in Table 1.1, Bickel uses G and T (following Croft 2003: 143). G is reminiscent of the semantic role ‘goal’, and T is related to ‘theme’. Other accounts have employed the abbreviation R, based on the recipient, rather than G. The names of the grammatical relations in ditransitive constructions differ from the name of the grammatical relations in transitive constructions. A and O can be identified in transitive constructions, and A, T and G can be identified in ditransitive constructions. However, Dixon (2010: 116) uses the same term to refer to the most patient-like argument in monotransitive and ditransitive constructions, viz. O. He also introduces E to refer to any third argument in a construction that already contains an A and an O. E refers to “extension to core”. In addition to E, IO refers to this third argument but is restricted to arguments with the semantic role of recipient or beneficiary that occur in ditransitive constructions. In the present study, I will use the abbreviations S, A, O, and IO. S and A are well-established labels in the literature, S refers to the single argument of an intransitive clause, and A refers to the most agent-like argument of a transitive clause. I prefer O to P for the other argument of a transitive clause because P is generally associated with the semantic role of patient, whereas O does not carry this association and also includes other semantic roles, such as theme, and refers more generally to object entities or domains (cf. Bossong 2006: 237). For the same reasons, I prefer the abbreviation O to refer to the theme/patient argument in ditransitive constructions. IO is preferred for specific reasons of argument coding in Indo-Aryan languages, to which I turn in Chapter 2 in more detail. Whereas E would be a satisfactory alternative, the “extension to core” definition seems too broad and requires that obligatory locative adjuncts must also be included (for instance put + on). These extensions are coded in various ways in different languages (e.g., by means of cases such as the locative, allative, dative, comitative etc.), yet IO consistently refers to one particular recipient/beneficient/goal argument in ditransitive constructions and is coded in a particular way.

1.1.2.3 Case The case of the core arguments has traditionally been considered as an instrumental coding property in determining the grammatical relations of constructions. A case, in its original meaning, is defined as belonging to a paradigm that expresses “the systemic differences in the form of all declined nominals, adjectives and participles, corresponding to differences in their functional and cate-

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   29

gorial status” (Dik 1978: 158). Goddard’s definition (1982: 167) is similar: a case system is “a set of morphosyntactic categories inferred from formal differences between nominals in different syntactic or semantic contexts”. Whereas these authors refer to form-function units manifested in a paradigmatic way, Blake (2001: 1, and Croft 1988; Haspelmath 2009; Siewierska and Bakker 2009: 291, among many others) emphasizes the relations that cases express and claims that “case marks a relationship of a noun to a verb at the clause level, or of a noun to a preposition, postposition or another noun at the phrase level”. The relationship is one of semantic dependency in which case marks the dependent partner in the relation. According to Siewierska and Bakker (2009), unpredictable semantic relations are more likely to be associated with overt case marking. For these authors, core arguments are less prone to taking case than adjuncts because the dependency relation between the verb and the core argument is often already identified by means of verb agreement. It is customary to differentiate between syntactic cases, which code core arguments, and semantic cases. Syntactic cases are known as “structural” or even “functional” cases, because a syntactic case “is assigned on the basis of the structure or position in the sentence” (Barđdal 2011: 624). Semantic cases have been called “inherent”, “thematic”, “lexical”, or “idiosyncratic” cases; each term suggests slightly different meanings (Chomsky 1981: 171; Zaenen, Maling and Thraínsson 1985; Yip, Jackendoff and Maling 1987; Haspelmath 2009; Barđdal 2011). Semantic cases mark all types of adjuncts. The terms “lexical” and “idiosyncratic” are not used for cases that mark pure adjuncts, rather, these terms are used for cases that mark non-canonical core arguments, including the experiencer argument in some languages. Thus, the terms “lexical” and “idiosyncratic” cases contrast with the “structural” case (Barđdal 2011: 622–623; Corbett 2006: 148). The names of structural cases have been used to indicate grammatical relations; in particular, the relation between the ergative and absolutive cases has been proposed as parallel to the relation between the subject and object (Palmer 1994: 15; Croft 2003: 144; Bickel 2011: 404). However, subjects and objects are also distinguished in certain ergative constructions; which can obscure the parallel organization of the grammatical relations in alignment patterns. Moreover, there are many other grammatical relations in addition to those implied by the names Subject/Object and Absolutive/Ergative (cf. Bickel 2011, Table 1.1). Case names are also used to indicate alignment patterns (e.g., ergative or accusative alignment) including other coding properties determining alignment. For instance, ergative verb agreement normally refers to agreement with an O-argument (Haspelmath 2005, Section 1.1.4.2).

30   

   Theoretical preliminaries

In current linguistics, a case is considered a form/meaning pairing (cf. Willems 1997 for some historiographical background information). In the traditional definition, formal case marking refers to inflectional marking (cf. Blake 2001: 1; Dik 1978: 158). However, the concept of case has been expanded to other forms of coding, including adpositional marking (cf. Zwicky 1985; Blake 2001: 9; Haspelmath 2008) and marking by means of clitics (Butt 2006: 11). A case meaning/ function is not necessarily associated with a single form. As Goddard (1982: 168) indicates, a case can have different forms; for instance, a case may have different forms for masculine and for feminine nouns (see also Spencer 2006). Conversely, one case form can be used for different case functions, particularly as a consequence of case syncretism (cf. Blake 2001: 122). Goddard (1982: 169), following Wierzbicka (1981), argues that every case has a cross-linguistically established core meaning. For instance, the accusative case is commonly associated with patient marking, and the instrumental case is associated with expressing tools, etc. However, in this view the nominative and absolutive cases are problematic because they cannot be straightforwardly associated with core meanings. Traditionally, the nominative is considered the case of A and S and the case for quotation forms (Creissels 2009: 448). With regard to ergative constructions, the designation “absolute” or “absolutive” refers to the formally unmarked counterpart of the ergative case (Creissels 2009; Haspelmath 2009). The nominative and absolutive cases are both unmarked. The only apparent difference is that the nominative contrasts with the accusative in an accusative pattern, whereas the absolutive is in opposition to the ergative. However, the terminology of nominative and/or absolutive is confusing in languages in which both accusative and ergative patterns occur because two different names can designate an identical form-function unit (Creissels 2009: 448), namely, the S-argument. Moreover, in semantic alignment, only non-agentive S-arguments are in the nominative case. Therefore, Creissels (2009: 455) and Goddard (1982: 183) suggest that the name “absolutive” should be abandoned, because it is too intertwined with the ergative alignment type to be a suitable alignment-neutral name for a case. As outlined above, ergative alignment is associated not with one particular language, but with constructions. If the term “absolutive” is used to refer to a case, then the language in which it occurs is considered to be strictly ergative.¹⁰ However, cross-linguistic comparisons have revealed that linguists

10 One might object that the ergative case is also associated with the ergative case alignment. However, the ergative case is defined as the case indicating the transitive subject A, irrespective of the case marking of O or the agreement pattern of the verb. The absolutive case can only be defined by referring to the “ergativity” of the construction; that is, a particular argument is

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   31

have been unable to find a strictly ergative language among the languages of the world. Whereas Goddard defines the nominative as the case of S and the quotation form, Creissels, in view of the constructions that formally differentiate between an active and a patientive S, argues that only the quotation form is the “extrasyntactic” core meaning of the nominative.¹¹ However, Haspelmath (2009) argues that all cases must be defined with respect to particular languages. Case labels are primarily “mnemonic devices” that can reflect only some of the semantic properties they express. Therefore, the name given to a particular case is not a particularly important matter for Haspelmath. Moreover, the properties attributed to a specific case in a particular language, rather than the case names, are the basis of cross-linguistic comparison. Attributing a semantic value to every case, including the syntactic cases, is known as the “indexing” or “characterizing” approach to case (Mallinson and Blake 1981: 91–93). Semantic cases are commonly defined by the function of the adjuncts they determine; for instance, the locative refers to a place, and the genitive refers to a possessor. In the characterizing approach, the value of a syntactic case is established in the same way as that of a semantic case. The syntactic case is determined by the semantic role the case prototypically marks or by the syntactic function the marked argument assumes in the construction (Primus 2009). Another approach to syntactic case is the “distinguishing” or “discriminatory” approach, according to which cases function as discriminatory mechanisms to distinguish between the two arguments of a transitive construction (Næss 2006: 309–310).¹² In the distinguishing approach, semantic distinctions only aid

absolutive only if A is ergatively marked, and if the verb agrees with this absolutive argument. If the latter conditions are not fulfilled, the label “absolutive” is generally not used in the literature. I will adhere to this convention in the remainder of this study. 11 The view that the nominative is the case of a word’s “quotation (or, citation) form” has a long tradition in Western case theory, this view has been held since the Greek and Roman period of language studies (see Willems 1997: 183–186). Creissels (2009: 457) proposes to use the name “absolute” for the case of citation forms, in contrast with the “integrative” case for “syntactically licensed” cases. However, this terminology has thus far not been commonly used. 12 Although less explicitly addressed in the literature, the same distinction between a discriminatory and characterizing approach can be found regarding the case marking of ditransitive constructions. The characterizing approach is often preferred because the typical marking of the IO is related to the semantic role of recipient. Nevertheless, the attestation of secundative and indirective alignment in ditransitive constructions has shown that a discriminatory approach can also be applied to ditransitive alignment. In this view, the IO is distinguished from O by treating the O of a monotransitive construction in the same way as the O of a ditransitive

32   

   Theoretical preliminaries

in distinguishing the arguments from each other. For example, in a hypothetical situation, one may find a formally marked A in a certain language, although the A in that language is normally unmarked. In both the discriminatory and indexing approaches, the markedness of A is considered to be related to the lower agency of A (for instance, it may be a non-human A). In the indexing approach, the lower agency of A is sufficient to explain its formal markedness. However, in the distinguishing approach, A is marked because it cannot be properly distinguished from the O-argument, considering that the O, which is the most patient-like argument in the clause, is typically low in agency, not the A-argument. In many recent accounts, the indexing and discriminatory approaches have been combined and both approaches are considered necessary to identify the arguments by the case marking (Næss 2007; Kittilä 2011).

1.1.2.4 Verb agreement Agreement, particularly verb agreement,¹³ is often referred to as a second morphosyntactic mechanism that distinguishes the core arguments in addition to the mechanism of case marking. Other designations for agreement are “cross-referencing” and “concord”; many linguists have their own preferences. However, “agreement” is the most common designation in the literature, and this term will be used throughout the present study. I will occasionally resort to the term “crossreference”, particularly when I wish to focus on agreement from the point of view of the argument controlling agreement rather than the verb agreeing with the argument (cf. Corbett 2006: 5–7). Haspelmath (2005) uses the term “indexing” to refer to agreement as opposed to “flagging”, which is Haspelmath’s term for case marking. However, considering that “indexing” is used as a synonym for the “characterizing” function of case marking (cf. Section  1.1.2.3), I prefer to avoid this term when discussing agreement. Verb agreement is often understood as person agreement (i.e., the indication of the person of an argument on the verb). Person agreement can take the form of an affix (prefix and/or suffix) attached to the verb stem. In some languages, the addition of such a suffix may cause phonological changes in the verb stem. In

construction (indirective alignment) or by treating the monotransitive O in the same way as the IO (secundative alignment). 13 Agreement can refer to any marking on a head that cross-references to a dependent element. For instance, agreement features such as the case, gender and number of a noun, can be marked on an accompanying adjective, possessed noun or adposition (cf. Siewierska 2004: 138–148). However, I am only concerned with verb agreement, and an analysis of nominal agreement is outside the scope of the study.

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   33

traditional Graeco-Roman linguistics, the addition of person suffixes to the verb form was called the “inflection” of the verb. However, affixes are not the only way for denoting person agreement. In general, one assumes that person agreement originally derived from bound pronouns, pronominal forms that became attached to the verb stem. The process is as follows: free pronouns occurring close to the verb become bound to the verb form, become clitics (which have a relatively free position but can no longer be used independently) and ultimately become inflections (Corbett 2006: 75). Cross-linguistically, one may note the different stages in this development in different languages. There are languages that display free pronouns, person clitics or agreement suffixes (inflection), all indicating the person of an argument on the verb. Clitics are freer than inflectional agreement, because they can occur in any position in a clause, depending on the language (Corbett 2006: 13). According to Corbett, there is a functional parallel to the formal difference between inflectional agreement and clitics, which he calls “pronominal affixes”. Inflectional agreement is obligatory in most languages; agreement in the form of pronominal clitics is sometimes optional. Corbett (2006: 103) argues that pronominal affixes may or may not be considered as agreement, depending on certain criteria. For instance, agreement can only refer to an argument in one particular case, whereas pronominal clitics and free pronouns can refer to more than one argument with different case markings. A second criterion is referentiality: free pronouns are referential, whereas agreement suffixes are “non-committal with respect to anaphoric or referential status” (Corbett 2006: 103; Evans 1999: 256). Clitics occupy a middle position. However, in many languages there are exceptions to these tendencies; therefore, a separate discussion of whether a certain verb suffix conveys agreement or is instead an anaphoric bound pronoun is often required for each particular language (Corbett 2006: 14, Chapter  5). Therefore, Corbett (2006: 112) concludes that “a rigid classification into languages with agreement or with pronominal affixes would limit rather than enhance future research”. Although person agreement is the most remarkable feature of agreement, verbs can also agree in gender and number with an argument. This type of agreement does not necessarily derive from free pronouns becoming attached to a stem, but may have originated in a different way. For instance, if the verb was a participial (adjectival) form in a prior stage of the language, gender and number agreement are likely to be indicated on the verb. The function of agreement is less easily defined than that of case marking. Levin (2001: 21–27) summarizes three functions of agreement. Essentially, agreement on the verb repeats a certain feature already given by the overt argument, including features such as gender, number or case. Therefore, it is generally assumed that agreement expresses some type of redundancy. However, Corbett

34   

   Theoretical preliminaries

(2006: 275) believes that redundancy is not the main function of agreement, because in many languages, the controller of agreement is not overt; thus the agreement is the only indicator of the presence of an argument. Levin’s second function is reference tracking, defined by Corbett (2006: 275) as “allowing the hearer to keep track of the different referents in a discourse”. The function of reference tracking is similar to the distinguishing function of case marking; just a case marking, agreement allows the hearer to identify and distinguish the arguments in discourse (Siewierska and Bakker 2009: 293). The third function refers to the syntax of a construction, and entails that agreement marks the constituency of a construction. Although all three functions apply to a certain extent, Corbett (2006: 275) argues that none of them sufficiently accounts for all instances of agreement. Alternatively, he argues for an amalgam of “different combinations of functions in different languages”. In many accounts, agreement has been considered as a mechanism that primarily indicates syntactic relations between a verb and its arguments; however, the attestation of bound pronouns that do not necessarily agree with an overt argument in a clause has introduced a semantic dimension to the discussion, in the realization that these forms are more than simple indications of cross-reference. Case marking and agreement can be considered as complementary (of course, agreement is only comparable to the case marking of the core arguments, not to the case marking of adjuncts). Siewierska and Bakker (2009: 293) argue that the difference between case marking and agreement is that case marking denotes “the relation holding between two entities”, whereas agreement is considered to be more specific. Agreement also indicates a relation, but codes only one particular “property” of an argument, such as its person, gender or number. In all other respects, case marking and agreement demonstrate the same distinguishing and indexing functions.

1.1.3 Alignment splits based on referential hierarchies Pairings of grammatical relations constitute alignment patterns. For instance {S, A} as opposed to O is the pattern of accusative alignment. As Bickel (2011) shows, there are many possible pairings of grammatical relations. A single language normally does not display only one alignment type. Though the possibilities of alignment are numerous, in general there are certain recurring regularities in the distribution of alignment patterns. For instance, languages with predominantly ergative alignment may show accusative alignment under particular circumstances. These regularities have led to the assumption of so-called alignment “splits”, i.e., regular occurrences of different alignment patterns within one and

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   35

the same language. Splits may have various motivations, including the semantic factors entailed by the so-called “referential hierarchies”.

1.1.3.1 Silverstein’s hierarchy Split alignment has been a common term in the literature since Dixon (1979). For instance, languages with split alignment may display a predominantly ergative pattern, but they will have constructions diverting from this alignment, often in favor of an accusative pattern. The reasons for these deviating constructions are manifold, but certain alignment patterns appear to be recurrent in the splits. On the basis of these recurrent constructions, one can hypothesize possible motivations for the splits. Since Silverstein (1976), the concept of “referential hierarchy” has been related to case marking and “splits” in alignment patterns. Silverstein noted that referential features of core arguments influence their case marking. He constructed a feature inventory of these referential features and related the inventory with the case marking patterns in different languages. On the basis of a comparison between the feature inventory and the case marking in different languages, Silverstein proposed the following hierarchy of features: first/second person > third person > proper nouns > human > animate > inanimate

In this “universal” hierarchy, there are three different types of features distinguished, viz. features referring to person, nominality, and animacy. Silverstein’s hierarchy is known as the “animacy hierarchy”, “nominal hierarchy” or “person/ indexicality hierarchy”. More recent research has shown that other features can also be arranged in a hierarchy. Siewierska (2004: 149–161) distinguishes a definiteness hierarchy, which ranks the definiteness of the arguments from definite/ specific to indefinite/non-specific, and a focus hierarchy, which ranks topicalized arguments above non-topical arguments. Bickel (2008, 2011: 410) uses “referential hierarchies” (RH) as an overarching term to include all the different hierarchies thus far proposed in the literature, and he notes that politeness and other notions can also be ordered in a referential hierarchy. The hierarchies decisively influence the marking of the core arguments because they predict that A-arguments with features from the left side of the hierarchy will be unmarked, whereas O-arguments with features from the right side of the hierarchy will take no marking (Comrie 1989: 129–137; Bickel 2008: 191 “the Marking-based RH hypothesis”). Silverstein (1976) also claims that the hierarchies are related to the alignment pattern. More specifically, Silverstein contends that the core arguments with features toward the left of the hierarchy pattern accusa-

36   

   Theoretical preliminaries

tively, while the arguments more to the right pattern ergatively (Bickel 2008: 192 “the Alignment-based RH hypothesis”). The latter hypothesis is stronger than the Marking-based hypothesis because according to the Alignment-based RH hypothesis, other factors of alignment, such as verb agreement, are believed to be influenced by the hierarchies. Silverstein’s feature hierarchy (1976) described and predicted the linguistic regularities he encountered in a range of languages. Later, functional explanations were sought for the hierarchies and for their correlations with case marking (McGregor 2009: 490). Dixon (1979) suggests that the “potentiality of agency” (or “natural agentivity”, DeLancey 1981: 645) is the prime motivating factor behind the hierarchies. Agency is “the degree of control which the referent of a noun phrase has over the situation described by the verb with which it is associated” (Comrie 1978: 356). Dixon claims that the arguments at the left of the hierarchy are more agentive-like (i.e., they occur more naturally as agents of an action expressed in a clause). These arguments do not require a special case marking and remain in the nominative case when they are in the agent role because they are naturally interpreted as agents. In other words, they do not need to distinguish or discriminate themselves from the other argument(s). Similarly, when the arguments with features from the left of the hierarchy are assigned patient roles, they are likely marked because these roles are not usually associated with these arguments in a clause. However, arguments at the right side of the hierarchy are rather “unexpected” in an agentive role. Therefore, it is more likely that they are marked, for instance with an ergative case. Their occurrence as patients, though, is considered to be entirely natural, and they are expected to remain unmarked in this function. Nevertheless, recent typological studies have criticized and modified the “potentiality of agency” hypothesis in several respects. Two particular crosslinguistic phenomena were instrumental for the criticism, differential object marking and differential subject marking.

1.1.3.2 Differential object marking: the markedness discussion Differential object marking (DOM) has been explicitly explored in the literature since Payne (1980) and Bossong (1985), who described DOM in Iranian languages. DOM refers to the phenomenon in languages in which O can be marked in different ways. In most languages with DOM, O is either unmarked or marked. This varying markedness of O has been attributed to the influence of the features of the referential hierarchies. The semantic criteria determining the marking of O are usually definiteness and/or animacy, but the topicality level of O can also have an influence (Bossong 1983; Lazard 2001).

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   37

An O-argument with features from the left side of the referential hierarchy should be marked because these arguments are the least likely to function as patients. In this view, O’s should be inanimate, indefinite and non-topical, and generally not salient to human perception and interests, in contrast with A. The core arguments A and O must be maximally distinguished from each other to be clearly identified in the clause (cf. Aissen 1999, 2003). However, the prototypicality of an inanimate/ indefinite O has been contested since Hopper and Thompson (1980). These authors have argued that an affected and individuated O contributes to a higher level of transitivity and is therefore “more natural” than a non-affected or non-individuated O. Individuation refers to a high level of nominality, animacy, concreteness, singularity and definiteness (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 253). Affectedness refers to the extent to which O is affected by the action. The concept is illustrated in Hopper and Thompson (1980: 253) by underlining the difference between, e.g., drinking up the milk compared to drinking some milk, in which some milk is said to be a less affected O than the milk. According to Hopper and Thompson, sentences with an agentive A and an individuated O constitute the prototypical transitive sentence, in which O is definite, concrete, and animate – all of which are properties that are usually attributed to the agent in the discriminatory account, rather than to the O-argument. Drawing on Hopper and Thompson (1980), Comrie (1989: 136) argues that O need not be inanimate or indefinite (i.e. the opposite of A); O is simply less animate/ definite than A is. This argument has been rephrased by de Swart (2006: 253) as the Minimal Semantic Distinctness principle¹⁴ (contra Aissen 2003): “the agent must outrank the patient on the relevant semantic scales”. However, this statement still implies that O must be semantically distinguished in features from A, and this implication contrasts with the indexing approach, according to which the individuation of the patient is on the same level as the individuation of the agent. Næss (2004) acknowledges the contradiction between the view of Hopper and Thompson (1980) and the discriminatory approach and attempts to find a middle way by arguing that the distinguishing feature of O is not individuation, but affectedness. In this view, a prototypical patient is more affected by the action than the agent is. However, Næss (2004: 1203) argues that the affectedness of O is instantiated by a high level of animacy and definiteness, because living beings and definite entities (e.g., the milk instead of some milk) will naturally be more affected. It is not entirely clear whether Næss’ reasoning amounts to more than a terminological discussion. She attributes definiteness/animacy to the property of affectedness rather than individuation, contrary to Hopper and Thompson

14 Not to be confused with Næss’ principle of “maximal semantic distinctness” of the arguments, that is presented in the same volume (Næss 2006: 310, see Section 1.2.3.2).

38   

   Theoretical preliminaries

(1980); but ultimately, affectedness and individuation are similar, if not identical, properties of a transitive construction because both are based on the same diagnostic features of definiteness and animacy. Cross-linguistically, definiteness and animacy are clearly the main factors determining DOM. However, definiteness and animacy are different types of features. Animacy is an inherent property of an argument, whereas definiteness is contingent (cf. Siewierska 2004: 156; Bossong 1983), in the sense that definiteness is a property that can be attributed to an argument and is not inherent to the argument.¹⁵ Moreover, animacy and definiteness are not equally important for case marking in all languages. For instance, Klein and de Swart (2011) maintain that in a language in which animacy and definiteness influence case marking, animacy can have a stronger impact than definiteness. If this claim is true, a definite but inanimate O should not be marked, whereas an animate but indefinite O should be marked. Definiteness is only a factor when the O is inanimate because an animate O is always marked.¹⁶ Klein and de Swart (2011) also distinguish between “trigger” and “result” factors. Animacy is a trigger of overt case marking because the markedness of O is a result of its animacy. Definiteness, though, is an interpretation of O resulting from the marking. Clearly, the distinction between “trigger” and “result” creates an inequality among the features found in the hierarchies. Therefore, it is not surprising that Klein and de Swart question the relevance of the referential hierarchies for DOM (cf. also Durie 1988; Du Bois 2003: 31). They opt for a “multidimensional” account of binary features rather than features ranked in a hierarchy. These binary features include other non-referential but grammatical principles such as word order and tense. The question of the validity of referential hierarchies for the case marking of O is related to the marking of A. In particular, a phenomenon called “markedness reversal” complicates the perspective related to referential hierarchies. The concept of “markedness reversal” has an immediate bearing on differential subject marking.

15 However, there is one exception that is often ignored in typological literature. Proper names are per definitionem definite, therefore definiteness is an inherent property of a proper name (cf., Willems 2000: 98). 16 This conclusion is largely based on evidence from Hindi-Urdu, which Klein and de Swart (2011) however slightly misrepresent (cf. Chapter 2). The authors adduce a better example from Kannada (Lidz 2006), but in this language, definiteness is split into specific/non-specific; thus it is unclear whether the semantic properties that interact (and that are subsequently ranked against each other) are restricted to animacy and definiteness, or whether a more fine-grained view of definiteness and animacy that incorporates specificity, humanness, and givenness should be developed.

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   39

1.1.3.3 Differential subject marking Differential subject marking is the phenomenon in which the subject can be either marked or unmarked. The term originated in the context of ergative constructions and semantic alignment. In DSM, the influence of referential hierarchies is relevant only for the marking of A. In ergative constructions, A is normally marked. However, a certain type of A does not take the ergative case marking but remains unmarked. Two hierarchies in particular are said to determine typical examples of DSM, viz. the person and the nominal hierarchy. Silverstein (1976) claims that in such splits, pronominal A’s tend to be unmarked whereas nominal A’s take the ergative case. In other languages, first/second person pronominal A’s are unmarked, whereas third person pronominal and non-pronominal A-arguments are in the ergative case. It is also possible that the difference lies between the first and the second person, one of which is unmarked and the other marked. Other hierarchies do not seem to apply to A-marking. For instance, Næss (2004) indicates that the level of definiteness of A has no influence on A-marking. Malchukov (2008: 207–208) notes an influence of referential hierarchies in the other direction; that is, in certain languages, only an animate or volitional A is ergatively marked and not an inanimate or non-volitional A. This observation contradicts the expectation that only a non-typical A, with features on the right side of the referential hierarchies, will be marked. In fact, the opposite is true: an A that is highly volitional tends to be marked. According to Wierzbicka (1981), there is no evidence that the speaker is more typically an agent than any other person. In the same vain, Mallinson and Blake (1981: 82–86) conclude that there is only a difference in agency between humans and non-humans, not between pronouns and nouns designating humans. Consequently, Wierzbicka (1981: 76) replaces agency with topicality and argues that the more topical arguments tend to be marked less. Malchukov (2008: 216) confirms that topical A-arguments tend to be unmarked, whereas a newly introduced A is rather marked. Silverstein (1976) and Dixon (1979) claim that the referential hierarchies are parallel in both directions. The properties that are typical of A are thought of as expressing features that are opposites of the properties typical of O. Numerous scholars have considered this situation as an instance of “markedness reversal” (Aissen 2003). However, as demonstrated above, cross-linguistic evidence has shown that DOM and DSM are essentially determined by different hierarchies (de Swart 2006: 251). Animacy and definiteness determine the marking of O, but the differential marking of A can be explained by topicality (Malchukov 2008: 216). Conversely, the marking of O is not directly determined by a nominal or person hierarchy, though animacy and definiteness of course interact with these hierarchies. A second, quantitative, argument against the notion of markedness rever-

40   

   Theoretical preliminaries

sal is that there are far fewer languages with DSM than there are with DOM. If both A and O were determined by the need to be distinguished from the respective other argument, many more parallel splits in argument marking would need to be observed (Næss 2004). Bickel (2008) concludes that the markedness-based RH hypothesis is correct in that there is a cross-linguistic tendency for leftmost A-arguments to be less marked than rightmost A-arguments. This tendency holds exclusively for case marking. However, on the basis of cross-linguistic data, Bickel also maintains that there is no relation between referential hierarchies and alignment patterns. Alignment concerns both case marking and verb agreement. Because verb agreement is rarely influenced by referential hierarchies, establishing a relationship between the hierarchies and alignment patterns is extremely difficult. However, Bickel and Witzlack-Makarevich (2008) have found substantial evidence of languages in which a pronominal A is marked and a non-pronominal A is unmarked. Therefore, Bickel concludes that differential subject marking is often caused by a convergence of historical conditions rather than by influences of features from the referential hierarchies (cf. Filiminova 2005, Chapter 6). There are still other instances in which the subject can be marked in different ways, which may be grouped under “semantic alignment” (cf. Wichmann 2008, Section 1.1.2.1). The pattern found in the so-called “active” languages is a wellknown case in point: the coding of the arguments is based on the semantics of the verb or the patientive/agentive nature of S (cf. Section 1.1.2.1). Another type of semantic alignment occurs in combination with a particular lexical set of verbs. These verbs are transitive in that they take two core arguments, but they lack other semantic features of transitivity (for instance, an agentive A, an affected O, telicity of the verb, etc., cf. Hopper and Thompson 1980). As a result, the subject takes an oblique case, often the dative or a comparable case (Nichols 2008; Kittilä 2011, cf. Chapter 2). A final type of DSM occurs primarily in the Australian languages and has been called “optional ergative marking” (cf. McGregor 2010). In this type, the marking of A with an ergative is entirely optional and is not restricted by any grammatical feature. The functional motivations behind this type of DSM extend beyond pure referential hierarchy; the marking seems to be caused by discourse motivations or other reasons (cf. McGregor 2010; Meakins and O’Shannessy 2010).¹⁷

17 Nepali illustrates this type of DSM. See Section 4.2 for an elaborate discussion.

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   41

1.1.4 Tense/Aspect/Mood and head- vs. dependent-marking Many splits in alignment are not determined by grammatical factors; rather, they are determined by semantic factors that influence grammatical coding. In splits that are determined by referential hierarchies the semantics of the core arguments have a central role. However, the semantics of the verb may also be a decisive factor in the alignment split.

1.1.4.1 Tense/Aspect/Mood split Dixon (1979) draws attention to splits that are conditioned by the tense/aspect/ mood (TAM) of verbs. There is a cross-linguistic tendency in which a TAM split in alignment entails that constructions with a perfective verb take ergative alignment and constructions with an imperfective verb take accusative alignment.¹⁸ Consequently, it has been argued that there is a semantic similarity between an ergative coding and a perfective tense/aspect; that is, both point to the result of an action. The perfective is considered to emphasize the completion of an action and can be interpreted as either resultative or bounded (cf. Comrie 1973; Peterson 1998; Malchukov and de Hoop 2011). The ergative construction has been considered as a “patient-oriented” construction, as opposed to the “agent-oriented” accusative construction (cf. Regamey 1954; Hock 1986). Whereas the patient is considered to be central to the construction, the agent is considered peripheral in an ergative construction (Mallinson and Blake 1981). In this view, every event expressed in a transitive construction is considered to have a conceptual “starting point” and “endpoint”. The starting point is the agent, the argument that instigates the action, and the endpoint is the patient, the argument that represents the result of the action. The agent is the focus in accusative constructions, but the patient is the focus in ergative constructions (cf. DeLancey 1981, Section 1.2.1.2). This relationship is considered to be similar to the relation between perfective and imperfective constructions. A perfective construction refers to a completed action, whereas an imperfective construction expresses an action that has begun but has not yet come to an end (cf. DeLancey 1981; Dixon 1994). Although this reasoning has been proposed as a functional explanation for the split, many tense/aspect splits in languages seem to be the consequences of certain historical developments that have led to an ergative pattern (cf. Kachru and Pandharipande

18 There is one profound exception; in some languages of the Cariban language family the ergative pattern is found only with imperfective verb forms (Gildea 2003).

42   

   Theoretical preliminaries

1979; Abraham 2000). In this view, the TAM split is not necessarily functionally motivated, but rather an effect of an indirect motivation (cf. Creissels 2008).¹⁹ Finally, Dixon (1979) has also drawn attention to splits in the alignment between main clauses and subordinate clauses. The motivation for this type of split is similar to that of the TAM split because the mood in main clauses (e.g., realis) tends to differ from that of subordinate clauses (e.g., irrealis, future) (Dixon 1994).

1.1.4.2 Case marking and verb agreement There are two main morphosyntactic mechanisms coding the arguments in a clause, the coding of arguments on the verb and the marking of the arguments themselves (recall that in this study “coding” is used as an overall term irrespective of whether the coding occurs on the verb or on the arguments, whereas “marking” exclusively refers to coding on the arguments.) Nichols (1986, cf. also Helmbrecht 2001) distinguishes languages that prefer one of these mechanisms and calls them “head-marking” and “dependent-marking” languages respectively. Head-marking refers to the coding on the verb that is the head of the clause and is known as verb agreement (Croft 1988; Dixon 1994; Haspelmath 2005: 2). Dependent-marking refers to the morphological marking on the arguments themselves and can range from inflectional case marking to the use of adpositional marking and clitics. Although most languages show only one of the two coding types (Nichols 1992), some languages combine both types. However, in these languages, head- and dependent-marking do not necessarily display the same alignment pattern. This peculiarity has been investigated by Klimov (1973) who distinguishes “verbal ergativity”, “nominal ergativity”, and “mixed ergativity”. With these terms, he refers to three ways in which ergative coding presents itself in languages; in the form of an ergative case (nominal ergativity), in the form of verb agreement with O (verbal ergativity), or in the occurrence of both forms. According to Comrie (1978), the five systems of morphological marking (viz., the accusative, ergative, tripartite, neutral, and S≠A=O pattern), are also attested for verb agreement (cf. Section 1.1.1). Moreover, relatively rare morphological systems such as the tripartite and S≠A=O systems occur more frequently as agreement patterns than as case marking patterns. Comrie draws attention to the Iranian language Danesfani as showing the latter type of verb agreement: the verb agrees only with the S-argument. However, this peculiar agreement has a

19 For example, consider the development from a passive construction to an ergative construction, cf. Section 1.2.2.

Ergativity from a functional and typological perspective   

   43

diachronic explanation in Comrie’s view: Danesfani is in a transitional stage from an ergative-absolutive system that is apparently “breaking down” and “being replaced by a nominative-accusative or neutral system” (1978: 342). Because of the clash between the new accusative agreement with A and the old ergative agreement with O, the language “opts” to delete all ambiguous agreement suffixes and retains only the agreement with S. In Comrie’s opinion, this system will further develop into a system in which S-agreement is also lost or in which new ways of coding A and O are created. Accusative verb agreement regularly occurs in combination with an ergative case marking pattern; however, “the inverse is rare or non-existent” (Comrie 1978: 340; Woolford 2006). Dixon (1994: 94; also Mallinson and Blake 1981: 104) provides a possible reason for this asymmetry. Dixon chooses the term ‘bound’ versus ‘free’ split to designate the split between case marking and verb agreement. The terminology ‘bound’ versus ‘free’ refers to the split in alignment between the ‘bound’ cross-references (agreement markers) on the verb and the ‘free’ case marking on the pronouns. Such a situation is attested, for instance, in the New Guinean language Enga in which the case marking is ergative and the verb agreement accusative (cf. Bossong 1984). Dixon (1994: 94) reduces the ‘bound’ versus ‘free’ split to the fairly common split between the accusative alignment of sentences with a pronominal A and the ergative alignment of sentences with a non-pronominal A. Dixon (1994: 86) argues that pronominal A-arguments are unmarked due to their “verb controlling nature”. However, as pointed out in Section 1.1.3.3, the correlation between verb agreement and the referential hierarchy of “agency” is not confirmed cross-linguistically. The accusative pattern of pronominal A-arguments is often not a result of their more agentive roles, but particular historical developments may have had a decisive role. The second reason Dixon provides for the link between pronouns and cross-referencing is a historical argument and may be more convincing: in many languages, the affixes on the verb that refer to its arguments evolved along a cline from earlier pronominal forms through bound pronouns to affixes. Dixon concludes that agreement in languages with a ‘bound’ versus ‘free’ split should be accusative, whereas case marking, which applies to both pronouns and nouns, should be ergative (cf. also Bossong 1984: 383). If an alignment split between case marking and agreement is possible, then the question arise as to whether the two coding properties have the same function and whether (and how) they influence each other. According to Givón (2001: 231), verb agreement and case marking have complementary functions. He argues that agreement can fill in a lacuna created by the case marking. For instance, if the case marking is nominative and distinguishes between the grammatical relations of subject/object, then verb agreement may be a means of indicating the seman-

44   

   Theoretical preliminaries

tic roles of agent/patient. This idea is informed by Nichols (1990), who argues that verb agreement (head-marking) is associated with one particular alignment type (i.e., the semantic alignment in the so-called stative languages). According to Croft (1988, 2003: 147), agreement is different from case marking because agreement directly refers to properties of the arguments, whereas case marking is primarily a means to code a semantic relation between the argument(s) and the event. In this view, agreement has the discourse function of keeping track of the arguments and is therefore akin to the way anaphoric relations are expressed by anaphoric pronouns. The above-mentioned different functions of case marking and verb agreement have led to the assumption that case marking and verb agreement are two different mechanisms that exist independently of each other and do not necessarily influence each other (cf. Jelinek 1984; Subbarao 2000 and Butt and King 2004; but see Woolford 2006 and Chapter 6).

1.2 Direct and indirect motivations of ergativity According to Anderson (1976), most languages display only a morphological type of ergativity; moreover, this type only occurs in a limited number of constructions. As a result, Anderson has claimed that ergativity is merely a “trivial fact about morphology” (Anderson 1976: 16–17). Other scholars have sought to answer the question why this morphological variation exists. Some scholars have attributed a (cognitive) function to ergativity (cf. Du Bois 1987; Langacker 1991), whereas others have concluded that Anderson’s approach (1976) is essentially correct and that the ergative pattern is merely a result of other grammatical developments (cf. DeLancey 2004; Gildea 2004; Creissels 2008). The most straightforward functional explanation to date has been provided by Comrie (1978; Tchekhoff 1972: 47). According to Comrie, the motivation behind the occurrence of different alignment types is simply to distinguish core arguments from each other. In a transitive sentence, two arguments must be identified. In an intransitive sentence, only one argument must be identified. The factors that are associated with this unique S-argument may be identical to one of the two arguments of a transitive sentence. If the argument identical to S is A, the pattern is accusative, if the identical argument is O, the pattern is ergative. Other possible alignment patterns are considered uneconomical by Comrie (tripartite type) or provide no information with respect to the identification of the arguments (neutral pattern). Therefore, the accusative and ergative patterns are preferred as a result of economy and iconicity (by avoiding ambiguity).

Direct and indirect motivations of ergativity   

   45

However, one does not find an even distribution of the accusative and ergative patterns across the languages of the world. Even in a single language, there is usually a preference for one of the two types of constructions. Therefore, in cognitive and functional accounts, Comrie’s typological explanation is considered insufficient; rather, these accounts focus on finding cognitive and/or functional motivations for the pairing of {S, A} and {S, O}. Garcia-Miguel (2011: 772) aptly summarizes the approach towards ergative and accusative languages in cognitive linguistics as follows: “languages grammaticalize either one of two possible orientations in the conceptualization of events with two participants: starting from subject and eventually extending to an object or starting from the nuclear relation with an absolutive and eventually extending to an ergative”. The goal of cognitive accounts is to find the rationale of {S, A} vs. {S, O}; that is, the cognitive motivation(s) for the tendencies of certain languages to code S and A in the same way and for other languages to code S and O in the same manner. However, because they seek a motivation, cognitive accounts seem to underestimate the diversity of alignment patterns. Many cognitive and functional accounts of ergativity use the term “ergative language” as opposed to “accusative languages”, and the class of “active languages” constitutes the third pattern that they distinguish (cf. Cooreman et al. 1984; Dik 1978). Indeed, if one language were associated with a single alignment type, one could argue that the conceptualization of events in one language or alignment is fundamentally different from that in another language or alignment. However, the proof of the viability of a theory is in the splits. If ergativity is considered to be essentially determined by a cognitive motivation that demands the identical coding of S and O, then the same cognitive motivation should also be able to account for the many non-ergative patterns in languages with a predominantly ergative pattern. Unfortunately, in the empirical investigation of languages, these motivations have not been supported. Similarly, in cognitive linguistics, scholars endorse the view that the absolutive case differs from the nominative case and argue that the absolutive is the case of {S, O}, whereas the nominative is the case of {S, A} (e.g., Du Bois 1987: 808; Langacker 1991: 380, Section 1.1.2.3). The distinction between the nominative and the absolutive emphasizes the difference between the two patterns to the extent that they seem to have nothing in common. Only DeLancey (1981) hesitates to assume a fundamental distinction between the nominative and absolutive. DeLancey refers to Trubetzkoy (1939), who suggested, according to DeLancey (1981: 630), that “‘nominative’ and ‘absolutive’ are in some sense the same category.” (cf. Section 1.2.3). In this Section 1.2, I will show that scholars have adduced both “direct” and “indirect” motivations to explain ergativity in languages. Direct motivations are at the core of functional approaches which attempt to account for the ergative pat-

46   

   Theoretical preliminaries

terning in languages from a discourse perspective, and of the approaches from a cognitive perspective which refer to cognitive conceptualizations to explain ergative alignment. The idea of ‘competing motivations’ is incorporated into the functional approaches to account for the splits discussed in Section 1.1.3 and 1.1.4. In Creissels’ approach (2008) ergative patterns are caused by “indirect” motivations. Creissels favors a historical account in which the ergative pattern is described as an “effect” of other diachronic developments in the language related to alignment patterns. This approach adeptly handles the splits in alignment, because the ergative pattern is considered to be a coincidental epiphenomenon rather than an independent cognitively motivated system.

1.2.1 Ergativity in discourse-functional and cognitive linguistics 1.2.1.1 Du Bois: “The discourse base of ergativity” Functional accounts have sought functional similarities between O and S to account for the similar coding of these two core arguments. Compared with the well-known subject similarities between A and S, O and S seem to have little in common. Since Dixon (1979), it has been demonstrated that A and S can be grouped together as prototypical agents and as syntactic subjects of particular constructions (cf. Section  1.1.2.1). On the basis of Dixon, the functionalist Givón (2001) claims that {S, A} is the result of a grammaticalization process of the “primary clausal topic”. The topic of a clause is what is being talked about, the accessible information, and the implication of A and S expressing the discourse topic is that both are coded in the same way (cf. Givón 1983; Cooreman et al. 1984; Chafe 1994). In this view, the grouping of S and A is determined by discourse motivations rather than by semantic roles or syntactic functions. In his article “The discourse basis of ergativity”, Du Bois (1987) argues in favor of a similar discourse-based account for {S, O} in ergative constructions. He emphasizes the validity of describing {S, A} as the most agentive, topical and human-like arguments, but argues that another, “competing”, motivation may cause a deviation from this accusative pattern that groups S and A. The main thrust of his account is that S and O are associated with lexical and new information; and in this respect, they differ from A. According to Du Bois, the main discourse function of A is to maintain topic continuity in narrative discourse; therefore, A is less likely to contain new information (cf. Givón 1983). All languages display a “preferred argument structure” which dictates that only one new lexical core argument should be introduced in a clause and that the argument representing this new information should not be A (Du Bois 2003: 34). From this perspec-

Direct and indirect motivations of ergativity   

   47

tive, S and O are grouped on the basis of their common discourse function of introducing new information, and this grouping is arguably a functional motivation for their identical coding in ergative constructions. However, according to Du Bois, the motivations to group {S, A} as agentive topics and {S, O} as conveyers of new information compete with each other, and this competition causes the split patterns. The split along Silverstein’s hierarchy of pronouns that are coded differently from nouns is also accounted for by this idea of competing motivations. Notably, pronominal arguments tend to pattern accusatively because these arguments are natural agents. The semantic nature of pronouns is said to carry more weight than their possible, but unlikely, discourse role of conveying new information. Pronouns are necessarily already “given”; that is, they are either mentioned in the discourse or referential (Du Bois 1987: 844). Pronouns are not likely to be grouped as {S, O} because they do not, as a rule, convey new information (although in some languages they do pattern ergatively, cf. Newmeyer 1998: 149; Bickel and Witzlack-Makarevich 2008, see Section 1.1.3.3 and Chapter 6). The account given by Du Bois (1987) is based on an analysis of quantitative data from the Mayan languages to determine the distribution of new and old information across S, A and O. The results obtained seem to be confirmed by data from other languages (e.g., Scancarelli 1985; Du Bois et al. 2003; references in Du Bois 2003: 38–40 and McGregor 2009: 486). Du Bois’ account has also been incorporated into grammaticalization theory, because his account presents a neat example of how discourse becomes grammaticalized into morphology and syntax (cf. Hopper and Traugott 1993). Nevertheless, Du Bois’ account does not explain all splits described in the literature; for instance, it does not explain the alignment split based on TAM. There is no obvious explanation for why a certain discourse motivation would “win” in a perfective construction but “lose” in an imperfective construction. The variation between ergative and accusative patterns cannot be ignored and raises the questions of why and under what circumstances one motivation takes precedence over another one. Clearly, the preference for one motivation over another cannot be determined for all languages, because different patterns can occur in one particular language. This view has also been adopted by Harris and Campbell (1995, repeated in Gildea 2004), who have added that historical developments may lead to different alignment patterns. For instance, in the transition process from a passive to an ergative pattern, the coding pattern seems to contradict the preferred argument structure because an oblique-marked argument (i.e., the passive agent) that introduces new information is reanalyzed as an ergatively marked A-argument, which typically conveys old information. Thus, from a historical point of view, the claim that there is a preferred argument structure based on discourse preferences is not valid because the A-argument, which supposedly conveys old information, derives from an argument that typi-

48   

   Theoretical preliminaries

cally introduces new information into the clause. Interestingly, Newmeyer (1998: 149–150) has presented an even more fundamental criticism from a generative perspective: “we have no way of placing limits on what the relevant set of possible motivating factors are for any particular phenomenon”. Thus, other factors in addition to the semantic and discourse motivations mentioned by Du Bois may also have roles in determining the argument coding, and the number of possible motivations is unlimited. This claim seems to be confirmed by the wide variation of different coding patterns and grammatical relations in languages, which draw on more than a simple discourse grouping of {S, O} or semantic grouping of {S, A}.

1.2.1.2 Cognitive accounts To explain splits in alignment, DeLancey (1981) introduces two cognitive concepts: viewpoint and attention flow. He defines viewpoint as “the perspective from which the speaker describes the event” and attention flow as “the order in which the speaker expects the hearer to attend” to core arguments (DeLancey 1981: 626). According to DeLancey, all events have a natural attention flow, which runs from the source to the goal. The source of the attention flow forms the “starting point” and the goal is the “terminal point”. In the previously mentioned accounts, {S, A} represents the agent or the topic. DeLancey considers {S, A} as representing the starting point and O as the terminal point. He argues that the source and goal of the natural attention flow can conflict with the viewpoint of the speaker. In normal circumstances, the viewpoint of the speaker is the same as the starting point of the attention flow. However, the speaker may consciously choose another viewpoint, for instance by using a passive construction. In a passive construction, the end-point of the event is presented first, in the form of the patient-subject. Because the hearer is unlikely to expect this viewpoint, it must be indicated by formal measures such as passive syntax. DeLancey subsequently claims that the viewpoint chosen by the speaker in ergative constructions is invariably O, viz. the terminal point of the action. As a result, viewpoint and attention flow conflict. Consequently, the natural starting point, which is A, must be marked by means of a genuine ergative case to indicate the reversal of the viewpoint. Gildea (2004) considers the ergative case as a marker of “the peripheralization of the agent”, in the sense that the agent does not seem to be included in the verb-terminal point unity but rather stands apart. This observation is linked to the view that {S, O} in an ergative construction represents the topic, i.e., the “central entity” of the construction, and that A is the “peripheral” argument of the construction because A is located outside of the verb-patient unit (cf. Wierzbicka 1980; Mallinson and Blake 1981: 103).

Direct and indirect motivations of ergativity   

   49

DeLancey relates the viewpoint versus attention flow idea to two types of regular splits occurring in alignment patterns; i.e., the splits based on the referential hierarchies of the arguments (in particular the different case markings of pronouns and nouns) and the TAM splits connected with the semantics of the verb. With regard to the first split, DeLancey argues that the accusative patterning of pronominal A-arguments is logical. Pronouns are deictic centres; hence, they always represent the viewpoint of the speaker. Whereas Du Bois (1987) focuses on the linguistic “givenness” of the pronouns, DeLancey argues that the “deictic character” of the pronouns groups them as {S, A}. Due to their deictic value and their highly topic-worthy nature, they are the most typical nominative subjects (cf. also Mallinson and Blake 1981: 104). DeLancey (1981: 646–647) accounts for the second type of splits, the TAM splits, on the basis of the same cognitive conceptualization of attention flow and viewpoint. In imperfective (accusative) constructions, the natural starting point of attention flow is usually identical to the viewpoint of the speaker, given that the action starts from the agent and has not yet been terminated. However, a perfective construction emphasizes the goal of an action (i.e., the natural terminal point of an event). Languages with a TAM split apparently “don’t permit a conflict between aspect and viewpoint assignment” (DeLancey 1981: 647, cf. also Wierzbicka 1980; Regamey 1954; Mallinson and Blake 1981: 106), because resultoriented perfective constructions cannot occur in combination with a “starting point-oriented” accusative alignment pattern. Conversely, imperfective, starting point-oriented constructions cannot display an ergative result-oriented alignment pattern. However, this connection between the semantics of perfective constructions and the ergative pattern has been discarded by Anderson (1992: 355) as “elusive and essentially stipulative”. Anderson’s criticism well-taken, DeLancey’s approach demands a willingness to interpret the meaning of a perfective as similar to the meaning of an ergative construction, considering that the perfective construction conveys a particular tense/aspect meaning that is not conveyed strictu senso by the ergative construction. DeLancey’s approach to ergative alignment faces the same objections as Du Bois’ approach. The attention flow/viewpoint perspective cannot account for the variation in alignment patterns within a language. DeLancey attempts to account for some regularly occurring splits, but he considers them as exceptions to the ergative pattern and assumes different (exceptional) motivations for all of these splits. DeLancey’s explanation is essentially a cognitive approach in which case is defined as a locational relation in a conceptual space. Langacker’s cognitivist view of ergativity shows the same desire to define the ergative case on a semantic, localistic base. Langacker (1991: 380) argues against the assumption that the “ergative/absolutive” pattern marks subject/object relations because the ergative

50   

   Theoretical preliminaries

case does not mark all subjects, and the “absolutive” is not restricted to only one grammatical relation. The obvious rationale behind the accusative pattern is precisely its correlation with the grammatical relations of subject/object. However, in ergative patterns, there is no correlation between the coding properties of the arguments and the subject/object distinction. A and S do not pattern in the same way; thus, they do not constitute the category of “subject”. The motivation behind the existence of the ergative pattern must therefore be sought elsewhere. Langacker, in contradistinction to DeLancey (1987), applies a broad definition of ergativity. In contemporary linguistics, one differentiates between “typological ergativity” (cf. Dixon 1979), in which the ergative pattern is morphologically or syntactically indicated, and “lexical-semantic ergativity”, in which an ergative pattern is observed at the lexical or semantic level (cf. Halliday [1966] 2003: 61–67, 1967; Davidse 1992; Lemmens 1998; McGregor 2009).²⁰ Although originally introduced by Halliday, the idea of lexical-semantic ergativity has been influenced by the generative interpretation of ergativity. In this interpretation, ergativity is essentially a property of the verb rather than a property of the construction. According to Peeters (2000: 688) “among (a decreasing number of) generativists, verbs are called ergative if their subject at surface structure level does not derive from an underlying subject, but instead from a direct object”; this idea harkens back to Burzio (1986), Perlmutter (1983) and Wunderlich (1985: 194). They consider the subject of an “ergative” verb not as a true agentive subject but an underlying direct object. Langacker adopts the definition of Halliday, contra Dixon (1994: 20), arguing that ergative patterns can be observed in all languages, including English. For instance, Langacker claims that nominalizations in English pattern ergatively. In the following examples, “of” indicates S and O, whereas “by” is the marker of A (Langacker 1991: 380): (15)

a.

the chanting of the demonstrators

b. the chanting of the slogans c.

the chanting of the slogans by the demonstrators

The difference between the constructions in (15) and morphologically ergative constructions is the following: the verb to chant is divalent; that is, it can take (no more than) two arguments. However, the construction in which to chant can

20 Thus far, I have considered only “typological ergativity” in this study. I will continue to refer to typologically ergative constructions when using the simple term “ergativity”.

Direct and indirect motivations of ergativity   

   51

occur, may be transitive or intransitive: (15a) is an intransitive construction and (15b) and (15c) are transitive constructions. Much earlier, Tchekhoff (1978: 42) had already considered this type of nominalization in French to be an illustration of what he called “neutralité … pour la voix” (i.e., the voice of the verb is neutralized and is neither passive nor active). However, in morphologically ergative constructions, divalent verbs that can occur in transitive and intransitive constructions are rare. Even if a divalent verb occurs without O, the construction is still considered transitive, in the assumption that one argument is not overtly realized. Langacker’s broad definition of ergativity also implies that English verbs such as break and melt are considered ergative because they can occur in both one-argument and two-argument constructions. In the following examples, the ice is the subject in (16a) but the direct object in (16b), yet semantically, it remains the theme in both occurrences. (16)

a.

The ice broke.

b. John broke the ice. Note that in languages with morphological ergativity, verbs of the ‘break’ type are expected to be exceptional, because the case marking of the core arguments depends on the transitivity of the verb. Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000: 4) labelled them “ambitransitive” because they can be transitive or intransitive.²¹ Morphologically ergative marking is inherently related to transitivity because the verbs in ergative constructions must be transitive; if not, their subjects will not take ergative case (cf. Genetti 2007: 107 on Dolakha Newar). Dixon (1994) has argued against the use of the term “ergative” to designate lexical-semantic ergativity in languages such as English, on the basis of the observation that it is confusing to treat a pattern determined by morphosyntactic features in the same way as a lexical-semantic pattern. However, McGregor (2009: 486) sees no reason not to extend the term from typological ergativity to lexical-semantic ergativity because other phenomena in addition to case marking are included in typological ergativity already (for instance patterns of syntactic ergativity). Therefore, McGregor considers ergativity not a purely morphosyntactic phenomenon, but liable to an extension to the lexical-semantic level. In a lexical-semantic account of ergativity, a verb is either “ergative” (e.g., ‘break’) or “transitive” (e.g., ‘kill’) because erga-

21 Note that break differs from a verb such as eat. When eat is used in an intransitive construction, then this is merely a case of ellipsis, rendering O automatically indefinite, as in he is eating (cf. Næss 2007: 125).

52   

   Theoretical preliminaries

tivity is considered a property of the verb. In contrast, constructions with ergative morphology or syntax are necessarily transitive. From Dixon’s point of view, ergativity is a property of a construction rather than a property of a verb – if the verb were not transitive, there would be no ergative morphology/syntax. Hence, there is a fundamental difference between the two views on ergativity. Extending the term from morphologically ergative constructions in Dyirbal to English ‘break’ constructions is clearly not the same as extending the term from case marking to other coding patterns. Furthermore, Abraham (2000: 133) points out that if we wish to analyze the English ‘break’ examples, without the observation of formal coding properties, “all we are thrown back to are the syntactic diagnostics – which turn out to be of a dramatically different nature [than the formal coding properties used to identify typologically ergative constructions]”. Abraham applies three syntactic analyses (coordination, passivization and relative clause constructing) to typologically ergative constructions from Dyirbal and to the English ‘break’ type of examples and concludes that the two constructions have nothing in common. Remarkably, although Langacker (1991) considers ergativity to be a lexicalsemantic property of verbs, which is clear from his choice of examples, he also applies his approach to morphological ergativity by attempting to account for the ergative and absolutive cases. Like DeLancey, Langacker argues that each event follows a natural path. The path runs along a prominence hierarchy from the “primary figure” to the “secondary figure” in the event, and these figures are projected on a “ground”. In spatial terms, the primary figure is the “trajectory” or the starting point of an action, and the secondary figure is the “landmark” or the goal. Langacker’s notion of primary and secondary figures is parallel to Givón’s idea of primary and secondary topics. The primary figure/topic is the subject/nominative, and the secondary figure/topic is the object/accusative in accusative constructions. The ergative pattern presents the event differently. Langacker argues that the nominative and absolutive cases, which are both formally unmarked, are the “more basic cognitive” terms in an alignment theory. Clearly, the nominative is the starting point as the primary figure, but the absolutive is also a starting point, albeit “of a natural path defined in terms of conceptual autonomy/dependence” (Langacker 1991: 382). According to Langacker, this “autonomy/dependence” layering defines a path “running counter to the flow of energy along an action chain”. This approach implies that the starting point of an action is the “theme”. Langacker illustrates this concept with the ‘break’ example: “(glass break)” is the autonomous proposition (the “event conception’s conceptually autonomous ‘core’”, as Langacker 1999: 84 puts it) to which one can add an element such as ‘hammer’. Thus, ‘hammer’ is the dependent element or the new influx of “energy” in the event structure (Langacker 1991: 382, 1999: 85). In this view, the absolutive case is part of the “thematic relationship”. In short,

Direct and indirect motivations of ergativity   

   53

the absolutive is the “theme”, and the ergative case is the “agent”. “Theme” and “agent” are defined in terms of autonomy/dependency; “theme” expresses the autonomous, thematic relation, and “agent” expresses the input of “energy”. Mithun and Chafe (1999: 583) argue similarly that the absolutive case is the “participant most immediately or directly involved in the event or state”. According to Mithun and Chafe, the “immediacy of involvement” determines the ergative pattern, and according to Garcia-Miguel (2011: 768), this concept is identical to Langacker’s autonomy/dependency distinction. “[T]he theme is more intrinsic to the overall event conception than other participants” (Langacker 1999: 86), and this constitutes the motivation for the ergative construction. The account of ergativity by Langacker (1999) is subsumed under the Chapter  “The meaning of of”; thus, Langacker provides essentially an account of the “ergative” construction in English in this chapter. However, his account has been applied to languages with morphological ergative constructions (e.g., Mithun and Chafe 1999; Montaut 2004, 2009b, Chapter  2). With regard to the extension to typologically ergative languages, Langacker assumes that the theme and the verb are central to the proposition, whereas the agent in an ergative construction is a peripheral argument, not obligatory and easily omitted. However, this assumption runs counter to what is found in most ergative constructions, for the expression of the agent in a transitive clause is as obligatory as the expression of an agent in accusative constructions. In addition to the focus on lexical-semantic ergativity, Langacker’s account is flawed in the same way as DeLancey’s and Du Bois’ accounts: it cannot explain the extensive variation among the alignment patterns in languages. Why would certain constructions prefer to indicate “the immediacy of involvement” of the participants, whereas the same constructions with a different verb tense would then indicate “the starting point” of an action instead? Another unsettled point is how the “theme”-based approach could account for languages in which A and O are both overtly marked (cf. Chapter 2). Split patterns are the greatest problem for functional and other motivations of ergativity. Cognitive accounts of ergativity assume a different underlying conceptualization of ergative and accusative constructions, but they overlook the fact that the same event can be expressed in the same language by means of different alignment patterns, without any indication that there is a different conceptualization of the event. For example, another alignment pattern may be used if a verb tense changes or if the first person changes to the third person. Such findings caution against a purely “conceptual”, cognitive-based framework explaining ergativity. Moreover, Gildea (2004) claims that from a historical perspective, “neither the putative semantic similarity between O and S, nor the discourse affinity between O and S, has ever been observed to lead to the creation of

54   

   Theoretical preliminaries

an absolutive grammatical category”. In a later article, DeLancey (2004) refrains from considering ergativity as a taxonomic, independent phenomenon. He refers to ergativity as a “blue bird”, implying that ergativity is as much a determining feature to classify languages as being blue is a taxonomic feature to classify birds. The observation is interesting, but it does not provide any information about the cognitive foundation of language. An attempt to find functional or conceptual motivations for a bird’s being blue or a language’s being ergative, may turn out to be a vain enterprise.

1.2.2 Historical motivations Explaining ergativity from a purely historical point of view is almost tantamount to denying any functional importance of the ergative system from a synchronic point of view and arguing that it is merely an epiphenomenon of linguistic change. Historical motivations assume that the ergative construction emerged at a certain time in a language that had previously displayed only accusative constructions. Specifically, historical motivations are based on research on languages with ergative constructions for which historical material is available, such as Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian. To study other languages, scholars must rely on reconstructions that often depend on available material from neighboring languages. Creissels (2008) argues that the ergativity of a construction is often caused by indirect motivations that are likely to be neglected in the literature. He distinguishes three types of historical indirect motivations that may explain why languages may display a split alignment rather than a single alignment pattern. According to Creissels, splits in alignment patterns are not necessarily functionally motivated, alignment may also have changed in a mechanical way, being in fact epiphenomenal to changes in other domains of the grammar (Creissels 2008: 3). He suggests three possible historical pathways leading to variable alignment patterns. The first way of transforming alignment is caused by so-called “light verbs”. Creissels (2008: 10, following Jespersen 1909–1949) defines a light verb construction as a construction in which “the verb is semantically “light” in the sense that its contribution to the conceptualization of an event is relatively small in comparison with that of one of its complements, very commonly, but not exclusively, a noun in P role”. For instance, vefat etmek in Turkish literally translates as ‘death do’, meaning ‘to die’. Light verb constructions are transitive, taking an A and an O (vefat ‘death’ being O in the Turkish example). However, due to their lexicalized meaning, such verbal constructions can be semantically reanalyzed as intransitive. The O-argument is then considered part of the verb phrase rather than a free

Direct and indirect motivations of ergativity   

   55

patient-argument. If the predominant alignment pattern in the language is accusative, no problem of case marking arises because A and S are coded alike and the transitivity of the verb has no bearing on their coding. However, if the predominant alignment pattern is ergative, then the A of a light verb construction should normally be ergative, given that the verb is transitive and takes an O. After the reanalysis of the light verb construction, the verb and the patient form a single complex unit and the verb is considered intransitive; hence, the marking of A may change to the nominative marking of an S (Creissels 2008: 10–12, Section 1.2.2). A second possible way of changing alignment is arrived at through ellipsis (Creissels 2008: 13–14). If the O-argument in an ergative construction is often absent (for instance, when it is indefinite as in the English clause he is eating), the construction may be reinterpreted as intransitive. However, the coding remains ergative, and again there is a deviant alignment pattern because intransitive constructions are now taking ergatively marked A’s. Similarly, accusative transitive constructions without an overt A can display deviating alignment because they only have an overt argument coded as O. The third pathway leading to a different alignment pattern is also the best studied, particularly with respect to Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian languages. Creissels (2008: 20–28) calls this pathway the grammaticalization of TAM periphrases. The best known among this type of pathway is the passive-to-ergative development, and many early conceptions of ergativity have been based on this concept. According to this approach (e.g., Dik 1978), although the ergative is not passive, it nevertheless originated from a passive construction. Creissels rejects this view and maintains that the constructions that have generally been described as passive at the origin of ergative constructions are actually resultative constructions; thus he argues that the grammaticalization of periphrastic constructions was the source of the ergative. I return to an extensive discussion of this transition with regard to Indo-Aryan in Section 2.3. Note that Creissels does not consider the ergative construction as the goal of the reanalysis of the periphrases but rather as an effect of a change in the grammatical TAM paradigm of the languages. As a result, the ergative construction is not functionally motivated but rather considered epiphenomenal of other diachronic changes in Creissels’ account. This view is shared by Gildea (2004: 49) who describes ergativity as merely a “historical accident”. However, Gildea also notes that because ergative morphology is effective in distinguishing the A from the O-argument and thus has the function of distinguishing the arguments, it remains fairly consistent in the languages of the world and does not easily disappear.

56   

   Theoretical preliminaries

1.2.3 Case and transitivity The following two sections focus on the treatment of case and transitivity in earlier approaches to ergativity. In contrast with functional/cognitive concepts such as agentivity, topicality and result-orientedness, case and transitivity have largely remained in the background of the debate about the phenomenon of ergativity. In the ensuing Chapters 2–6 on Indo-Aryan, the role of case and the transitivity of the verb in the form of agreement will be analyzed. I will argue that ergative case was the original motivation for claiming the existence of “ergative languages”, whereas O-agreement is rather a consequence of a historical transition in the tense paradigm of Indo-Aryan. Moreover, case and transitivity are complementary: case is a matter of paradigmatic choice, transitivity acts on a syntagmatic level. The ergative case and the transitivity of a verb are intrinsically related, to the extent that previous linguists even used the term “transitivity” from verbal morphology to indicate case morphology.

1.2.3.1 An alternative view of ergativity The early accounts of ergativity primarily considered ergativity as the ergative case member of the case paradigm of a given language. According to Seely (1979: 191), Albert Dirr, in 1912, was the first researcher who used the term ‘ergative’ for a distinct case marking.²² Dirr related the term to the Greek word έ̓ργον, meaning ‘work’ or ‘deed’, implying that the ergative case primarily referred to an active “agent”. Dirr researched Caucasian languages, and the ergative case remained associated with these languages for a long time before the term was incorporated into general linguistics (cf. Vaillant 1936). Prior to Dirr’s research, scholars also distinguished the ergative case in languages such as Basque and Inuit languages; however, they coined other terms (e.g., “narrative”) or extended well-known terms, such as instrumental, to include the ergative. Some of the earliest scholars who explored ergativity are Gabelentz (1861), Pott (1873), Schuchardt (1896), and Uhlenbeck (1901). They shared the view that the ergative construction must be interpreted as a special type of passive (cf. Trask 2002: 274). Uhlenbeck conducted studies of American Indian languages. He distinguished a case called “Aktivus”

22 According to Manaster-Ramer (1994), Dirr borrowed the term from the Caucasianist Trombetti (1903), who attributed the term to Fr. Wilhelm Schmidt (1902). Schmidt had used the term in a description of languages from New Guinea. It is possible that Schmidt in turn borrowed the term from Ray and Haddon (1893), but these authors used the term to refer to a type of locative (Butt 2006; McGregor 2009: 481).

Direct and indirect motivations of ergativity   

   57

from a case called “Passivus”. The Aktivus is the “Kasus der handelnden Person”, and the Passivus is the “Kasus der leidenden Person/Sache” (Uhlenbeck 1916). Whereas the Aktivus could be used only for a subject, the Passivus could be used for a subject or a direct object. According to Uhlenbeck, languages with an Aktivus/Passivus case lack the nominative and accusative cases. Uhlenbeck extended the terms Aktivus/Passivus from verb morphology to case morphology. Vaillant later remarked as follows  : “son [Aktivus and Passivus case] existence implique une distinction tranchée et régulière de l’ “actif” et du “passif”, mais qui s’exprime dans le sujet, tandis que le verbe continue et peut ne plus distinguer deux constructions également “passives” par leur origine” (Vaillant 1936: 95).²³ The hypothesis that ergative is passive remained popular for quite some time and was even incorporated into the first functional definitions of ergativity (e.g., Estival and Myhill 1988). Hock (1986: 19) points out that Comrie “characterizes ergativity as “passive” morphology and/or syntax without the existence of a corresponding and more basic “active” ”. Because of this lack of a corresponding “active” form and because languages with ergative constructions can also display passive forms, the passive approach to ergativity was finally abandoned (Tchekhoff 1978).²⁴ Nevertheless, the similarity between passive and ergative constructions has been noted in more recent studies. As pointed out previously, several accounts suggest that the resemblance between the ergative and passive constructions is historically motivated and argue that ergative constructions originated from passive constructions (cf. Dik 1978, Section 1.2.2).

23 According to Uhlenbeck, and others who followed him, Proto-Indo-European also had an Aktivus and a Passivus (Uhlenbeck 1901: 170; for an overview of authors discussing ergativity in early Indo-European see Villar 1984: 168; Rumsey 1987). This hypothesis about PIE was informed by the fact that the neuter gender in old Indo-European languages has only one marking for a nominative and accusative case, whereas masculine and feminine nouns have a separate marking for both cases. Uhlenbeck among others attributed this fact to a former PIE ergative case that was used only for animate, “agentive” subjects, whereas the inanimate or neuter subjects did not receive the PIE ergative. Later, this hypothesis was debunked, by scholars harkening back to Silverstein. Silverstein (1976) argued that unexpected, inanimate agents needed to be marked ergatively, not typical agents (cf. Villar 1984: 167). These early scholars had all knowledge of Basque, and Dakota was also a frequently quoted language in their work (not coincidentally a language with semantic alignment). 24 In some predominantly ergative languages, there are “antipassive” constructions that have essentially the same function as passives; that is, downgrading the agent and promoting the patient (Comrie 1978). In this study, I will not be concerned with the antipassive constructions because, although they are an important topic in many ergative studies, they are absent in Indo-Aryan.

58   

   Theoretical preliminaries

In the wake of these first accounts of ergativity, the European structuralist Trubetzkoy (1939) notes that every transitive construction consists of a verb and (at least) two arguments. One argument is in “le cas sujet”, and the other argument is in “le cas déterminant immédiat d’un verbe”. Ergative and accusative constructions pattern differently depending on which argument is the “cas sujet” and which is the “cas déterminant”. In accusative constructions, O (“l’objet attaint” for Trubetzkoy) is “déterminant”, whereas in ergative constructions, the A-agent is the case determining the verb. Below, den Jungen ‘the boy’ in ex. (17) is the determining case in the German accusative construction, whereas in ex. (18) from the Kabardian language (Kumakhov et al. 1996: 94), the ergative fɘz-χe-m ‘the women’ is the determining case. In both examples, the nominative is “le cas sujet” according to Trubetzkoy: (17)

der Mann sieh-t den Junge-n the.nom man see-prs.3sg the.acc boy-acc ‘The man sees the boy.’

(18)

fɘz-χe-m bostej-χe-r ø-ja-dɘ-r woman-pl-erg dress-pl-nom 3-3pl-sew-prs ‘The women are sewing the dresses.’

Thus, the ergative and the accusative form “le cas déterminant immédiat d’un verbe” and they are in opposition to the nominative case, or “le cas sujet”. Trubetzkoy assumes the existence of only one unmarked nominative case in either ergative or accusative constructions (this view contrast with the conjecture of an “absolutive” case). “Le cas déterminant immédiat d’un verbe” determines the valency of the verb; in particular, it causes the construction to be transitive. In this sense the accusative/ergative stands in opposition to the nominative, which is always present in the clause and is the first argument of the verb. The ergative/ accusative is also in opposition to the genitive or any other “semantic” case. Trubetzkoy calls the latter cases “le cas déterminant adnominal”, whereas accusative and ergative are “des cas adverbals”, intrinsically related to the verb. Tchekhoff (1978) claims (following Martinet 1962) that the subject-argument is the obligatory argument in any verb construction. According to Tchekhoff, the subject constitutes the argument that is semantically and syntactically unmarked. The subject, as the “first” argument, occurs in transitive and intransitive constructions and has no well-described semantic role except that it is a non-agent. Tchekhoff proposes that the “subject” can fulfil the semantic role of “auteur” and of “patient sémantique”. However, the ergative argument is invariably the agent, both syntactically and semantically (Tchekhoff 1978: 34). Tchekhoff does

Direct and indirect motivations of ergativity   

   59

not search for a cognitive or functional motivation for the {S, O} pairing; he simply assumes that they are the unmarked cases that can take any remaining semantic role (cf. the distinguishing approach by Comrie). S and O are defined in purely negative terms as non-agents. The difference between Trubetzkoy, Martinet, and Tchekhoff is that Trubetzkoy has explored case and paradigmatic oppositions in the system of case that lead to a different syntagmatic construction. In particular, Trubetzkoy (1939) argues that the accusative and the ergative are opposites although they have the same function; that is, they are the cases that determine the verb. In contrast, Martinet and Tchekhoff focus on grammatical relations in the clause. Whereas Martinet and Tchekhoff seem to assume that categories such as subject and agent are universally applicable, Coseriu (1987) argues, from a structural-functionalist perspective, that there are different linguistic-descriptive roles in ergative and accusative constructions (“languages”). He distinguishes between two linguistic-descriptive roles, which are said to be language-specific categories, viz. “Inaktivus” and “Aktivus”. The “Inaktivus” can be found in ergative systems, and the “Aktivus” can be found in accusative systems. According to Coseriu, the linguistic pairing of the agent with the “Intransitivaktant” characterizes nominative languages. Together, the agent and the “Intransitivaktant” form the linguistic-descriptive role of “Aktivus”, which is the grammatical relation {S, A}. Whereas Uhlenbeck opposed “Passivus” to “Aktivus”, Coseriu chooses to refer to the pairing of O and the “Intransitivaktant” S as “Inaktivus”. The “Inaktivus” is the linguistic-descriptive role {S, O}. According to Coseriu, the “Intransitivaktant” (i.e. S) is the “erweiterte Agens” in an accusative construction; thus he emphasizes the similarity in agency between S and A, whereas the “Intransitivaktant” is an “erweitertes Objekt” in ergative constructions. Coseriu’s main argument is that the presentation of the events expressed in clauses is “grammaticized” in different ways according to accusative and ergative alignment types. In nominative languages, the event is presented from the vantage point of a “Quelle”, or source, which Coseriu has not defined in spatial terms; rather, he has defined “Quelle” as a mental vantage point from which the event originates. Conversely, in ergative languages, the event is presented from the vantage point of an “Ort”, or place, which is defined as the abstract place where the event is mentally situated. All the above approaches share the view that {S, O} should be grouped not on the basis of cognitive concepts, but on the basis of the language-particular similarity between the two core arguments. S and O are the unmarked arguments, and thus it is rather impossible to find criteria to define them as the nominative case – they are in the nominative case. However, the ergative case is a formally marked case in the paradigm and has a semantic basis. Each approach refers to

60   

   Theoretical preliminaries

“agentivity” as the meaning of the ergative, but the empirical evidence suggests that the ergative case is related to the transitivity of the verb (cf. Trubetzkoy 1939).

1.2.3.2 Transitivity: from Sapir to Hopper and Thompson Sapir (1917) reacted to Uhlenbeck’s hypothesis (1916) that the ergative construction is a type of passive. In this 1917 review article, Sapir focuses on verb agreement, because this coding property is dominant in the Amerindian languages. He observes that number agreement in Native North American languages often patterns ergatively in the sense that the verb stem agrees with the O in number (Sapir 1917: 84); cf. the following examples from the language Koasati (Mithun 1999: 86, examples taken from Kimball 1991: 447): (19)

ittó-n attiní:-li-lit wood-obj burn.sg-1sg.agent-pst ‘I burnt a log’

(20)

ittó-n attíni:-li-lit wood-obj burn.pl-1sg.agent-pst ‘I burnt some logs’

In these examples, the verb meaning ‘to burn’ takes the stem attiní: when O is singular and the stem attíni: when O is plural.²⁵ Sapir subsequently argues that for ergative number agreement, the link between S and O lies in the causative origins of the verb form. For instance, if a verb with the meaning ‘to kill’ has a form that originally meant or can be interpreted as the causative ‘to cause to die’, then it stands to reason that the O-argument influences the meaning of the verb much more than in constructions not derived from a causativization (Sapir compares ‘one man dying’ with ‘several men dying’). He introduces the notion of a “casus inertiae”, following Uhlenbeck’s “Passivus”, but he attributes a different meaning to this notion. According to Sapir, a “casus inertiae” is a “caseless form which takes on all the functions not specifically covered by the transitive or active case” (Sapir 1917: 85). Note that Sapir uses the term “transitive case” to refer to

25 In these examples, there is also A-agreement, which is indicated by the suffix li. In contemporary Amerindian linguistics, one no longer considers the alternating verb stems of these verbs as true agreement but rather indicates this phenomenon as “verbal number” in the sense that the verb itself can be plural or singular and this “verbal number” does not necessarily coincide with the number of its arguments (cf. Mithun 1999: 83).

Direct and indirect motivations of ergativity   

   61

the subject of a transitive verb. He continues as follows: “in other words, the I of I sleep, and the me of he kills me may be identical in form, not because of any identity of verb-morphology, but merely by way of contrast to the distinctively transitive form of the I of I kill him” (Sapir 1917: 85). This short quotation clearly indicates that Sapir countenances a distinguishing approach to case marking, and essentially claims that the nominative case simply expresses an opposition to another case. He considers the ergative as a transitive case (cf. Hjelmslev 1972: 154, casus transitivus).²⁶ In the range of contemporary motivations for the ergative pattern, the factor of transitivity has rarely been explicitly treated but rather has been assumed as obvious from the beginning. Gildea (2004) refers to Givón (2001) and Hopper and Thompson (1980) as being among the few scholars who relate ergativity explicitly with transitivity. According to Givón, the motivation of accusative constructions is the topicality of the subject, {S, A}. In active constructions, the semantic roles of agent and patient are morphosyntactically distinguished from each other. However, in ergative constructions, {A} is opposed to {S, O} because it marks the transitivity of the construction (Givón 2001: 208). According to Cooreman, Fox and Givón (1984: 2–3), ergative “morphology is oriented toward the transitivity properties of the clause, and transitivity is itself a complex epiphenomenon that correlates directly neither with propositional-semantic roles nor with subject/topic status, although both clearly play important parts in defining transitivity”. Ever since Hopper and Thompson (1980) published their seminal paper on transitivity in language, the concept of transitivity has developed in linguistics from a purely formal indication of the valency of a verb to a semantic bundle of properties at the level of the clause (Kittilä 2011: 347; Næss 2007). In the formal approach, the traditional argument is that a verb is transitive when it has (at least) two core arguments (cf. Lazard 1998: 160). However, in recent approaches to transitivity, the presence of two or more participants is only one of the possible properties of transitivity, and transitivity is defined with respect to a continuum. This implies that the perspective has shifted from verbs that were analyzed as either transitive or intransitive to constructions that are analyzed as being either

26 Sapir is also interested in constructions with an active kind of semantic alignment, which constitute a common pattern in the Amerindian languages. With respect to these constructions, Sapir contends that it is possible that they are related to, or even originate from, transitive impersonal or experiencer constructions: this claim was much later adopted and reinterpreted by Malchukov (2008: 77). However, Sapir also clearly states that ergative constructions are not related to these impersonal constructions.

62   

   Theoretical preliminaries

more or less transitive depending on the number of transitive properties they display. The parameters that Hopper and Thompson (1980: 252) distinguish to determine high or low transitivity are the following:

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J.

Participants Kinesis Aspect Punctuality Volitionality Affirmation Mode Agency Affectedness of O Individuation of O

HIGH

LOW

2 or more participants action telic punctual volitional affirmative realis A high in potency O totally affected O highly individuated

1 participant non-action atelic non-punctual non-volitional negative irrealis A low in potency O not affected O non-individuated

Table 1.2 Hopper and Thompson’s properties of transitivity (1980:252)

These parameters can be divided into properties pertaining to A, O, and the verb. The first property, the number of participants, is dependent on both the arguments of the verb. A common criticism of Hopper and Thompson’s continuum is that the properties are not presented as equal; some properties are valued more highly than others. For instance, Bhat (1991) argues against the presence of two participants as the primary criterion to determine A, S and O. He thinks that the property “volitionality” might equally determine the grammatical relations between A, S and O. According to Næss (2006, 2007), the properties of affectedness of O and volitionality/agency of A are fundamentally important for a prototypical transitive construction. In her opinion, the first condition of transitivity is that the two core arguments are “maximally semantically distinct”; this implies that O is affected and A is volitional. In other words, transitivity depends on the semantic interaction between the two arguments rather than simply the presence of two arguments. According to Næss , the other properties in Hopper and Thompson’s list, particularly those properties pertaining to verbs, are of secondary importance; however, she believes that transitivity should be defined with respect to a continuum, that may involve additional factors (Kittilä 2011: 349). Her account is highly reminiscent of Cooreman, Fox and Givón (1984), who argue that the conditions for semantic transitivity are the presence in the clause of an agentcause (visible, salient, intentional, controlling), a patient-result (visible, salient, non-intentional, non-controlling), and a “compact” (i.e., non-periphrastic) perfective or realis verb.

Conclusions   

   63

Transitivity is said to determine ergative constructions. Formally, the coding of A is dependent on the (possible) presence of O. But semantic transitivity also influences the coding. Givón (1984: 152) argues as follows: The choice of ergative marking of clausal subjects in ergative languages is thus sensitive, in one manner or another, not simply to “absolute” semantic elements such as “prototypical patient object” and “prototypical agent subject”, but rather to a composite degree of transitivity of the clause. However, individual languages are not sensitive to exactly the same sub-components of transitivity, nor do they divide transitive from intransitive at exactly the same point on the various scales of properties which, as a cluster, determine transitivity. Transitivity has also been related with alignment patterns in other ways. Kittilä (2008: 356), following Tsunoda (1985: 391), assumes that accusative and ergative alignment patterns indicate the coding of prototypical events, whereas other case frames, such as nominative/dative or nominative/instrumental frames, are indicative of a lesser degree of transitivity. For instance, some experiencer verb constructions do not show accusative or ergative patterning; rather these constructions show a dative case marking for the experiencer role. According to Hopper and Thompson (1980: 254) these constructions are lower in transitivity. Kittilä (2011: 364) explains the TAM split in terms of transitivity. In his opinion, imperfective events lack an affected patient. In addition to the agency of the agent, the affectedness of the patient is the criterion to obtain a highly transitive construction. Therefore, in languages with a different alignment pattern based on the TAM of the verb, imperfective constructions do not pattern ergatively. Conversely, perfective constructions display a high degree of transitivity in argument coding, by means of the ergative case and in semantics, by virtue of the affected patient and agentive agent. The advantage of a transitivity-based approach to ergativity over a cognitive approach is that a different conceptual background need not be assumed for ergative constructions vis-à-vis the accusative construction. As a result, the focus is less conceptually biased and is entirely based on the linguistic possibilities of indicating different grammatical relations and semantic roles.

1.3 Conclusions Functional typology has established a firm basis in the research on ergativity. However, many questions concerning ergativity have not yet been answered. The ever-increasing number of languages described and analyzed from a typological perspective has caused typologists to doubt the existence of ergativity as a pattern that models the linguistic system of a language in a strictly defined way,

64   

   Theoretical preliminaries

motivated by a unique rationale. Thus, among typologists ergativity is no longer a unitary pattern that stands in a cognitive contrast with other alignment system, “ergativity” has been increasingly used as a descriptive term to refer to one of the many possible alignment patterns of a construction. A particular construction may display the ergative pattern in case marking or agreement, for a variety of reasons that are often language-specific. Historical developments may have contributed to the motivations for ergativity due to processes such as the merging of case markers, changes in tense systems and reanalyses of light verb constructions. Synchronic motivations may also be a factor for ergativity; for example, the ergative pattern is as economical in distinguishing the arguments as the accusative pattern. In the next Chapters 2–6, the alignment in the Indo-Aryan languages will be investigated on the basis of the conceptual and terminological distinctions I have presented and discussed in the present Chapter. In each chapter, the focus will be on constructions in these languages that comply with the definition of ergativity given by Comrie (1978) and Dixon (1979). At the same time, alignment and the grammatical relations determining this alignment in the Indo-Aryan languages will be investigated. Thirdly, the attested splits will be scrutinized. Of course, constructions that code ergatively are the main subject matter of the ensuing chapters. However, when other patterns seems to be relevant in order to understand the alignment system of the language, they will also receive due attention as we go along.

2 Indo-Aryan 2.1 Geographical distribution of the Indo-Aryan languages The Indo-Aryan (henceforth IA) and the Iranian language families together include most Eastern representatives of the Indo-European language family.¹ Modern IA languages are mainly spoken on the South Asian subcontinent including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and parts of Afghanistan. Altogether, there are almost one billion speakers of IA languages. As a result of the Indian diaspora, the languages have spread to Europe (in particular Great Britain), the USA, Australia, and the Middle East. These developments have taken place over roughly the last 150 years. Sinhala, spoken in Sri Lanka, and the Romani dialects spoken all over Europe are Indo-Aryan languages that have left the subcontinent much earlier. In total, there are about 221 IA languages (www.ethnologue.com). The IA language with the most speakers is Hindi-Urdu (ca. 400 million speakers), followed by Bangla (ca. 181 million speakers). The differentiation between Hindi and Urdu is a socio-political matter, founded in the partition of the British Indian Empire into India and Pakistan in 1947. In Pakistan, the name Urdu is common, whereas in most parts of India, Hindi is more frequent (except for areas with a predominantly Muslim population, such as Kashmir, Lucknow, and Hyderabad). Although Hindi and Urdu are structurally more or less identical, differences exist that are related to vocabulary and register (style). Hindi displays a greater Sanskrit influence in its vocabulary and in its poetic register than does Urdu, whereas Urdu literature shows stronger influences of Perso-Arabic vocabulary and of the Persian and Arabic register. Notably, Hindi is written in the Devanagari script, whereas Urdu is written in the Arabic Nasta’liq script. The differences between spoken Hindi and Urdu are socially and, to a certain extent, politically determined. The speaker is free to over-emphasize or to de-emphasize them. For instance, it is well known that the famous Indian film industry (known as Bollywood) often prefers Urdu to Hindi for its lyrical songs because Urdu is considered to be the more poetic language, thanks, for example, to the many Urdu ghazals (or poetic songs) composed at the courts from the 12th century onwards. Hindi is the primary official language of India, followed by English, which is a subsidiary official language. Hindi is a language of instruction in primary and secondary schools throughout North India (often in addition to English) and it is also taught at schools in South India. It is a language with grammatical studies,

1 Except for the IE language Tocharian, which has been extinct for over a millennium.

66   

   Indo-Aryan

dictionaries and extensive literary and other cultural works, including novels, poems, and diaries. Television programs are mainly broadcast in Hindi throughout the subcontinent. It is also the language of the bureaucracy in India (again in addition to English). Likely because of this dominant position in India, HindiUrdu is also the best studied IA language in contemporary linguistics and has been analyzed in functional as well as generative linguistic frameworks. Twenty-two regional languages are included in the “Eighth Schedule to the Indian Constitution”, meaning that they have a certain “official” status. Of these languages, the following belong to the IA language family (besides Hindi and Urdu): Asamiya (Assamese), Bangla (Bengali), Dogri, Gujarati, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, and Sindhi. In this study, the Asamiya, Nepali, Kashmiri, and Rajasthani languages will be investigated in detail. In contrast to the first three languages, Rajasthani is not included in the “Eighth Schedule” because it is not a single language but a group of closely related languages that are often considered dialects. In the present study, the four aforementioned languages were chosen to represent particular regions of the IA language area. They are not necessarily the dominant languages in their specific regions, but they all present interesting features with respect to alignment, and most of them are generally underrepresented in linguistic studies of the IA language family. The choice for the four regions, i.e. the Eastern, Northern, Northwestern and Central region, is arguably an artificial division, geographically as well as linguistically. Because people move, the geographic borders between the regions are not strict, and other authors will include languages in other regions than in the division followed here. Linguistically, languages per region share a number of features, but so do languages from across borders, depending which feature is investigated. The overview in Masica (1991: 446–463, see Section 7.2.3) shows that there is no consensus on a historical classification of the Indo-Aryan languages (as Masica 1991: 454 notices to the point: “It may seem that just about every conceivable way of carving up the NIA pile has been advocated by one scholar or another”). Since this is a synchronic study, I opted for a synchronic and rather pragmatic division of the languages, based on their commonest accepted regional position and their linguistic similarities in terms of alignment patterns. For the Northwestern and the Eastern group, the geographic division is in line with the linguistic features of the languages; the languages pertaining to these groups are always classified together. The main problem is with the Central group, for which it is unclear if Gujarati, Punjabi and the Bihari languages pertain to it or rather form separate groups. I preferred to include Gujarati and Punjabi in the Central area, and the Bihari languages with the Eastern group. This classification served my purposes in view of the alignment features I discuss. Though it is a quite common classification, I do not intend this generalization to encompass

Geographical distribution of the Indo-Aryan languages   

   67

all linguistic features; quite clearly, languages such as Awadhi display phonologically a much greater resemblance to Hindi than to Bangla. Similarly, I have included Nepali into a separate chapter, again on the basis of its alignment features, which are specifically different from Hindi and the Rajasthani languages, pertaining to the Central group. In other respects, Nepali displays similarities to Rajasthani and Northern Hindi varieties, and again, for other linguistic features, it may be included with the Central group. Asamiya, Bangla² and Oriya are the languages that are traditionally considered to constitute the Eastern IA branch. Asamiya is the easternmost IA language and is spoken in the Indian state of Assam. Bangla is spoken in the Indian state of Bengal and in Bangladesh. Bangla has various dialects; the standard variety is spoken in and around Kolkata. Oriya is the language of the state of Orissa and shows many similarities to Bangla. While the area in which these three languages are primarily spoken forms the eastern border of the area where the Indo-Aryan languages are spoken, another group of languages represents central Eastern Indo-Aryan. This group includes Bhojpuri, Maithili, Bihari, and Magahi, as well as smaller dialects such as Sadri. In the present study, Northwestern IA is represented by Kashmiri. Kashmiri is spoken in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in India. Sindhi, Siraiki, and Shina are other languages spoken in this northern border area between India and Pakistan. Further south, Marathi is a relatively important language spoken in Southwest India, and its little sibling Konkani is spoken in and around Goa. Central India is known as the “Hindi belt” because this is the area where Hindi and its “varieties” are the most common languages. The western side of the Hindi belt is the region where the Rajasthani languages are spoken, of which Marwari has the most speakers. Harauti, Bagri, Mewari and other languages (or variants) are spoken by fewer people. The language Gujarati is spoken in the southwest, north of Marathi, but it is historically more closely related to Rajasthani than to Marathi. Awadhi, Braj, and Bundeli are considered to be closely related to Hindi. Awadhi belongs to the Eastern Hindi branch, whereas Braj and Bundeli belong to the Western Hindi branch. Awadhi and Braj were once very important in medieval literature, but have now been replaced by Hindi and only remain in use in their colloquial forms. Because Hindi-Urdu is the predominant language spoken throughout India and has emerged as the main language in linguistic research in general, the

2 For the names of these languages I have followed Cardona and Jain (2003), who prefer to use the forms of the names that are used in the language communities themselves and not the Anglicized versions “Assamese” and “Bengali”.

68   

   Indo-Aryan

remainder of this Chapter  will elaborate on a number of linguistic issues concerning Hindi-Urdu. In Section 2.2 the alignment pattern in Hindi-Urdu is briefly illustrated. Section 2.3 gives an overview of the historical developments that are relevant to the alignment patterns of Hindi-Urdu and the other IA languages. Section  2.4 introduces key concepts in the description of IA (all of which are illustrated with examples from Hindi-Urdu) such as the layer system of the case markers (2.4.1), the verb system (2.4.2), experiencer constructions (2.4.3), and unergative constructions (2.4.4). The focus on Hindi-Urdu in this Chapter is inevitable because much of our current knowledge of linguistic patterns in IA comes from this language.

2.2 Alignment in Hindi³ Hindi has been described as a split ergative language in the literature; more specifically, it has been described as a language with ergative features only in perfective verb constructions (cf. Pandharipande and Kachru 1977; Mahajan 1990; Das 2006; Ura 2006; Keine 2007). The cases in Hindi are indicated by postpositions. The postposition ne is the marking of the ergative. In most grammars or descriptions of Hindi, ko is said to be the accusative or dative postposition because it marks either O or IO in a clause. It can also mark an adjunct, such as a place or time indication. Because of this, and because all of its uses are “objectival” (as opposed to the subject) I prefer the neutral designation “objective” for the komarking and its counterparts in other IA languages, thereby following Beames on Hindi (1872: 252) and Iggesen (2005: 92) on the cross-linguistic category of objectives. Note that pronouns in Hindi can display an objective form with ko as well as a synthetic, shortened form (e.g., mujh-e besides mujh=ko). Table 2.1 below contains all forms of the pronominal paradigm in Hindi. Hindi is a verb-final language. Except for the subjunctive, imperative and the future tense, all finite verb forms are periphrastic, consisting of a participle and a copula. Imperfective constructions include an imperfect (present) participle. A and S are in the nominative and O is marked with ko only when it is definite and/ or animate, e.g., ex. (21). If the construction is ditransitive, the IO is obligatorily marked with the objective ko, as in ex. (23). The finite verb agrees with {A, S}.

3 From now onwards, the designation ‘Hindi’ will be used to refer to ‘Hindi-Urdu’ for the sake of brevity and because most of the examples are derived from Devanagari texts. It should, however, be understood that every remark is valid for Urdu as well.

Alignment in Hindi   

1sg

2sg

3sg

nom obl erg

maiṃ mujh maiṃ=ne

tū tujh tū=ne

obj

mujh-e, mujh=ko

tujh-e, tujh=ko

1pl

   69

2pl

3pl

yah, wah ham is, us ham is=ne, us=ne ham=ne

tum tum tum=ne

is=ko, us=ko ham-eṃ, ham=ko

tuṃ-heṃ, tuṃ=ko

ye, we in, un inhoṃ=ne, unhoṃ=ne in-heṃ, un-heṃ, in=ko, un=ko

Table 2.1 Pronominal paradigm in Hindi

(21)

rām sitā=ko dekh+rahā+h-ai Ram sita=obj see+prog+aux-prs.3sg ‘Ram is watching Sita.’

(22)

maiṃ so jā-ūṃ-g-ī I.f sleep go-1sg-fut-f ‘I will go to sleep.’

(23)

tum kitāb rām=ko kyoṃ de-tā+h-o? you.m book[f] ram=obj why give-prs+aux-prs.2pl ‘Why are you giving Ram the book?’⁴

Perfective constructions, which can be recognized by the presence of the perfect participle, have a different alignment than imperfective constructions. In the perfective, A is formally marked by the postposition ne, and the verb agrees with O. However, this is the case only when that constituent is unmarked. This construction is illustrated in ex. (24): (24)

maiṃ=ne kītāb I=erg book[f] ‘I read a book.’

paṛh-ī read-pst.f.sg

4 Throughout this study, the present tense in Hindi is either translated with an English simple present or with an English present continuous, considering that the meaning of the Hindi verb form hovers between a simple present and a present continuous. However, as this has more to do with the English translations than with the Indo-Aryan languages per se, I will always opt for what I consider the most natural translation with respect to the context.

70   

   Indo-Aryan

(25)

rām=ne sitā=ko pahle dekh-ā+th-ā Ram=erg Sita=obj before see-pst.m.sg+aux.pst-m.sg ‘Ram had seen Sita before.’

(26)

maiṃ so ga-yā+h-ūṃ I.m sleep go-pst.m.sg+aux.prs-1sg ‘I have gone to sleep.’

The perfective pattern illustrated in the above examples is generally described as being “ergative” in nature. However, only ex. (24) represents an ergative construction that complies with Dixon’s definition of an ergative construction (cf. Section  1.1.1). In ex. (25), the O sitā=ko is not treated in the same way as the S maiṃ in ex. (26). Quite on the contrary, sitā=ko is marked, whereas maiṃ is unmarked. Furthermore, the finite verb dekhā thā in ex. (25) does not show agreement with the feminine O. The only true ergative construction is therefore ex. (24), in which the conditions are correct: the verb form paṛhī is perfective; the O kitāb is inanimate/indefinite and hence unmarked; O controls verb agreement; and the A maiṃ=ne is marked as ergative. The marking of O in Hindi is often quoted as a typical example of Differential Object Marking (DOM) (cf. Lazard 2001; Aissen 2003). As discussed in Section 1.1.3, animacy is an inherent feature of an argument, whereas definiteness is not inherent but contingent (cf. Bossong 1983: 8; Siewierska & Bakker 2009: 292). In Hindi, the features of animacy and definiteness are of varying importance. It has been claimed that all animate O’s in Hindi have to take a marker: for instance, according to Mohanan (1994: 79), the following example is ungrammatical. In her opinion (which is the opinion of a native speaker), baccā needs to be replaced by the marked form bacce=ko (recall that ko marks the objective): (27)

?ilā=ne baccā uṭhā-yā Ila=erg child[m] lift-pst.m.sg ‘Ila lifted a child.’

Mohanan’s example (27) has been quoted and repeated many times to illustrate that the criterion of animacy is stronger than the feature definiteness (Malchukov 2006: 331; 2008: 205; Keine 2007; Klein and de Swart 2011). Nevertheless, sentences with an unmarked but animate O such as ex. (28) and (29), do occur in Hindi. Ex. (28) is based on Montaut (2004: 171) who argues that the sentence is

Alignment in Hindi   

   71

grammatical because of the indefinite nature of laṛkā. Ex. (29) has in turn been considered grammatical by different informants.⁵ (28)

maiṃ laṛkā dekh+rahā+h-ūṃ I.m boy[m] see+prog+aux-prs.1sg ‘I look for a boy [to marry my daughter].’

(29)

maiṃ=ne kaī aurat-eṃ I.m=erg some.pl woman[f]-nom.pl ‘I saw some women.’

dekh-īṃ see-pst.f.pl

Mohanan (1994: 80–81) herself observes that the situation is in fact much more complicated than a simple distinction between animacy and definiteness. In particular, animate O’s can be divided into human and non-human, and non-human indefinite O’s are often left unmarked, e.g., maiṃ=ne ek gāy dekhī ‘I saw a cow’. Definiteness, on the other hand, is accompanied by specificity. Indefinite O’s may be marked if they are specific (i.e., if they have been mentioned before in the discourse) or else if they are referential, (i.e., if they refer to a particular referent that “the speaker has in mind”, cf. Heusinger 2011: 2). According to Masica (1986: 125), in many examples of inanimate O’s, the O is considered “non-generic” and “non-specific” (e.g. kām karnā, lit. ‘work do’, meaning ‘to work’).⁶ Hence, rather than being a “stronger” factor than animacy, definiteness interacts with animacy. As Mohanan (1994: 79) points out, the “canonical” marking of an animate O is ko, and the “canonical” marking of an inanimate O is zero-marking. Therefore, the majority of transitive constructions with an animate O display overt marking of O, as is illustrated in the well-known ex. (30) (Mohanan 1994: 104):

5 Mohanan (1994: 108) would consider ex. (28) as an instance of incorporation; because the O, laṛkā, is generic and indefinite, the example yields the interpretation ‘I am boy-searching’. However, this is theoretically complicated. Incorporated arguments are not supposed to control agreement, because they are “verb internal” arguments. In a perfective construction, however, the verb would agree with laṛkā. Mohanan (1994: 110) therefore argues that the noun constitutes a lexical compound together with the predicate (cf. Section 2.4.2). For a historical overview of an assumed noun incorporation process in Hindi, see Klaiman (1990). 6 Note that Masica (1986) prefers the term “Identified object marking” to refer to the marking of an animate/definite (identified) O in Hindi. He distinguishes four features of objects: specific/generic and identified/unidentified. However, he does not specify how each of these categories influence the marking of O in Hindi.

72   

(30)

   Indo-Aryan

ilā=ne bacch-e=ko Ila=erg child-obl=obj ‘Ila lifted the child.’

uṭā-yā lift-pst.m.sg

The fact that a certain construction is canonical does not imply that there are no exceptions to it. In particular, if an exceptional marking pattern occurs, semantic modifications of O follow. If an animate O in a construction is unmarked, it normally has a connotation of indefiniteness. Conversely, if an inanimate O is marked, it must be interpreted as definite. However, to complicate matters, a definite O without ko is also possible and occurs quite often (Mohanan 1994: 83); consider the following example from one of my informants: (31)

rām=ne wah ghar banā-yā Ram=erg that house[m] make-pst.m.sg ‘Ram constructed that house.’

To explain examples such as these, Klein and de Swart’s (2011) distinction between trigger and effect features may be useful (cf. Section 1.1.3.2). The authors consider animacy as a trigger of DOM; because animacy is an inherent property of the argument, every animate O-argument needs to be marked. However, definiteness is instead an effect; as a result of the marking of O, O is interpreted as definite. It turns out that Hindi follows this pattern of trigger and effect. An animate O is most often marked with ko and only exceptionally unmarked (for instance, when O is animate but not human, or when it is used in a non-specific, generic sense). A definite but inanimate O, on the other hand, is only marked when it explicitly needs to be interpreted as definite. The definite interpretation of the argument is hence a result of the marking. Some individual verbs restrict the marking of O to the canonical marking such as the above-mentioned verb banānā ‘to make’. For instance, the O’s of the verbs likhnā ‘to write’ and paṛhnā ‘to read’ must be unmarked, whereas the animate O of pīṭnā ‘to beat’ must take ko (Mohanan 1994: 81)⁷. It is not unthinkable that the verb uṭānā ‘to lift’, which can occur with an animate or inanimate O (cf. ex. (30)),

7 According to one native speaker the combination of paṛhnā and a marked O is not impossible. He gives the example maiṃ kitāb=ko paṛh-tā hūṃ. In his opinion, this sentence cannot mean ‘I am reading the book’ but only ‘I read only books [and nothing else]’. Therefore, although a marked O combined with paṛhnā may be technically possible, there is a certain connotation associated with the use of ko that seems to evoke restriction.

Alignment in Hindi   

   73

always needs its O to be canonical; that is, an animate O needs to be marked, and an inanimate O cannot be marked. I have labeled ko as the marker of the objective case. Mohanan (1994: 91), on the other hand, argues that ko is a syncretised form of two case functions, viz. accusative and dative. She rejects the view that ko is the marker of one single case. She adduces several reasons for her point of view. First of all, most Hindi speakers apparently prefer to have only one ko-marked argument in a sentence, preferably the IO, as in the following example from Mohanan (1994: 85):⁸ (32)

ilā=ne māṃ=ko baccā/ Ila=erg mother=obj child[m] ‘Ila gave mother the child.’

(?)bacc-e=ko child-obl=obj

di-yā give-pst.m.sg

Secondly, a ko-marked O can alternate with a nominative O, whereas ko is obligatory when marking an IO. However, what Mohanan actually shows is that the grammatical relations O and IO are clearly distinguished in Hindi, not that there exist separate accusative and dative cases that are expressed by means of a single syncretic marker. Furthermore, whereas she assumes that there is a separate dative and accusative case, she maintains rather inconsistently that there is only one case for an unmarked O and S, which is the nominative (cf. Woolford 1997). She considers the nominative case of S and A in an imperfective construction to be the same case as the case of an unmarked O, primarily because the verb agreement is such that the verb agrees with a nominative argument -irrespective of whether that argument is S, A or O. However, in imperfective transitive constructions, the verb only agrees with A and not with an unmarked O. In these constructions, the unmarked A and O would then have a different case. There are further objections to the view defended by Mohanan that result from a comparison with agreement patterns in other IA languages. Other IA languages do not show the same preference as Hindi for agreement with an unmarked argument (see Comrie 1984 and Chapter 6). In order to avoid such inconsistencies, I prefer to distinguish clearly between cases and grammatical relations and to maintain

8 Note that Mohanan here draws on a strictly formal preference for not using ko twice in a single clause. If a sentence similar to ex. (32) is constructed with a pronominal O, the pronoun will take the pronominal objective form ending on -e, as, e.g., in the admittedly somewhat odd sounding but not unconceivable example: ilā=ne māṃ=ko mujhe diyā ‘Ila gave me to mother’ (or, ‘Ila gave mother to me’). Moreover, the single use of ko is also a matter of preference of the speaker, at least to a considerable extent. Some of my informants tell me that they have no problems whatsoever with sentences with a double ko marking such as ilā=ne bacce=ko māṃ=ko diyā from ex. (32).

74   

   Indo-Aryan

one label for one case; viz. ko is the objective case which may mark O as well as IO.⁹ In this respect, I follow Lazard (2002), who maintains the asymmetric view that one form can have different meanings, but that different forms can express different meanings. In fact, cross-linguistically, it is not unusual that in languages with DOM (such as Hindi) the IO is marked in the same way as a definite/animate O. The occurrence of ko marking a definite/animate O and the IO is accounted for by Kittilä (2006, cf. also Malchukov 2008). He suggests a typology of object-, animacy- or role-based strategies for object marking. A language following an object-based strategy displays a pattern in which the O and the IO of a ditransitive clause are marked in the same way (this pattern is also known as “neutral” alignment, cf. Haspelmath 2005). In a role-based strategy, the language marks IO differently from O. This is the “indirective” alignment known from many Standard European languages and it runs parallel to the distinction between the accusative and dative case. The third strategy of marking objects is animacy-based. In this pattern, the marking is determined according to the semantic features found in DOM. Interestingly, according to Kittilä (2006: 14), languages with DOM are open to what he calls EDOM (“Extended Differential Object Marking”). In EDOM, the use of the marker of O has been “extended” to mark the function of the IO as well, on the basis of the same criterion of animacy. Because an IO expresses the semantic role of a recipient or beneficiary, it is almost always animate and marked by the marking of O. The marking becomes generalized to each and every IO in a language with EDOM. However, although Kittilä’s hypothesis is very convincing from a synchronic point of view, it is at odds with the attested historical developments, which all indicate that the marking of an IO occurred first and the marking of a definite/animate O followed only later. According to Lehmann (2002: 97), a dative case marker may further develop into an accusative case marker, but the reverse development is unlikely. Nevertheless, the synchronic principle of EDOM makes it clear that the marking of a definite/animate O and the marking of an IO (i.e., the objective marking) are based on the semantic properties of animacy and definiteness. The function of this marking is the “indexing” of the arguments, not merely “distinguishing” the arguments from each other (cf. Chapter 1).

9 Of course, Mohanan’s distinction is determined by the generative framework she adopts, in which universal case features are subject to strict rules.

Origin of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan   

   75

2.3 Origin of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan The origin of the ergative pattern in Hindi has been extensively discussed in the literature, mainly because IA is one of the few language families in the world for which there are literary sources in practically every language stage.¹⁰ The Sections 2.3.1–2.3.3 give an overview of the various stages in the development of IA that have ultimately led to ergativity in Hindi, and of their treatment in the literature. Note that most diachronic accounts focus on Hindi as the “end point” of the transition process (but see Khokhlova 1992 and Montaut 2004, 2009, who also consider other Central Indo-Aryan languages).

2.3.1 Historical overview By convention the evolution of the Indo-Aryan languages is divided into three stages, based on the grammatical differences one can discern in each of the periods (Masica 1991: 50): 1. Old Indo-Aryan (OIA): 1500 BCE – 600 BCE Vedic, Classical Sanskrit 2. Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA): 600 BCE – 1000 CE Prakrit, Apabhramśa 3. New Indo-Aryan (NIA): 1000 CE – Hindi, Bangla, Nepali etc.

2.3.1.1 Old Indo-Aryan Old Indo-Aryan (1500–600 BCE) had a rich system to express tenses and case functions (Whitney 1896). The past tense only was divided into a perfective and imperfective past, an aorist, and an analytic construction with a perfect participle. In ex. (33), the past tense is a synthetic verb form expressing perfect aspect which consists of a conjugated form of the reduplicated stem ca-kar, i.e. ca-kār-a. (33)

devadatta-ḥ kaṭa-ṃ ca-kār-a Devadatta-nom mat-acc prf-make-3sg ‘Devadatta (has) made a mat.’

10 Parts of this Section are based on a revision of Verbeke and De Cuypere (2009).

76   

   Indo-Aryan

However, another construction becomes an increasingly popular way to express a perfective from the Classical Sanskrit period onwards. This is the periphrastic construction with a perfect participle. It is generally acknowledged that the ergative construction in Hindi originated from this construction (cf. Pray 1976; Anderson 1977; Comrie 1978: 371; Dik 1978; Estival and Myhill 1988; and Dixon 1994: 190). An example is offered in (34). (34)

devadatt-ena kaṭa-ḥ kṛ-ta-ḥ Devadatta-ins mat-nom.sg make-prf.ptcp-nom.sg ‘The mat is made by Devadatta.’

The participle in this construction has the ending -ta. The agent, if overt, takes an instrumental case (devadatt-ena), and the patient is in the nominative (kaṭaḥ). It is also the patient argument which controls the agreement. The patterning of the arguments of the participle is the same as in a passive construction, which explains why the participle is often considered to have a passive meaning. In transitive periphrastic constructions, the participle is mostly interpreted as a passive, although an active interpretation is not excluded. A common verb that allows for the two interpretations is pitā, the participle of ‘drink’, which can mean ‘having drunk’ as well as ‘being drunk’ (cf. Stronski 2009: 78; Speijer [1886] 1998: 280–281; Peterson 1998: 189). The ta-participle has an active counterpart which is formed by adding the suffix -vat to the participle on -ta, yielding, e.g., kṛ-ta-vat ‘having made’. This active participle is only occasionally used, but it is far less frequent than the standard ta-participle, which is amenable both to an active and passive interpretation (Klaiman 1978; Hock 1986). The ta-participle does not occur exclusively in periphrastic constructions. In OIA, it can also be used as an adjective and in an attributive function, as in the following example (35): (35)

ha-ta-ḥ kill-prf.ptcp-nom ‘the killed tiger’

vyagra-ḥ tiger-nom

Note that if an instrumental agent is added to the construction in ex. (35), then one has the same perfective construction as in ex. (34). Formally, the ta-participle is based on the bare root of the verb (Whitney 1896: 203, 340) to which the suffix -ta is immediately added. Although the participle does not have any formal marker of tense or mood, it refers to a perfective event. This means that the participle is most often interpreted as designating something that happened in the past, although it can have a “present value” (Hock 1986: 16);

Origin of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan   

   77

that is, it can convey the meaning of a past action that still has a bearing on the present. Intransitive participles are active, in the sense that they take a nominative agent; for instance, in ex. (36) devadattaḥ is in the nominative and the action expressed by the participle is actively carried out by the nominative argument: (36)

devadatta-ḥ ga-ta-ḥ Devadatta-nom go-prf.ptcp-nom ‘Devadatta has gone.’

This participial construction, which is considered to be passive if the participle is transitive, is not the only “passive” construction in OIA, and certainly not the most exemplary passive. The “true” passive is a synthetic construction in OIA. Every verb has an active as well as a passive synthetic conjugation. Ex. (37) is an example of such a synthetic passive construction in OIA: (37)

devadatt-ena kata-ḥ kri-ya-te Devadatta-ins mat-nom make-pass-prs.3sg.pass ‘The mat is being made by Devadatta.’

The synthetic passive is formed on the basis of a present or past tense root and functions as the passive counterpart to the active present and past tense constructions. Note that passive constructions are not limited to transitive verbs in Old Indo-Aryan, intransitive verbs can also be passivized, such as ex. (38) (Klaiman 1978: 205): (38)

t-ena śāy-ya-te he-ins lie-pass-prs.3sg.pass ‘There is being laid down by him.’ > ‘he lies down.’

The argument structures of ex. (34) and ex. (37) are similar. In both constructions, there is an agent in an instrumental case and a patient in the nominative, and the latter is the argument that controls the agreement. However, the perfect participle only agrees with the nominative in gender and number, which is also what one expects from a nominal participle, whereas the synthetic passive verb not only agrees in gender and number with the nominative patient-subject, but also in person. In later texts in Classical Sanskrit, there is a tendency for perfectives to become more and more expressed by means of the ta-participle construction (Gonda 1951: 107–108). One can also note that the frequently used formal pattern of a ta-participle transitive construction is extended to an intransitive construc-

78   

   Indo-Aryan

tion, as in ex. (39). In this example, the agent of the action is expressed with an instrumental case (mayā), just like the agent-object of a passive: (39)

mayā ga-ta-ṃ I.ins go-prf.ptcp-nom.n.sg ‘It is gone by me.’ > I went

The normally expected form would be ahaṃ gataḥ, in which ahaṃ is the nominative form of the pronoun, and with the verb gataḥ agreeing with ahaṃ in gender and number. However, constructions like ex. (39) seem to have remained rather exceptional in OIA (cf. Klaiman 1978: 213).

2.3.1.2 Middle Indo-Aryan All Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) languages share features on all levels, from phonology to morphology and syntax. In general, there is phonological and morphological simplification in MIA as compared to OIA (Pischel 1900). On the other hand, there are also some new forms added to MIA which were not yet present in OIA; for instance, certain case-endings were restricted to pronouns in Sanskrit but are being used with common nouns in Middle Indo-Aryan. One of the “simplifying” measures is the decrease in the number of different verbal forms in MIA. It is interesting to note that the means to express a perfective aspect are getting restricted to one form only, viz. the construction with the ta-participle: (40)

iyaṃ dhaṃmalipi lāj-inā this.nom true inscription[n]nom.sg king-ins likhā-pi-tā write-caus-prf.ptcp.nom.m.sg ‘This true inscription was caused to be written by the king.’

In this example from the 2nd century BCE, the perfect participle agrees in gender and number with the patient and the agent takes an instrumental case. This is the common way to express past tense in MIA. However, an active interpretation of the sentence is also possible. In that case, the interpretation would be: “The king caused this true inscription to be written”. Apabhramsha, or Late Middle Indo-Aryan, displays an even more radical case syncretism. This is a fascinating period to investigate the development of the ergative construction, in particular because it is a period in which the massive case syncretism in the history of MIA culminates. The system of seven cases found in Sanskrit is reduced to a system of three syncretic cases, due to the merging of

Origin of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan   

   79

i) the nominative and accusative, ii) the instrumental and locative, and iii) the ablative, genitive, and dative (Bubenik 1998: 66; De Clercq 2003: 2110, 2010). The following examples illustrate the alignment in Late MIA (Bubenik 1998: 148). (41)

laddh-a tuhuṃ maiṃ im-aṃmi van-aṃmi find-prf.ptcp.nom you.nom I.ins this-loc wood-loc ‘You are found in this forest by me.’ > ‘I have found you in this forest.’

(42)

tā keumai-eṃ hauṃ ghar-aho nī-ya then Ketumaki-ins I.nom home-obl take-prf.ptcp.nom ‘Then I was brought home by Ketumaki.’ > ‘Then Ketumaki brought me home.’

In each of these examples of Late MIA the participle agrees with the patient in gender and number. The first person pronoun maiṃ is the instrumental agent in ex. (41), in ex. (42) hauṃ is the nominative patient. Intransitive sentences (for instance ex. (43)) are constructed with a perfect participle and an agent in a nominative case (De Clercq 2003). (43)

salil-u pavaḍḍhi-u water[m]nom.sg rise-prf.ptcp.nom .m.sg ‘Because of Sita’s fame, the water rose.’

sīẏa-hĕ ṇām-eṃ Sita-gen fame-ins

The participle and the nominative salilu agree in number and gender. Note however that the nominative in the paradigm has merged with the accusative. Bubenik (1998: 142) points out that in Late Middle Indo-Aryan intransitive verbs take an agent in the nominative case; however, the nominative case is also used as the case of the patient, in a transitive construction with the perfect participle. The verb then agrees with this nominative patient, and the agent is expressed by an instrumental. Because of the case syncretism and the fact that nominative and accusative have merged, it is impossible to analyze the agent as either a nominative subject or an accusative direct object. Bubenik interprets this finding as the “appearance of the absolutive case”, given that the absolutive is the case that can mark the object as well as the subject of an intransitive sentence. Therefore, Bubenik considers the period of Late MIA as crucial in the evolution of the ergative construction in the history of IA, and he calls the transitive participial constructions from MIA “semi-ergative” or “semi-passive” (1989: 389).

80   

   Indo-Aryan

2.3.1.3 New Indo-Aryan: Early Hindi In the period of Early New Indo-Aryan the changes that began to occur in Late Middle Indo-Aryan continue. The case syncretism goes one step further, until only two cases are eventually left over: the nominative and the oblique. In the following two examples of Early New Indo-Aryan taken from Drocco (2008) the verb agrees with the patient. (44)

maiṃ itane dina t-eṃ āgaran-a ki-y-o I so much day that-obl waking[m]-nom.sg do-prf.ptcp-m.sg ‘I stayed awake for so many days.’

(45)

rājā bibeka dvārapāla=kauṃ ājñ-ā king bibeka guard=dat order[f]-nom.sg. ‘King Bibeka ordered the guards.’

kar-ī do-pst.f.sg

In ex. (44) āgarana agrees in number and gender with the verb kiyo. The personal pronoun maiṃ is the only form left of the original, much more elaborate paradigm of personal pronouns. In this example it takes the agent role, but formally it is unclear what the case of the pronoun is, given that it can either be an oblique or a nominative. Ex. (45) presents the same pattern: ājñā agrees in gender and number with the verb karī, whereas rājā bibeka is standing on its own, unaffected by the verb and not capable to control verb agreement. Hence, in Early New IA, a rather ambivalent situation seems to arise, in that one cannot determine whether a perfective construction instantiates an accusative passive pattern or an ergative pattern.

2.3.2 Passive reanalysis The development described in the previous Section  2.3.1 has been interpreted in various ways. One of the most common explanations is based on the view that ergative constructions are to be conceived of as (some kind of) passives. The hypothesis that an ergative construction is in fact a special type of passive construction originated in Uhlenbeck’s time, and it was picked up in several early grammars of Hindi (e.g., Kellogg 1938; Beames 1872). In Kellogg’s analysis (1938), the ergative case is labeled as the case of the ‘Agent’. He recognizes that the patient of the action is put in the nominative case when it is used with a “Perfect Participle of Transitive verbs”. He calls this construction a “Passive construction”, which proves that Kellogg endorses a passive interpretation of the construction in question.

Origin of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan   

   81

In more recent research, the idea that an ergative construction is passive in nature has been abandoned, as was discussed in Chapter  1 (cf. Comrie 1978; Dixon 1979). However, because of the IA and Indo-Iranian historical descriptions, in which the passive is assumed to be the origin of the ergative construction, the view that ergative constructions are essentially derived from a passive construction still has its defenders. Anderson (1976), for instance, interprets the rise of ergative marking in Hindi as the most important example of the so-called “passive to ergative” evolution (see also Pray 1976; Estival and Myhill 1988). The well-known functional approach to ergative languages by Simon Dik (1978: 157) is another offshoot of this passive-as-ergative view. Dik assumes that “ergative languages” develop from nominative languages. He distinguishes three stages in the transition of a nominative to an ergative language.¹¹ In the first stage, there is a functional markedness opposition between the active and passive constructions. According to Dik (1989: 38), the semantic markedness of a construction is determined by the “expectedness” and the “frequency” of the construction. In the opposition between passive and active, the passive is the marked construction because it occurs less frequently than the active, and because it is safe to say that its occurrence is not generally expected. However, markedness is, in his view, not “a fixed, immutable property […] It may vary with the environment in which it is used, and with the frequency with which it recurs” (Dik 1989: 41). This explains why, in the second stage of the development from nominative to ergative, the passive construction eventually becomes the functionally unmarked construction in the language (i.e., the most frequent construction). At this stage, the opposition between the active construction and the passive construction is neutralized by the passive construction; that is, the functionally unmarked construction. Finally, in the third stage, the former passive construction has acquired the status of an active construction that is called “ergative” by Dik. The language is at this moment considered to be ergative and no longer possesses a passive construction. A possible fourth stage begins when a new passive construction arises, which is then predicted to have a periphrastic form. It is remarkable, and perhaps not coincidental, that the evolution path Dik assumes strongly resembles the traditional idea of the origin of ergativity in IA. Dik’s approach has been applied by Bubenik (1998: 133) to the evolution of the different language stages in Indo-Aryan (Figure 2.1). Stage 1 can be identified with OIA, viz. an accusative language with a marked passive construction (the ta-construction). Stage 2 is exemplified by MIA, viz. an accusative language with

11 Note that Dik refers to “ergative languages”. As explained in Chapter 1, it is more consistent to speak of “ergative constructions” rather than “ergative languages”.

82   

   Indo-Aryan

an unmarked passive (the ta-construction has evolved to the standard means for expressing the perfective). Finally, stage 3 is NIA, when the ergative has taken over. Hindi seems to have reached stage 4, given that it possesses a new analytic passive that is constructed with the verb jānā ‘to go’ (see Section 2.4.2).

obsolete

unmarked

OIA ↙ MIA NIA

akāsi ‘he did’

marked

akārṣat ‘he did’ (Active Aorist) tena kṛtam ‘it was done by him’ ↙ (Passive) tena kaṭa ‘it was done by him’/’he did’ (Passive/Ergative) us=ne kiyā ‘he did’ (Ergative)

↙ us=se/us=ke dvārā kiyā gayā ‘it was done by him’ (Passive)

Figure 2.1 The pathway of the reanalysis according to Bubenik (1989: 379)

Although superficially the different language stages in the history of IA seem to correspond to Dik’s hypothetical stages, Bubenik makes some important remarks after applying Dik’s theory on Indo-Aryan. First of all, it is important to note that, contrary to what Dik predicts, the passive construction is attested in every stage of the development of IA. Moreover, Bubenik correctly points out that the analytic jānā-passive started to appear in MIA at a time when the language was still classified as being in the second stage (much earlier than one would expect on Dik’s view) (Bubenik 1989: 380). The new analytic passive gradually replaced the older synthetic one. Stage three, when there is an ergative construction but no longer a passive, is therefore not attested in the history of the IA languages. Furthermore, the synthetic passive of OIA was also still productive in MIA, and to date a form of a synthetic passive appears in modern IA languages, such as Rajasthani (Khokhlova 1995). Second, the rigid opposition between active and passive that Dik assumes with his semantic markedness-based approach¹² is not attested in the IA languages. From OIA onwards, the ta-participle appears in a passive construction; however, as was already noticed by Whitney (1896: 203, 340), it does not have a tense marker and is not in opposition to any other tense or voice. For this reason, Whitney places the participle outside of the tense system of the OIA verbs. Burrow (1965: 354, cf. Bynon 2005: 7) classified the ta-construction as “Prakrit

12 Recall that Dik explains markedness primarily in terms of frequency and as determined by the “environment” in which the (un)marked element occurs.

Origin of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan   

   83

in disguise”, implying that it is more adequate to regard the ta-construction as a construction resulting from a sociolinguistic preference than on the basis of a grammatical “gap” in the voice paradigm. The passive counterpart of every active tense form is the synthetic passive in OIA. If there had been a markedness shift between passive and active, it would have taken place between the participle on -ta and the participle on -tavat. However, the tavat-participle was never as frequent as the ta-participle in OIA. Thus, if it is true that markedness is based on frequency, it seems that the ta-participle, rather than the tavat-participle, was the unmarked member of the opposition.¹³ Although Dik’s hypothesis is essentially a diachronic one, he also recognizes a similarity between passive and ergative from a synchronic perspective. For instance, he argues that, cross-linguistically, the instrumental case of the passive agent is often formally identical to the ergative case in a language. He maintains that the ergative A is regularly omitted and that the same happens to the agent of a passive construction. However, neither observation holds true for Hindi. Firstly, the ergative postposition ne is formally different from the ablative postposition se, which marks the agent of a passive construction. Secondly, it is true that the ergative A is occasionally omitted in Hindi, but this is true for every core argument in Hindi; for example, (46).¹⁴ (46)

tum=ne khānā khā-yā? – haṃ, khā-yā+h-ai you=erg food[m] eat-pst.m.sg yes eat-pst.m.sg+aux-prs.3sg ‘Have you eaten? – Yes, I ate.

2.3.3 Ergative remains ergative? The central thrust of the “ergative” approach to the development of alignment in IA is that the perfect participle construction has no active counterpart. A consequence of this viewpoint is that the perfect participle construction is not considered to be a passive construction. Such an approach also keeps in mind that the instrumental case is lost in Late MIA and that, as an agent marker, it is only much later replaced by a postposition in Hindi.

13 In general, cross-linguistically, passives are supposed to occur less frequently than their active counterparts (Haspelmath 1990). 14 As a rule, the fact that an ergative A is not overtly expressed is no reason to assume that the ergative construction is passive. As Haspelmath (1990: 27) points out, this finding only indicates that the ergative A lacks certain “subject” properties.

84   

   Indo-Aryan

Although scholars agree that the OIA ta-participle construction is not passive, specific accounts vary with respect to the question of what is the exact point in time at which the perfect participle construction can be analyzed as an ergative construction. Various authors claim that the ta-construction is not entirely ergative but rather “semi-ergative” or “ergative-like” (Bubenik 1998; Peterson 1998; Bynon 2005). On the other hand, Klaiman (1978), Hock (1986) and Hook (1991) claimed that the OIA perfect participle construction must have been ergative from the beginning; and, that the ergative argument must be the subject of the construction.¹⁵ These authors explicitly raised the question as to the “subject properties” of the instrumental agent of the perfect participle construction. However, determining subject properties is a delicate issue (cf. Section 1.1.2), and it is therefore not surprising that different conclusions have been drawn. Hook (1991: 178) draws attention to the fact that the instrumental agent is often in the subject position, i.e. the first position, in constructions with the participle. He gives the following example from a text from the 2nd or 3rd century BCE (OIA) (cf. Hook 1991: 178): (47)

na hi pāṇin-īna śabd-āḥ prok-tāḥ not for Panini-ins word-nom.pl teach-prf.ptcp.nom.pl ‘For it was not words that were taught by Panini.’

However, Sanskrit word order is relatively free, so the claim that the instrumental agent is considered the subject is controversial, as Hook himself points out. His second argument in favour of the hypothesis that the instrumental agent is a subject is that the instrumental case often also serves as the case of the agent of a converb (or “conjunctive participle”) in a clause. This is illustrated in ex. (48) (Hook 1991): (48)

tataḥ śabd-ād abhijñā-ya sa vyaghr-eṇa ha-ta-ḥ then word-abl recognize-cvb he.nom tiger-ins kill-prf.ptcp-nom ‘The tiger recognized him by his voice and killed him.’

The instrumental argument vyaghreṇa is considered as the agent of the converb abhijñāya, and indirectly also as the agent of the main verb hataḥ. However, in Whitney’s Sanskrit grammar we find that in constructions with a converb, the

15 Note that these latter authors do not necessarily endorse the view that the ergative construction in OIA is identical to the one in NIA; they simply assume that OIA already had an ergative construction.

Origin of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan   

   85

participle is always “qualifying the actor whose action it describes” (Whitney 1896: 355). In other words, this “actor” can be the nominative patient or the instrumental agent, but also the dative indirect object, viz. whatever argument in the clause that is semantically amenable to be the actor of the action expressed by the converb. Hook’s third and main argument draws on the behaviour of the reflexive pronoun, which at a certain point in time turns to take the phrase in the instrumental case as antecedent instead of a nominative phrase. This is considered proof that the subject property of being an antecedent of a reflexive pronoun has been transferred from the nominative patient to the instrumental agent. Hook concludes that the ta-construction in Sanskrit turned into an ergative construction very early in its evolution, if it was not ergative from the very start. Formally, the instrumental case does not change in any way when it is used as A or in a purely instrumental sense. Hence, the observation that there is no proper form of an ergative case in OIA does not contradict the claim that the construction is of an ergative nature. Hock (1986) regards the ta-construction in Sanskrit as “patient-oriented”. In Hock’s view, the patient is grammatically in focus in Sanskrit, in the sense that it is the object which takes the nominative case and agrees with the verb. However, Hock assumes that the oldest forms of Sanskrit were “agent-oriented”. Rather than a change from passive to ergative, Hock suggests that a transition took place from a patient-oriented to an agent-oriented construction. This hypothesis takes into account the difficulty that one and the same structure can be interpreted as passive or as ergative. Hock emphasizes that the gerundival construction in OIA, which consists of a gerundive on -tavyā and an agent in a genitive, is ergative. Moreover, in a later phase of OIA, the instrumental case can as well be used for the agent of a gerundival construction. According to Hock, the gerundival construction plays a crucial role in the development towards an ergative construction in OIA, and he considers the gerundival construction itself as already being ergative in nature. Peterson (1998) however rejects Hock’s analysis and points out that the gerundival construction does not accord to the definition of an ergative construction because in the gerundival construction it is S and A that are in the same case, not S and O. Intransitive gerundives are also combined with a genitive/instrumental agent. The view that ergative constructions already existed in Sanskrit is most forcefully advocated by Klaiman (1978). According to Klaiman (1978: 205), there can be no doubt that the Sanskrit examples offered in (49) and (50) display an ergative patterning:

86   

   Indo-Aryan

(49)

nar-eṇa ved-āḥ paṭhi-tāḥ man-ins veda-nom.pl read-prf.ptcp.nom.pl ‘The Vedas were read by the man.’ > The man read the Vedas.’

(50)

sa śayi-ta-ḥ he.nom.sg lie-prf.ptcp.-nom.m.sg ‘He lay down.’

Klaiman’s interpretation draws on Dixon’s definition of ergativity: O, ved-āḥ, and S, sa, are in the same case and in both sentences the verb agrees with the nominative argument. The A, nar-eṇa, however, takes another case marking (instrumental) and does not agree with the verb. O and S are thus treated differently from A. Klaiman’s argument is based on the agreement between the participle and O, this type of agreement being a determining feature of ergative languages. However, a second feature of ergative languages, viz. the ergative case marking of the subject, is less prominent than O-agreement in OIA. In the above examples there is no marking of the subject that can be analyzed as being exclusively ergative. Stronski (2009) points out that Klaiman (like Hock) does not take into account the use of an instrumental agent with an intransitive verb in her account of the ta-constructions in OIA (for instance mayā suptaṃ ‘by me it is slept’, mayā praviṣtaṃ ‘by me it is entered’). The intransitivity of the latter verb praviṣtam may be subject to some discussion (after all, something can be entered), but it is nonetheless clear that Stronski’s argument is directed against an ergative interpretation of the ta-construction in OIA, in which S is not treated in the same way as O but is more similar to A. Other accounts, such as Bynon (2005), follow Benveniste (1952), who argued for a possessive interpretation of the participle construction. Benveniste (1952) studied Old Persian and focused on constructions such as Old Persian ima tya manā kartam, lit., ‘this is done of me’ (meaning ‘what I have done’). According to Benveniste, this is not a passive construction but a possessive one in which manā is the genitive agent, so that the entire expression is semantically similar to Latin quod mihi factum (est), lit. ‘what is done with respect to me’ (meaning ‘what I have done’) (Debrunner 1954: 937), in which mihi is traditionally regarded as a “dativus auctoris” (Montaut 2009, 1996). Considering the close relationship between Old Persian and OIA, a similar evolution from a possessive to an ergative similar could be assumed for OIA. However, the main problem with considering the OIA ta-participle construction as possessive is that the agent is normally not expressed in the genitive case but in the instrumental case. As pointed out by Cardona (1970), the instrumental is the typical case of the passive agent-object in OIA. If one were to argue that the ta-participle construction is possessive, one would have to assume that the original agent was a genitive and that the instru-

Origin of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan   

   87

mental is a later innovation. This is what Bynon (2005) suggests, yet the historical evidence does not support such an approach: the instrumental is attested much earlier than the genitive as the case marking of the agent in constructions with the ta-participle (Cardona 1970; Stronski 2009). It seems that Cooreman et al.’s (1984: 29) remark for Tagalog ergative constructions also applies to the ta-construction in OIA, viz. that “[t]here is nothing structurally distinct in the […] ergative clause that could tell us whether it is functionally a passive or ergative clause type.” From the above discussion, it may be concluded that the ergative nature of the OIA ta-construction is to a large extent a matter of interpretation. However, still another analysis has proven to be cross-linguistically fruitful. Peterson (1998) argues that the participial construction should not be considered as passive or “ergative” but as primarily expressing a resultative meaning. Peterson (1998) analyzes the perfect participle construction in MIA Pali. He concedes that the perfect participle construction in Pali has passive features but he argues that this is because the construction is derived from an OIA resultative construction that “describes the state which results from the action denoted by the verb stem, and not merely the action itself” (Peterson 1998: 24). Peterson considers the development as a transition from a resultative, adjectival construction in OIA into an (ergative?) verbal construction in MIA. The transition was complete from the moment that the participial verb form was no longer seen as an “adjective describing a state” but as a perfect verb form expressing an action (Peterson 1998: 194–195). Based on this view, ex. (36) from OIA, repeated below as (51), should be translated by means of the English copula ‘to be’, because the participle gataḥ only describes a state. (51)

devadatta-ḥ ga-ta-ḥ Devadatta-nom go-prf.ptcp-nom ‘Devadatta has/is gone.’

However, Peterson (1998: 23) interprets the following example from Pali as a verbal construction expressing perfect aspect. He analyzes the agent so as a core argument of the verb and not as an argument determined by an adjectival (participial) form such as devadattaḥ in ex. (51): (52)

so an-āga-to he.nom not-come-prf.ptcp.nom ‘He has not come.’

Creissels (2008) argues that it is problematic to interpret a historical periphrastic construction as a passive or a resultative (compare the participle in OIA (51) and

88   

   Indo-Aryan

MIA Pali in (52)). Not surprisingly, in the various accounts of the ta-participle in IA, we find different interpretations of this participle. According to Creissels, nominal verb forms can be the source of a passive and also be “involved in TAM periphrases”: [T]he mere fact that a resultative form can be identified in the source of an ergative construction is not sufficient to conclude that the source construction was passive. The confusion between resultative (forms) and passive (constructions) is probably the reason why so many authors have overestimated the importance of passive constructions as the source of ergativity, and neglected the possibility of changes in alignment patterns induced by the grammaticalization of aspectual, temporal or modal periphrases. (Creissels 2008: 20)

Peterson (1998: 198) embraces the idea that the resultative construction led to a periphrastic tense in MIA and draws parallels with developments in Roman and Germanic tense systems. The Germanic perfect has been explained by Bybee and Dahl (1989, Creissels 2008) as originating either from a resultative construction (e.g., German er ist gefahren ‘he has driven [a vehicle]’) or from a possessive construction (e.g., German er hat das Auto gefahren ‘he has driven the car’). Peterson argues that the ergative construction in IA has a similar origin; that is, the MIA intransitive ta-participle construction derives from a resultative construction (cf. ex. (52), Trask 1979), whereas the transitive ta-participle construction comes from a possessive construction (as argued much earlier by Benveniste 1952). Hence, Peterson still needs to account for the instrumental case of the agent, which is not a case typically associated with a resultative or a possessive construction (cf. Cardona 1970). In Peterson’s view, the first ta-participles used to convey perfect aspect in OIA must have been intransitive. At the time when transitive verbs took the participle form, the instrumental agent was an instrumental of “concomitance” that resulted in constructions such as ‘with me is a written book’ (Peterson 1998: 211). Now, if it is conceded that the concomitant function of the instrumental is close to the possessor construction of genitive agents (e.g., ‘I have a book written’), then this could explain why the genitive can also be used as an agent of a ta-participle construction. Although Peterson’s analysis has the disadvantage that he only applies it to Pali (cf. Stronski 2009), the analysis provides a possible and plausible pathway of change, in particular in its view that the ta-participle expresses a resultative and not a passive meaning. Moreover, Peterson also shows that the resultative which first developed into a perfect, will ultimately evolve into a general past or perfective as was the case in Hindi (see ex. (24)). The same development has been demonstrated by Bybee and Dahl for English (1989), adding a cross-linguistic precedent for this kind of transition.

Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages   

   89

2.4 Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages Indo-Aryan languages form one language family, which means that certain properties recur in every language of the family. This Section introduces a number of these basic syntactic features. Obviously, the properties do not recur in exactly the same way in every language. The properties relating to alignment will be discussed for each particular language separately, but in this Section  2.4 they are first briefly explained using Hindi as an example. Some of the matters are as yet unsettled in linguistic debate, but it is not the goal of this study to discuss these debates in detail.

2.4.1 Masica’s layer system The historical development of the IA languages led to a system of case marking that is built on postpositions. The case system in IA was described by Masica (1991), Butt and King (2005), and Schmidt and Kohistani (2008), among others. Masica (1991: 231) distinguishes three layers of markers in IA. Layer I markers are the inflectional cases. The nominative is the primary inflectional case, with a zero marking. In Hindi, the non-nominative, or the oblique, is the second case inflection of layer I. For instance, one finds in Hindi the nominative laṛk-ā ‘boy’ and the oblique laṛk-e. A lexical item in the oblique almost never occurs on its own in Hindi; as a rule, the oblique form is followed by a postposition, e.g., laṛk-e=ke sāth ‘with the boy’.¹⁶ Postpositions form layer II or III.¹⁷ Layer II are simple post-

16 Occasionally, one finds an oblique form without postposition in locative expressions, for instance ḍakṣan-e ‘to the post office’ (Butt and King 2005: 12). 17 All postpositions are considered to be clitical forms in Hindi and not affixes like the layer I inflectional markings. Butt and King (2005, following Mohanan 1994) make a different distinction between layer II markers (which they call “clitics”) and layer III markers (which they label “postpositions”). They argue that layer II markers are case clitics on the basis of the observation that they have scope over more than one noun, for instance, an adjective combined with a noun followed by a “clitic” will take the oblique case. Moreover, the focus clitic hī can be inserted between the noun and the “clitic”. While it is true that these are all features of clitics, layer III markers share the same features. Butt and King’s main reason for considering layer III as postpositions, not as clitics, is that they are formally more complex and cannot mark a subject. However, this opposition between “clitics” and “postpositions” with respect to layer II and layer III markers seems to be farfetched, considering that there are more similarities than differences between the two sets of markers. For instance, layer III postpositions display all the properties of free clitics. Moreover, Butt and King (2005) admit that layer II locative markers as meṃ ‘in’ and par ‘on’ have several similarities to layer III markers, although the former are

90   

   Indo-Aryan

positions that consist of one simple form and that mark both core arguments and adjuncts (for instance the ergative ne, the objective ko, the locative meṃ in Hindi). The postposition ko is used not only to mark O and IO but also to mark an adjunct designating a direction, (e.g. ghar=ko ‘to the house’), or a time, (e.g. rāt=ko ‘at night’). Finally, layer III postpositions are complex postpositions used to indicate adjuncts. They consist of a genitive layer II postposition combined with a lexical element (for instance us=ke=niche, ‘this=layer II=under’, meaning ‘under this’). Postpositional marking in IA differs from inflectional marking in that postpositions are invariable forms that are added only to the head of the phrase and not to every part of it. For instance, in Hindi, the correct form of a determiner phrase is is laṛkī=ko ‘this girl=to’, and not *is=ko laṛkī=ko ‘this=to girl=to’. Formally, layer II postpositions do not behave as case morphemes in the strict sense of case inflections (layer I), but it has been argued that given that they also indicate grammatical relations, layer II postpositions are functionally on a par with case inflections (cf. for Hindi, Mohanan 1994: 59; Butt & King 2004: 170). Layer III postpositions are invariably adjunct markers, and do not occur in combination with core arguments. The division into layers proposed by Masica (1991) is historically motivated. The layer I suffixes are the remains of the Old and Middle IA inflectional case system, whereas layer II and III markers derive from later developments. In Hindi, the three layers can be clearly distinguished; in other IA languages, however, postpositional markers have merged with the verb stem into a kind of inflection, e.g., Asamiya rāma-k, with the ending -k, formerly a postposition from which the end vowel has disappeared (see Section 3.1.1). It is therefore impossible to distinguish all three aforementioned layers of case marking in every IA language (as Masica 1991: 233 remarks, it is in a way a conventional division), although all IA languages reflect in some way or another the loss of inflectional cases and the rise of a new kind of case marking. In Hindi, the first postpositions surfaced in the Late MIA stage or in Early Hindi (cf. Bubenik 1998: 67). What constitutes the etymological roots of the postpositions remains a contentious issue. For many postpositions, a lexical origin has been suggested. For instance, the Hindi objective postposition ko has been

said to be “case clitics”. Finally, the layer II locative marker meṃ as well as the layer III locative marker ke pās are argued to mark “subjects”, which indicates that the argument that only layer II clitics mark subjects is non-exclusive (though Butt and King have a rather broad conception of “subject”, cf. Section 2.4.3). Therefore, I prefer to follow Montaut (2004: 60–68) and Masica (1991) in using the straightforward and unbiased terms “simple” and “complex” postpositions to differentiate between layer II and layer III markers.

Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages   

   91

related to the Sanskrit past participle kṛta- ‘done’ (cf. Montaut 2004: 65) but also to kakṣe ‘side, armpit’ (cf. Beames 1872: 257). The origin of the Hindi ergative postposition ne is equally uncertain, and in general three different hypotheses are found in the literature (cf. Drocco 2008; Verbeke and De Cuypere 2009). A grammaticalization of a lexical source is one hypothesis, e.g. lāgī ‘attached to’ (cf. Beames 1872: 267; Kellogg 1938: 131; Chatterji 1926: 968; Butt 2001: 116; Montaut 2009). Another, early hypothesis, suggested that ne is derived from the Sanskrit instrumental case -ena or -īna (cf. Monier-Williams 1858: 104–105; Trumpp 1872: 113; Lehmann 2002: 99), but this proposal has proven to be invalid (Beames 1872: 267 and Kellogg 1938: 131). The third hypothesis argues for the borrowing of ne in Hindi from Old Rajasthani (Hoernle 1880: 224–225), in which ne (or nai) was used as the objective postposition from the 15th century onward (cf. Kellogg 1938: 132; Khokhlova 2001: 163). This is a tentative explanation; to confirm this view, more historical data need to be analyzed.

2.4.2 The verb system in Indo-Aryan 2.4.2.1 The participial base of the verb system in Indo-Aryan The verb system in contemporary IA is largely based on participles.¹⁸ There are two participles, the imperfect (present) and perfect participle. Depending on the individual language, the participles are either used as autonomous lexical items that agree with a core argument in gender or number, or they are combined with a form of the copula, which displays person agreement. Depending on the language, the copula can be attached to a particular form of the verb, thus constituting one lexical unit, or it can simply follow a participial form. For instance, a perfect participle followed by a past auxiliary designates a past perfect (e.g., Hindi yah gayā thā ‘he had gone’), and a present participle followed by a future form of the auxiliary is an imperfect presumptive (e.g., Hindi maiṃ jātā hūṃgā ‘I will probably go’). In Hindi, only the future and the subjunctive tenses display person marking and do not have a participial base (e.g., future vah karegī ‘she will do’, subjunctive maiṃ karūṃ ‘I would do’). The most frequently used verb forms in Hindi are thus periphrastic. All IA languages have converbs, which are also called “absolutes” or “conjunctive participles” in grammars of the IA languages. Converbs are non-finite verb forms that designate an action that happened before or during the action expressed by the main verb of the clause. In Hindi, these converbs can take the

18 For a full overview of all possible verb forms in Hindi, see Montaut (1996, 1999).

92   

   Indo-Aryan

form of the stem of a verb, the verb stem + kar, or the verb stem + ke. The arguments of the converb may or may not be overtly expressed. In Hindi, arguments of a converb cannot take the ergative case, but if they differ from the argument of the main verb, they are expressed with a genitive case, cf. the following example from Bickel and Yadav (2000: 351): (53)

tumhār-e kal nahīṃ ākar kuch kām nahīṃ you.gen-obl.sg tomorrow not come.cvb some work[m] not hogā be-fut.3sg.m ‘If you don’t come tomorrow, there won’t be any work.’

Other non-finite verbal forms are participles and infinitives. The agents of participles and infinitives are expressed by genitive constructions in Hindi; e.g., the infinitive construction rām=ke baiṭhne=par ‘on [the moment] of the sitting of Ram’ > ‘when Ram was sitting’, or the participial construction rām=ke baiṭhte hī ‘during the sitting of Ram’ > ‘while Ram was sitting’ (examples from Mohanan 1994: 78).

2.4.2.2 Light verbs and lexical compound predicates Typical of IA is a phenomenon called “verb stapling”; that is, one verb may be combined with another verb to express a complex lexical meaning or (more often) a grammaticalized meaning. The main verb may take any form (participle, root, or infinitive), and is either invariable or in agreement in gender/number with the O in the clause (depending on the auxiliary with which it is combined). The auxiliaries, also known as “light verbs” (or “conjunct verbs”, “compound verbs”, “serial verbs” or “vector verbs”) are conjugated and display person marking and gender/number agreement. In Hindi, rahnā is one of the frequently used light verbs. Its lexical meaning is ‘to stay’, but when it is used as a light verb in combination with the stem of another verb, rahnā expresses the progressive tense of that other verb, which is then the main verb in the clause. Variants of rahnā are also found in other IA languages, in which the verb rah can be more or less grammaticalized. In Nepali, for instance, rah is incorporated in the verb form (as in gar-e-rah-e-chu ‘I was doing’) (cf. Section 4.1.3). Other frequent light verbs in Hindi are ānā ‘to come’, jānā ‘to go’, karnā ‘to do’, lagnā ‘to attach’, denā ‘to give’, and lenā ‘to take’, etc. Whereas light verbs are quite common in languages such as Hindi and Punjabi, the number of light verbs varies considerably across the IA languages. In Kashmiri and Marathi, for instance, light verbs are much less frequent (cf. Hook 1988: 293).

Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages   

   93

In IA languages, it is also possible to combine a verb with a noun, resulting in what are called “lexical compound verbs” (Kellogg 1938: 272–279; Mohanan 1994: 110). The nominal part of a lexical compound verb is semantically incorporated into the verbal construction (e.g., Hindi śuru karnā ‘to begin’, pasand ānā ‘to like’, yād karnā ‘to remember’, etc.). The noun in such a construction can never be marked for animacy or definiteness (cf. Klaiman 1990: 337). However, although lexical compound constructions are instances of incorporation, it is important to point out that the incorporation only takes place at a semantic level. Syntactically, there are a number of reasons why the nouns cannot be said to be completely incorporated into the verb construction but should instead be regarded as independent O-arguments. For instance, in contrast to the traditional definition of incorporation, lexical compounds can control verb agreement when the verb is transitive and perfective. Furthermore, a lexical compound verb is still seen as transitive (it takes, for instance, an ergative marked A in the perfective) (Klaiman 1990).¹⁹ In sum, it is reasonable to assume that there is incorporation in Hindi on a semantic level, but that has no bearing on the syntax of the construction. The meaning of the combination of a verb with a noun is often to a certain extent idiosyncratic. For instance, in Hindi, gāliyā khānā literally means ‘to eat abuses’, but its idiomatic lexical meaning is ‘to be scolded’. In Asamiya bhai means ‘fear’ and khā means ‘to eat’, but the lexical compound bhai khā means ‘to be scared’. In Hindi, the transitivity of the light verb determines the transitivity of the entire construction in which it is used. For instance, verb constructions with rahnā are always intransitive whether the main verb is transitive or intransitive. Constructions with khānā ‘to eat’, however, are transitive, and this is also the case in Asamiya: rām-e bhai khāle is transitive, although it may be translated as ‘Ram got scared’. There are a few transitive light verbs in Hindi, but these never occur with an intransitive main verb (Kellogg 1938: 260–261). For example, the verb ḍālnā literally means ‘to throw’ or ‘to pour’, and in its function as a light verb, it merely emphasizes or strengthens the meaning of a transitive main verb²⁰. However, it is not impossible to find a combination of an intransitive main verb with a transitive light verb, e.g., cal denā, lit. ‘go + give’ > ‘to go away’. Whenever this light verb is used in a perfective construction, the A is in the ergative.

19 Exceptions to this agreement pattern exist. For instance, in Hindi, pasand ‘taste’ is feminine, which would imply that in perfective constructions the verb karnā must always be f.sg. However, this is not the case; e.g., in rājū=ne baccoṃ=ko pasand kiyā ‘Raju liked kids’, the perfective verb kiyā is m.sg., not f.sg. (Klaiman 1990: 340). 20 E.g., the well-known song lyric in Hindi mār ḍālā, meaning, ‘it killed me’.

94   

   Indo-Aryan

This combination of an intransitive main verb and an ergative A (e.g., cal denā) is an argument for Mohanan (1994: 74) to consider the ergative case as a semantic case that only marks a voluntary agent. If the ergative case were a structural case, so the argument goes, its occurrence would be strictly limited to the marking of the A of a transitive main verb. However, rather than referring to a semantic property, the occurrence of the ergative marker may be said to be syntactically determined by the transitivity of the light verb. The following example from Hindi with the intransitive light verb cuknā, lit. ‘to be finished’, in combination with the lexical compound verb qatl karnā ‘to kill’, illustrates a construction in which ne is absent, although the agent arguably carries out a deliberate action: (54)

maiṃ chaḥ ādmiyoṃ=ko qatl I six man.pl.obl=obj killing kar+cuk-ā+h-ūṃ do+be finished-pst.m.sg+aux-prs.1sg ‘I have (already) killed six men.’ (Manto 1984)

One possible exception to this pattern is the so-called habitual construction, which is formed by a verbal noun on -ā in combination with the verb karnā ‘to do’. Because such combinations with karnā express a habitual or repeated action, they do not occur often in a perfective. On the rare occasions when they do, there is no ergative marking (Everaert 2004: 77), although karnā is a transitive verb.

2.4.2.3 Perfect, perfective, and past The perfect aspect and the past tense have intermingled in most Modern IA languages as a consequence of disappearance of many tenses in the Middle IndoAryan stage. The past tenses are based on a participle expressing perfect aspect. In Hindi, constructions in which the participle is combined with a present form or any other form of the verb ‘to be’ are dominant. The tense is either past or present, but the aspect is always perfect. Compare, for instance, the following examples of a present perfect and a past perfect, respectively: (55)

rām=ne kitāb paṛh-ī+h-ai Ram=erg book[f] read-pst.f.sg+aux-prs.3sg ‘Ram has read a book.’

(56)

rām=ne kitāb paṛh-ī+th-ī Ram=erg book[f] read-pst.f.sg+aux.pst-f.sg ‘Ram had read a book.’

Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages   

   95

However, when the perfect participle is used as a finite verb (without an auxiliary), it is generally interpreted to indicate a simple past tense with perfective aspect (cf. Davison 2002) as in the following example: (57)

rām=ne kitāb paṛh-ī Ram=erg book[f] read-pst.f.sg ‘Ram read a book.’ (and finished it)

Montaut (2004), on the other hand, considers the verb form of the previous example as an aorist, and argues that its primary function is to express the preterit (past). At the same time, it can also occur when “the temporal meaning is constructed by the syntactic context” (Montaut 2004: 106), as in her following example.²¹ Observe that the participle gaī takes over the tense of the main verb bacegā, i.e., future. Aspectually, though, the participle gaī is perfective, because it indicates an action that is a condition for, and needs to be completed before, a second action: (58)

billī rasoī=meṃ ghus+ga-ī to kuch cat[f] kitchen=loc enter+go-pst.f.sg then something nahīṃ bac-e-g-ā not be saved-3sg-fut-m.sg ‘If the cat happens to enter the kitchen, nothing will be saved.’

Examples such as (57) show that tense and aspect overlap in IA to the extent that the perfect participle is a necessary condition for the past tense as well as for the present and past perfect. The tenses constructed with the present/imperfect participle are imperfective, as in the following example: (59)

rām kitāb paṛh-tā+th-ā Ram book[f] read-prs.m.sg+aux.pst-m.sg ‘Ram was reading a book.’

Imperfectives often alternate with a progressive tense that consists of a light verb construction with rahnā. Of course, the system of tenses and aspects is not the same in all IA languages. There is considerable variation with respect to the combinations of participles, main verbs, and person markers. Moreover, the elaborate system of light verbs

21 Montaut (2006b) also argues that these “aorists” can express certain evidential meanings.

96   

   Indo-Aryan

found in Hindi and in many Indo-Aryan languages (and certainly not restricted to rahnā), the range of which is beyond this study, is often considered to be related to aspect and Aktionsart (cf. Hook 1978; Nespital 1981). Nevertheless, participial verb constructions sharing the same historical origin are found intervening in the tense/aspect system in all IA languages. In the remainder of this study, the forms that generally occur with an ergative construction will be labeled “perfective” and those that occur without ergative construction “imperfective”. Although these terms may not do full justice to the complex tense/aspect system in Indo-Aryan, the term “perfective” is preferred above terms such as “past (preterit) tense” or “perfect aspect”, because forms like the “present perfect” or “simple past” are either perfect or past, but both can be perfective. Moreover, the occurrence of an ergative pattern seems to be rather related to the formal presence of the perfect participle, than to semantic distinctions related to perfectivity (with the exception, to a certain extent, of Nepali, cf. 4.1.3.).

2.4.2.4 Passives Hindi possesses an analytic passive that is made up of a perfect participle in combination with the conjugated verb jānā ‘to go’ and that is attested in the present as well as the past tense.²² The expression of the agent in the passive is optional, but if it is expressed, it is marked by the ablative postpositions se or ke dwārā, as, e.g., in ex. (60) (Montaut 2004: 132): (60)

cor mujh=se pakṛā+ga-yā thief I.obl=abl catch+pass-pst.m.sg ‘The thief was caught by me.’

In certain passive constructions, the patient is marked with the objective postposition ko, e.g., (61), (Montaut 2004: 132).²³ (61)

in donoṃ=ko pakṛā+ga-yā+th-ā these two=obj catch+pass-pst.m.sg+aux.pst-m.sg ‘These two had been caught.’

22 The passive in Indo-Aryan follows the Indo-European tradition according to which an (intransitive) auxiliary is used to form the passive (Haspelmath 1990: 29). 23 According to Mohanan (1994: 94), whether the patient in a passive construction is in the nominative or is marked with ko is a dialectal preference.

Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages   

   97

According to Montaut (2004: 132), the passive in this example “does not necessarily promote the patient”, but primarily aims at “backgrounding the agent”. This feature of “backgrounding the agent” is in fact the only general cross-linguistic feature that allows us to identify a passive (cf. Andersen 1990: 198; Shibatani 1985; Siewierska 1984: 256; but see Haspelmath 1990, who argues that the inactivization of the verbal situation is the basic function of the passive). Both transitive and intransitive verbs can take a passive form, although passives of intransitive verbs are often impersonal. All IA languages have some kind of passive. The attested passives can be split into two main types. “Periphrastic passives” are based on a light verb construction in combination with a verb meaning ‘to go’, such as Hindi jānā. “Synthetic passives” are constructed by inserting a sound based on -ij- (which can also be -i-, -j- or -s(s)-, as in some Rajasthani languages) into the verb form. A passive form can also be used in a meaning of capability, often in a negative sense. The following examples illustrate this use of the passive in an impersonal and a personal construction, respectively (Montaut 2004: 132, 208). (62)

aise ro-yā nahīṃ so cry-pst.m.sg not ‘One should not cry.’

jā-tā pass-prs.m.sg

(63)

us=se mer-ā gham he.obl=abl I.gen-m.sg sorrow[m] dekh-ā+ga-yā see-pst.m.sg+pass-pst.m.sg ‘He could not bear to see my sorrow.’

nahīṃ not

2.4.2.5 Causatives In all IA languages, causative verbs are formally indicated. Typically, a causative verb has increased valency compared to the verb from which it is derived. Socalled “first causatives” are formed by adding -ā- to the root of the intransitive verb. The added suffix may cause a sound change in the stem. For instance, the causative of ṭuṭna ‘to be broken’ is toṛna ‘to break’. Bannā ‘to be made’ becomes banānā ‘to make’. Verbs in IA also have a “second causative”, which is a causative of a verb form that is itself a causative (for instance banwānā ‘to cause to make’, which is arrived at by causativizing banānā ‘to make’). khānā ‘to eat’ in Hindi is causativized to khilānā ‘to feed’ and may become khilwānā ‘to cause to feed’. However, because of their high token frequencies, verbs such as toṛnā and banānā are no longer considered as derived verb forms. Conversely, many non-

98   

   Indo-Aryan

causative intransitives are relatively infrequent (e.g., sūjhnā ‘be thought’, biknā ‘be sold’). The process of causativization, through which basic verbs that are intransitive are made transitive, is a frequent phenomenon in IA. Montaut (2007: 230) describes the direction of the transition in Hindi, i.e., from intransitive to transitive, as follows: L’argument principal en faveur de la dérivation des transitifs à partir des intransitifs, les noms à dérivation zéro n’étant guère concluants, est d’une part la forme phonologique (toujours plus lourde, ou demandant un effort articulatoire plus important, même sans évoquer l’étymologie en sanscrit où la voyelle tendue est considérée comme le degré long de la voyelle relâchée), d’autre part l’homologie fonctionnelle évidente entre les deux séries a et b [two possible ways to form a causative, SV], et surtout le fait que la seconde dérivation causative (ou factitive selon les verbes de base), par suffixation du morphème -vâ, procède presque toujours de la forme intransitive.

Cross-linguistically, Hindi can be considered as a “transitivizing” language in the terms of Haspelmath (1993) and Nichols et al. (2004) because intransitive verbs are formally and semantically more unmarked than transitive ones (Montaut 2004: 85). Montaut (2007: 230–231) mentions only a few verbs that are “ambitransitive” or “labile” in the sense that they can be used in intransitive and transitive constructions. These verbs are khonā ‘to loose, to get lost’, badalnā ‘to change’, bharnā ‘to fill’, and baṛhnā ‘to increase’.

2.4.3 Experiencer constructions Non-canonical marking of subjects is the phenomenon that a small set of verbs pertaining to a lexical group does not take a subject (A or S) marked in one of the two structurally expected cases, viz. nominative (for intransitive and accusative constructions) or ergative (for ergative constructions) (cf. Verma and Mohanan 1990; Aikhenvald et al. 2001; Bhaskararao 2004). Non-canonical subject marking is found in many Indo-European languages (e.g., in present-day German mich friert [with accusative], mir ist kalt [with dative], both meaning ‘I am cold’, or in Old English me liketh ‘I like it’). In IA, the non-canonical marking comprises either an objective or genitive marking of the subject, with the objective being the most frequent case.²⁴ In general, the verbs constructed with a non-canonical subject

24 Because the objective case has often been called ‘dative’, the designation “dative subject” has become common currency in IA linguistics to refer to this type of non-canonical case marking of the subject.

Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages   

   99

can be semantically grouped as “experiencer” verbs. Experiencer verbs may be divided into two groups, viz. experience-based predicates (verbs of emotion, attitudes, cognition, perception, bodily states, changes in bodily states) and happenstance predicates (verbs of decline, failing/mistaking, success/performance, ontological states, social interaction, gain, personal properties, verbs of landscape and nature). By extension, they are verbs of physical sensation, psychological states, wanting, needing or obligation, and receiving, and they also include verbs that express kinship relations (Barđdal 2011; Cole et al. 1980). Instead of having the common semantic role of agent and patient, the arguments taken by these verbs can be analyzed as instantiating the thematic roles of experiencer and stimulus (cf. Dixon 2010, Chapter 1). The following examples are from Hindi: (64)

yah kitāb mujh-e pasand this book[f] I.obl-obj nice ‘I like this book.’

ā+rahī+h-ai come+prog.f.sg+aux-prs.3sg

(65)

mujh-e būkh lag-ī I.obl-obj hunger[f] attach-pst.f.sg ‘I am hungry.’

(66)

rām mujh-e dikh-tā+h-ai Ram[m] I.obl-obj appear-prs.m.sg+aux-prs.3sg ‘Ram appears to me.’ > ‘I see Ram.’

The pattern illustrated in these examples is quite straightforward. The experiencer role, mujhe, is in the objective case, whereas the stimulus roles, kitāb, būkh and rām control the agreement. Experiencer constructions have been discussed intensively, in particular with respect to the subject status of the experiencer argument (cf. Cole et al. 1980; Andrews 1976; Bayer 2004; Barđdal 2011, among others). Parallel to the discussion on the “subjectness” of oblique experiencer arguments in Icelandic and other German languages (cf. Bayer 2004), there used to be a debate on whether the experiencer controls certain syntactic subject properties in IA languages and whether oblique experiencer arguments can therefore be considered “subjects” (cf. Klaiman 1981; Mohanan 1994: 96; Verma and Mohanan 1990; Montaut 2001, 2004b). The morphological properties of a subject, viz. controlling verb agreement and being the argument in an unmarked case, are not typical of an experiencer in IA. On the other hand, it is well-known that experiencers in Icelandic can control agreement under certain circumstances; this has been considered as an acquired subject property (cf. Bayer 2004). In IA too, an exceptional agreement pattern with experiencer verbs

100   

   Indo-Aryan

is found in two variants of the language Shina (spoken on the border between India and Pakistan), i.e., the Shina of Dras, Skurda and Gultari (cf. Hook 1990, 1996). In these languages, the experiencer verb agrees with an object marked in the objective case. According to Hook (1990: 82), this agreement pattern can be considered to be the result of a transition of subject features to the experiencer role. At least in the Shina of Gultari, the objective marking of the experiencer alternates with an ergative marking, with “little or no change in meaning”, and the stimulus, in Hindi always in the nominative case, can take objective marking (Hook 1996). However, this pattern does not seem to occur in any other IA language except for Shina. It is possible that other factors, such as the use of pronominal suffixes, may also have contributed to the rise of experiencer agreement in Shina (cf. Section 5.2). Bickel and Yadava (2000: 364) compare the behavior of arguments, including the experiencer, in a series of syntactic constructions such as “converbial clause chaining, coordinate conjunction reduction, and reflexivization” in Hindi, Maithili, and Nepali. Converbial clause chaining, coordinate conjunction reduction and reflexivization are traditionally used as “syntactic diagnostics” to establish whether there is a grammatical relationship of subject in a certain syntactic construction. However, according to Bickel and Yadava, these tests often fail for such a purpose in IA because, in these languages, the patterns of coreference and reflexivization are determined by semantic constraints and not by syntactic constraints of case marking or grammatical role. The following two examples of elliptical constructions (67) and (68) are taken from Montaut (2004: 259). One argument of the main verb of the second clause in the coordinated sentence is not overtly expressed, and the context provides the necessary information to infer the correct coreference. The ellipsis is not case-sensitive, so the case marking of the omitted argument does not matter. For instance, in ex. (67) the verb paṛhī is transitive and takes the ergative-marked A us=ne ‘he’. The coordinated verb lagī is intransitive, which implies that its overt argument would have to be in the nominative case. However, although the S verb lagī is not overtly expressed in ex. (68), it is clear from the semantics that the intended S in the second clause coincides with us=ne with the overtly expressed A in the first clause. Ex. (68) is almost the same construction as ex. (67), only here the experiencer predicate yād āī normally takes an experiencer argument marked with ko, which is not overtly expressed. (67)

us=ne ciṭṭhī paṛh-ī aur ro-ne+lag-ī she.obl=erg letter[f] read-pst.f.sg and cry-inf+be attached-pst.f.sg ‘She read the letter and [she] started to cry.’

Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages   

(68)

   101

us=ne ciṭṭhī paṛh-ī aur us din=kī she.obl=erg letter[f] read-pst.f.sg and that.obl day=gen yād ā-ī memory[f] come-pst.f.sg ‘She read the letter and [she] remembered that day.’

Bickel and Yadava (2000: 364) offer the following examples (69)–(71) to illustrate the “free” coreference and reflexivization pattern in Hindi. In the first two examples, Bickel and Yadava assume that there is coreference between S/A in the first sentence and O in the second one. However, all of these examples have been considered unacceptable by native speakers of Hindi, in particular ex. (69) and (71), and seem to have been derived from a highly marked register. In fact, ex. (69) is clearly grammatically wrong, because the verb lagnā never takes an ergatively marked subject, as is the case in this example. (69)

*rām ā-yā aur sab-oṃ=ne ram come-pst.m.sg and all-obl=erg piṭ-ne+lag-ā beat-inf+be attached-pst.m.sg ‘Ram came and everyone started to beat [him].’

(70)

?maiṃ=ne glās pheṃk-ā I=erg glass[m] throw-pst.m.sg ṭuṭ+ga-yā break+go-pst.m.sg ‘I threw the glass and [it] broke.’

(71)

?rām=ne patnī=ko apnī sarī Ram=erg wife[f]=obj one’s own sari[f] ‘Ram gave his wife her own sari.’

aur and

dī give.pst.f.sg

According to Montaut (2004: 259), examples such as (70) can occur only when O is high in topicality, but they are extremely rare. There may be dialectal variation involved. Ex. (71) is not an elliptical construction, but illustrates the use of the reflexive (if accepted as grammatical). The reflexive apnī refers to the O patni=ko, but apnī could also refer to the A rām=ne. However, because of the context (in particular the fact that a sari normally belongs to a woman) the first interpretation is the most obvious one for Bickel and Yadava. They argue that reflexivization of an argument is also related to “linear precedence”, the reflexive normally referring

102   

   Indo-Aryan

to the “closest” argument in the sentence with which a coreferential relation can be established (Bickel and Yadava 2000: 368, Montaut 2004: 271). The above examples (67)–(68) lend support to the view that, for Hindi, it is generally impossible to determine what the “subject” of a clause is purely on the basis of such syntactic constructions. This conclusion holds for the IA languages in general. Moreover, in non-coordinated sentences, it is also possible that S, A, and O are not overtly expressed. In Hindi and other IA languages, this pattern of free deletion of core argument abounds in question-answer pairs, yet in spoken language, it also occurs frequently on other occasions as well. See, for instance, the following example from Asamiya: (72)

kāli āpuni cakā meja-bor ān-il-e ne yesterday you.h chair table-pl bring-pst-2h Q hay, ān-il-oṃ yes bring-pst-1 ‘Did you bring chairs and tables yesterday? Yes, [I] brought [them].’ (Baruah 1980: 318)

In the next example from Kashmiri (Koul 2006:61), only the O is not overtly expressed in the answer to the question: (73)

tohi por-v-ā akhbār? you.erg read.pst.m.sg-2pl-q newspaper[m] ā, me por yes I.erg read.pst.m.sg ‘Did you read the newspaper? Yes, I read [it].

All of these patterns of ellipsis, in independent clauses and in coordination patterns alike, appear to be determined by the discourse topicality of the arguments. This means that these mechanisms are not completely adequate to indicate the subject in this language. Nevertheless, constructions such as (69) and (70) are considered ungrammatical, and S and A are often coreferential. Moreover, in Hindi converbial constructions, the unexpressed agent of the converb is coreferential with A/S of the main verb (cf. Montaut 2004: 182–183, Section 2.4.2.1). These two factors indicate that, at least in Hindi, the identification of S with A is more natural, and may suppose a subject category – which is in line with findings in other Indo-European languages (cf. Eythórsson and Barđdal 2012). It bears pointing out that the experiencer construction is an exceptional construction in which the arguments behave idiosyncratically. In contrast to “normal” transitive constructions, the marking and behavior of the arguments

Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages   

   103

of an experiencer construction are primarily determined by their semantic roles. The question of whether an experiencer is a subject is ultimately irrelevant because the morphosyntactic and semantic properties of the semantic roles of experiencer/stimulus are different from those of A/O (Hook 1990: 320; Montaut 2004b: 43; Næss 2007: 190). Although experiencer constructions are different from ergative constructions in that the former are lexically determined (i.e., the meaning of the verb determines the argument) and occur in perfective as well as imperfective constructions, the two have often been considered to be related. For instance, according to Montaut (1991, 1996, 2001, 2004b, 2009), the ergative construction in Hindi is a “localizing predication”, the ergative case is said to express a change of state. The postposition ne indicates then an “oblique subject” in the same sense as an objective in experiencer constructions and as an instrumental in passive constructions (Montaut 1996). According to Montaut, even a locative can be construed as a subject, in constructions describing a state. Consider, e.g., the following example from Mohanan (1994: 64): (74)

ravī=meṃ bilkul dayā nahīṃ th-ī Ravi=loc totally mercy[f] not be.pst-f.sg ‘There was no mercy in Ravi’ > ‘Ravi did not have mercy’

Montaut (2009b) argues, from a cognitive perspective, that the ergative in Hindi is not the mirror, or the “reversed trajectory”, of the accusative construction, but that it patterns together with the experiencer construction because of the cognitive similarity between the two constructions. Still, the ergative in Hindi has a conceptual identity of its own, although this identity has a spatial basis in the sense commonly assumed in the cognitive-linguistic framework. Montaut refers to DeLancey (1981) who associated ergative and experiencer verb constructions with a viewpoint that focuses on the result of an action.²⁵ According to Montaut and DeLancey, the source of the event is the natural starting point of the action, but it is not the viewpoint of the speaker and thus remains outside the predication. Only the last part of the action, the result, is profiled “on stage” (cf. Section  1.2.1). Importantly, both the experiencer and the ergative constructions are said to be closer to an intransitive construction than to a

25 This is in contrast to Langacker, who considers the experiencer as the source of a mental or perceptual path that is not profiled on the onstage domain and is not the result of the action. However, in Hindi, the main feature of the experiencer is that it is not an active/volitional agent, given that the experiencer verb is rather intransitive (Montaut 1996: 355).

104   

   Indo-Aryan

transitive construction in which the accusative is used. As shown in Chapter 1, according to cognitive linguists, the central relationship in an ergative pattern is the one between the verb and O, viz. “the thematic relationship”. In an intransitive construction, the relationship between the verb and S is also considered to be thematic. This thematic relationship is called the “absolute construal” by Langacker (1999: 84). According to Montaut (2009b), the absolute construal can be observed both in the patient-verb relationship in ergative constructions and in the theme-verb relationship in experiencer constructions (with the theme being the stimulus in the latter construction). The semantic similarity between the ergative and intransitive constructions is said to be dependent on the cognitive conceptualization of the theme relationships in the intransitive construction (S-verb) and in the transitive construction (O-verb). However, the focus on the theme in the ergative construction seems to be obscured by the (often obligatory) presence of the ergative A in the clause. An ergative construction represents an action with two arguments and is transitive, whereas intransitive constructions express only one of the two arguments. Furthermore, if a transitive (ergative) construction alternates with an intransitive one (cf. the break examples in English discussed in Section 1.2.1), the same verb cannot be used in transitive and intransitive constructions; thus, a causative verb must be involved: (75)

The vase broke: John broke the vase:

phūldān ṭuṭ-ā vase[m] be broken-pst.m.sg John=ne phūldān toṛ-ā John=erg vase [m] break-pst.m.sg

According to Montaut, the “absolute construal” (i.e., the nominative marking and the agreement of S and O in perfective constructions) is a first similarity between an ergative and an intransitive construction. Montaut believes that there is a second reason to consider the ergative construction as bordering on the “intransitive” in Hindi. She indicates that stative intransitive constructions are similar to ergative constructions. For example, ex. (76) from Montaut (2009b) is a Hindi stative construction with the stative verb form banāe hue consisting of a perfect participle of the main verb and a perfect participle of the auxiliary. The stative verb form banāe hue does not agree with any argument in the clause, but it is in the so-called “default” form, i.e., oblique masculine singular.

Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages   

(76)

   105

maiṃ un=se mitratā I they.obl=abl friendship[f] banā-e+hu-e h-ūṃ make-pst.m.sg+aux.ptcp.prf-m.sg be-prs.1sg ‘I am friends with them’ < ‘I am in the state of having made friends with them’

Montaut (2009b) considers the construction in ex. (76) to be almost identical to the following example (77), which is a normal ergative perfective constructive with a verb agreeing with the O, mitratā: (77)

maiṃ=ne un=se mitratā banā-ī+h-ai I=erg they.obl=abl friendship[f] make-pst.f.sg+aux-prs.3sg ‘I have made friendship with them.’

However, Montaut’s analysis does not account for the fact that the two constructions illustrated in the examples (76) and (77) are structurally very different, despite the fact that the meaning of both constructions is similar. In ex. (76), banāe hue is an independent stative participle in a construction where hūṃ is the main verb. In ex. (77), banāī is not an independent stative participle but part of the verbal construction banāī hai. Therefore, there is only one core argument in ex. (76) that is determined by the substantive verb hūṃ, i.e., the unmarked maiṃ, whereas in ex. (77), the core arguments maiṃ=ne and mitratā are determined by the perfective transitive verb banāī hai. Consequently, in this transitive construction, maiṃ=ne is an ergative A. On the other hand, the construction banāe hue in ex. (76) is an independent unit, but this does not need to be the case. A stative construction in which a finite verb is involved is also possible, as, for instance, in the following example (Montaut 2009b): (78)

sītā=ne sārī pahn-ī+hu-ī th-ī Sita=erg sari[f] wear-pst.f.sg+aux.ptcp.prf-f.sg be-pst.f.sg ‘Sita was wearing a sari.’

In this example, the ergative postposition ne is not obligatory. Nevertheless, in the cases where it occurs marking A, there is always a stative finite verb form, e.g., pahnī huī thī ‘was [in the state of] wearing’ in ex. (78). Conversely, when ne is absent, as in ex. (76), the stative participle is syntactically an independent part of the sentence. The argument structure patterns intransitively, because of the main verb meaning ‘to be’, and the stative infinite verb pahnī huī functions as an adjective meaning ‘wearing’. However, in ex. (78), the stative participle pahnī huī

106   

   Indo-Aryan

is part of the verb phrase pahnī huī thī and therefore the construction is transitive. The resemblance between a stative and an ergative construction thus exists merely on the level of semantics, not on a syntactic level. Both stative and perfective constructions focus on the result of an action, but structurally the two constructions pattern differently with respect to case marking and verb agreement. On the other hand, there are other structural and semantic reasons to consider experiencer constructions as structurally and semantically similar to intransitive constructions. In contrast to the A in the ergative, the experiencer argument is often not overtly expressed, e.g., kitāb acchī lag rahī hai ‘the book pleases [me]’. More generally, experiencer constructions are said to lack certain semantic features of transitive constructions (Hopper and Thompson 1980, Section  1.2.3.2). Hook (1990: 325) argues that although experiencer constructions are lexically transitive, in the sense that there is a patient role involved, they are grammatically intransitive.²⁶ In some constructions, the ergative and objective postposition are apparently exchangeable. This similarity in use has led linguists to assume that there exists a semantic connection between the ergative and objective cases. The Hindi postposition ne is primarily the ergative marker, but sometimes ne also occurs with verbs of obligation, perhaps indicating an influence of Punjabi (cf. Section 6.2.4). Normally, obligations are expressed by means of an experiencer construction in Hindi, as, e.g., in the following example: (79)

āp=ko hindī bol-nī you=obj Hindi[f] speak-inf.f.sg ‘You have to speak Hindi.’

h-ai aux-prs.3sg

However, Butt (2007; Masica 1990; Bashir 1999) reported that in some dialects of Hindi (especially the Hindi spoken around Delhi), ko may be replaced by ne in an obligational construction, e.g.,: (80)

nādyā=ne skūl jā-nā h-ai Nadya=erg school go-inf aux-prs.3sg ‘Nadya must go to school.’

Butt (2007) takes the variation in the marking of the experiencer in the previous sentences as evidence that the ergative postposition ne is the marker of a seman-

26 For the same reasons, Pandharipande (1990: 161) considers the marker of the experiencer argument in Marathi to be a “locative case”, and the experiencer a “locational NP”.

Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages   

   107

tic case that expresses volitionality and agentivity. She also maintains that ne in such constructions indicates that the action involves a conscious choice, whereas the corresponding construction with ko is more neutral with respect to volitionality of the experiencer/agent. Montaut (2009b: 310–311) rejects the view that ne in Hindi indicates volition or control. According to her, quite rightly, it is the transitivity of the verb that transfers the meaning of volitionality/conscious choice/ control, not the particular marking of the arguments. Montaut agrees with Bashir that the use of ne in constructions such as ex. (80) is not structural but is instead related to other semantic categories. For instance, she argues that an experiencer construction with a ne-marked experiencer conveys an injunctive or prospective meaning. Nevertheless, like Butt, Montaut maintains that the ergative and the objective case markings are semantically related because they can occur in different constructions with the same meaning. For instance, the verb milnā meaning ‘to get’, is always constructed with an experiencer construction, whereas pānā, which also means ‘to get’, is a normal transitive verb and therefore is always constructed with an ergative A in the perfective. The apparent similarity between the ergative and the objective cases has led linguists to assume a common origin of the two case markers. For instance, according to Butt (2007), the Hindi ergative marker ne must have originated from an objective marker neṃ. In her view, the ergative and objective cases are semantically related, with both being cases expressing a “result”. The ergative expresses a result on a “control dimension” – the action is the result of the ergative argument that started the action. By contrast, the objective expresses a result on a “spatial/path dimension”. This is particularly clear when the objective marks an IO and when the IO is at the end of a displacement along a path (e.g., ‘I gave it to him’). Butt’s approach to the concept of “result” on a control vs. spatial dimension is arguably highly metaphorical. Moreover, it ignores the influence of verb meaning on the constructions. For instance, Davison (1990) gives the following two examples: (81)

pitā=ne apne beṭ-e=par taras father=erg self’s son-obl=loc pity[f] ‘The father felt/showed pity for his son.’

khā-ī eat-pst.f.sg

(82)

pitā=ko apne beṭ-e=par taras father=obj self’s son-obl=loc pity[f] ‘The father felt pity for his son.’

ā-ī come-pst.f.sg

The first example, (81) (Davison 1990: 356) is an ergative construction, with a transitive verb. The second one, (82) (Davison 1990: 357), is an experiencer con-

108   

   Indo-Aryan

struction. According to Davison, in ex. (81), pitā ‘father’ may have some control of the action, whereas in ex. (82), pitā has no control whatsoever over the emotion. However, note that the verbs are fundamentally different in both example sentences. In ex. (81), the verb khānā is transitive, but in ex. (82), the verb is a typical lexical compound verb with the intransitive verb ānā. In conclusion, the main similarity between the ergative and the experiencer constructions is formal: both have a non-nominative A, and the verb agrees with O in both constructions. Semantically though, experiencer constructions are constructions with a reduced transitivity, with the A expressing a semantic role with diminished control of the action, whereas ergative constructions are fully transitive, typically, but not necessarily, occurring with an agentive, controlling A. Experiencer constructions are particularly frequent in Eastern IA and will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.1.3.3. I will return to the issue of the similarity between the ergative and objective case in Chapter 6.

2.4.4 Unergatives All IA languages have unergative verbs. Like experiencer verb constructions, they constitute a semantically determined set of verbs that show deviating alignment patterns. The terminology “unergative” stems from Perlmutter and Postal (1984).²⁷ Unergatives are intransitive verbs with an agentive S, i.e., an S that controls the situation. However, with respect to IA, unergatives can be described in a narrower sense as verbs that can hypothetically take an O, as opposed to socalled “unaccusative” verbs, which are intransitive verbs that cannot take an O. Unergative verbs go unnoticed in a fully accusative language, given that in these languages there is no different marking of the subject. However, in Hindi, transitive verbs take an ergative A in perfective constructions. Examples of IA unergatives include verbs with meanings such as ‘to sleep’, ‘to dance’, ‘to bathe’, all kinds of verbs referring to bodily excretions (such as the Hindi verbs chīṃknā ‘to sneeze’, khāṃsnā ‘to cough’, mūtnā ‘to urinate’, mitlānā ‘to vomit’), and verbs such as bhauṃknā ‘to bark’, gānā ‘to sing’ etc. (Montaut 2004: 181). These lexical items have traditionally been analyzed as verbs that may take a “cognate” object.

27 Although the terminology “unergative” is taken from Perlmutter and Postal, I do not share their view on ergativity (cf. Chapter 1). Another term that is often used to refer to an “unergative verb” is “anticausative verb” (e.g., Bynon 2005; Masica 1976 used this term in a different sense). The term “anticausative” indicates that this type of verb forms the opposite of the “causative” verb type, i.e.,it is de-transitivized instead of “transitivized” or causativized.

Some key concepts of the Indo-Aryan languages   

   109

Hook and Koul (2004) argue that they all are in fact transitive verbs, of which the O is most often left unexpressed. Most of these verbs may be combined with an unexpected object as well (for instance in a construction meaning ‘to spit blood’) and then it is entirely clear that they are, in effect, transitive verbs. The presence of an O does not determine the occurrence of an ergative subject, given that the ergative subject occurs anyway. It is more likely that it is the very possibility of an O, rather than its actual occurrence, that renders the unergative verbs transitive. These verbs may therefore well be called exceptional on the basis of their lexical content, but they are definitely not exceptional as far as IA is concerned (cf. Hook and Koul 2004). Moreover, note, that some verbs can take either an ergative or a nominative A (e.g., in Hindi cillānā ‘to shout’, cīkhnā ‘to scream’, nācnā ‘to dance’, gānā ‘to sing’, khelnā ‘to play’, laṛnā ‘to fight’²⁸, ronā ‘to cry’, muskarānā ‘to smile’, and samajhnā ‘to understand’). Because, in Hindi, several verbs can take both an ergative marked A and a non-marked A, Mohanan (1994) assumes that the ergative case is semantically determined; more specifically, it indicates “conscious awareness”.²⁹ In Mohanan’s opinion, perfective verb forms do not take an ergative marked A when they are transitive but when A designates a deliberate agent. If this view were correct, Hindi could be considered as an “active” language, because then its case marking would be semantically determined (cf. Dixon 1994: 28–29, and Chapter 1). However, Mohanan also points out that there are many exceptions to the alleged pattern based on “conscious awareness”. For instance, she observes that the verb cillānā ‘to scream’ can pattern ergatively or accusatively, according to the volitionality of A. However, “all instances of verbs like cillaa ‘scream’ cooccurring with ERG subjects are not necessarily associated with deliberateness; there are a few instances that do not always conform to the pattern in terms of conscious choice” (Mohanan 1994: 73). Indeed, there are more verbs whose A-argument is not determined by semantic categories than there are verbs with an A having a semantic connotation of deliberateness. Furthermore, the verbs bolnā ‘to speak’ and lānā ‘to bring’ never take an ergative A, although the actions of speaking and bringing can arguably be deliberate (Kachru 1980). An even more important counterargument to Mohanan’s idea of “conscious awareness” is that Mohanan bases her argument that the ergative case is semantic on the align-

28 According to Kellogg (1938: 240), this verb is always intransitive, and if a direct object is mentioned, it takes a passive construction. 29 The discussion on whether the ergative is a lexical or structural case returns regularly in generative accounts, often in connection with the difference between case and agreement patterns, e.g., Woolford (1997, 2006). Cf. also Chapter 6.

110   

   Indo-Aryan

ment of exceptional verbs. Most verbs however follow a regular structural pattern of marking; that is, many transitive verbs do not refer to deliberate actions but are patterned with an ergative, and many intransitive verbs express deliberate actions but pattern with a nominative S, without an ergative. Davison (1999: 197), in contrast to Mohanan (1994), considers the ergative to be a structural case with an occurrence pattern that is not determined by semantic factors. She arrives at this conclusion after investigating the same unergative and anomalous intransitive verbs in Hindi as Mohanan (1994). According to Davison, the verbs jītna ‘to win’ and hārnā ‘to lose’, bolnā ‘to talk’ and baknā ‘to ramble on’, and paṛhnā (not in the sense of ‘to read’, but in the sense of ‘to take a course’), among others, take the intransitive pattern. This is not because their subjects are not volitional agents but because an O is lacking, and they are therefore semantically intransitive. The following example from Hindi illustrates the intransitive use of the verb bolnā ‘to talk’ : (83)

mujh=se ek ādmī bol-ā I.obl=abl one man say-pst.m.sg ‘A man said to me…’

Another pair of transitive verbs in Hindi without an ergative pattern is lānā ‘to bring’ and bhūlnā ‘to forget’, although their agents can be volitional. Mohanan argues that these verbs are lexically idiosyncratic, i.e., they are exceptional in patterning only in Hindi. However, another explanation is at least equally plausible. The verb bhūlnā frequently occurs in a light verb construction with an intransitive verb, and the verb lānā seems to be derived from such a light construction. The verb bhūlnā, for instance, is most often used in the compound bhūl jānā. The intransitive verb jānā means ‘to go’, and when used as a light verb, it adds the connotation of a transition to the main verb; thus, bhūl jānā also means ‘to forget’. The verb lānā appears to be derived from the compound verb construction le ānā, which means ‘to come after having taken something’. The verb ānā ‘to come’ is the intransitive light verb (cf. Montaut 2004: 180–181; Butt 2006). Hence, in analogy to their more frequently used compound variants, lānā and bhūlnā may also be analyzed as intransitives, with the result that they cannot take an ergative A (cf. Creissels 2008: 13 on light verb patterns; Chapter 1).

3 Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya Eastern Indo-Aryan languages are spoken in the easternmost states of India, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal. Traditionally, three languages form the core of Eastern IA, i.e. Asamiya, Bangla and Oriya. They are predominantly spoken in the states of West-Bengal, Assam and Orissa in Eastern India and Bangladesh. Maithili, Magahi and Bhojpuri are three Eastern IA languages that are spoken around Central India. All of the Eastern IA languages are closely related to one another and are said to derive from one particular branch of the Prakrit languages, i.e., the Magadhan branch (cf. Grierson 1903 V, I: 5; Chatterji 1926: 6). Eastern IA languages have rarely been discussed in the linguistic literature. The exception is Bangla, which has been investigated with regard to its complex non-canonical subject constructions (cf. Klaiman 1976, 1980; Dasgupta 2004), and, more recently, Maithili, which has attracted attention due to its exceptional agreement pattern (cf. Stump and Yadav 1988; Bickel et al. 1999; Yadava 1999; Bickel and Yadava 2000; Bickel 2003, 2004). Asamiya is less known in linguistics, yet it is the most eastern of the IA languages, and thus represents the border of the IndoAryan language area. In India only, around 13,168,500 people speak Asamiya (Census 2001). The language is primarily spoken in the state of Assam in Eastern India, and secondarily, it is spoken in the states Meghalaya, West Bengal and Arunachal Pradesh, and in the neighboring countries of Bhutan and Bangladesh. In this area, it is surrounded by non-IA languages, including Tibeto-Burman, Tai, and Austro-Asiatic. Bangla and Oriya are also in linguistic contact with non-IA languages but to a far lesser extent. In Asamiya, the typical Indo-Aryan grammatical properties can be observed, although many of them have been modified through historical evolution and language contact. The earliest grammars of Asamiya were composed at the time of British colonialism e.g., Robinson (1839), Brown (1848), Barua (1859), Nicholl (1885), Medhi (1936). Grierson’s Linguistic Survey (1903) attributed two volumes to Eastern IA, and Chatterji (1926) compared Bangla with Asamiya and other Eastern IA languages in his impressive description of the Bangla language. More recently, important works have been produced by Kakati (1962), U. Goswami (1978) and G. Goswami (1982). Furthermore, teaching material is found in Das Gupta (1981), Sharma (1963) and Baruah (1980). For the following chapter, original source material has been found in Baruah (1980), children’s stories (Bhattacharyya 1997)

112   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

and a short story by Kakoti (2011), translated by Meenaxi Barkataki-Ruscheweyh, who also functioned as the main informant for the examples.¹ On the western border of the Eastern IA language area, the Bihari languages are spoken. Grierson (1883) distinguished three Bihari languages: Magahi, Maithili and Bhojpuri.² The Bihari languages are geographically situated between the Eastern and Central region, which has resulted in ongoing debate on the issue of whether they are more closely related to Bangla, Asamiya and Oriya, or to Hindi (Verma 2003: 499; Cardona 1974; Jeffers 1976). The main motivation to include them in this Chapter  on Eastern IA is the fact that the alignment patterns of the Bihari languages are more interesting to compare with the patterns of the core Eastern IA languages than with the patterns of most Central IA languages, because they seem to show more similarities with the Eastern IA languages. For this reason only, Awadhi, a language not included in the Bihari languages but typically considered to be an Eastern variety of Hindi, is discussed in this Section and not in the Chapter on Central Indo-Aryan. For other topics, such as phonetics or the lexicon, it is very well possible that the Bihari languages, and certainly Awadhi, tend to be closer to Central IA. The following Section  3.1 begins with a general description of Asamiya, focusing on the case marking of the core arguments (3.1.1–3.1.3) and on verb agreement (3.1.4). In Section 3.2, the indication of transitivity in the verb conjugation in Asamiya and other Eastern IA languages is discussed. A third point to be raised is the influence of non-IA on the case marking in Eastern IA (Section 3.3). The speakers of Eastern IA languages are among those remotest from the Central Indo-Aryan region. The opportunities to exchange thoughts and language with the indigenous population of East India throughout the course of time were manifold. It is therefore not surprising that in the phonology, morphology and, to a lesser extent, the syntax of Eastern IA, the influences of non-IA languages are apparent.

1 An electronic corpus of Asamiya has been developed by the University of Lancaster and the University of Guwahati, as part of the EMILLE corpus (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/ corpus/emille/). However, there are still several problems with the typography and grammar of the texts, and the use is further complicated by the lack of annotation. Therefore, the more traditional analysis of written texts has been preferred in this chapter. 2 Althernatively, the Bihari languages were called Eastern Hindi or the Gaudian languages. Grierson determined the name Bihari on the basis of the name of the area where the languages were predominantly spoken, i.e., the state of Bihar in India (Grierson 1883: 2).

Asamiya: description   

   113

3.1 Asamiya: description³ 3.1.1 Case marking in Asamiya Asamiya makes no syntactic differentiation between the singular and plural forms. It is possible, but not obligatory, to mark the plural by means of suffixes, e.g. -lok, -haṃt or -bor among others (Goswami 1978: 34). Some are typically used with inanimate nouns, others are only used with animate nouns. These plural suffixes are not obligatory, and a noun occurring without a suffix may even be interpreted as a plural if such an interpretation fits the context. Asamiya has also lost the grammatical gender distinction, and there is no indication of gender concord between nouns and adjectives. Case marking in Asamiya only applies to nouns and pronouns (hence not to adjectives). The language does not show a distinct opposition between a nominative and an oblique inflectional case, and it does not strictly follow Masica’s layer division (cf. Masica 1991, Section 2.4.1). There are five cases with different case markings, i.e., nominative, ergative, objective, instrumental, genitive and locative, as illustrated in Table 3.1.

erg obj ins gen loc

-e -k/-lai/-k-lai -ere/-edi-/-ra dwārā -r -t

Table 3.1 Case in Asamiya

The nominative is the unmarked case. The other case forms may be considered inflectional, although the difference with postpositional marking is not entirely clear. According to Grierson (1903, V, I: 13), the terminations -k, -r, and -t were originally postpositions but now have been “worn away by centuries of attrition”. The objective ending lai is postpositional, while the instrumental ending -ere

3 For the transcription of Asamiya I follow the indological convention of the transcription for Devanagari. This implies that it is not a phonetic but a literal transcription, and some phonological rules are not followed. in Asamiya is, for instance, often pronounced as [o]. Asamiya also lacks cerebral and palatal sounds, although they still occur in the script. and are pronounced as [s], while and are pronounced as [z]. The cerebral plosives are all pronounced as dental plosives. The fricatives from IA are in Asamiya replaced by a voiceless velar fricative [x].

114   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

can be split into the inflectional ending -e, combined with a postposition re. The ending -e could be considered as a marker of the oblique case, because the postpositions re, di or ra can be added. Occasionally, another postposition is added to a noun taking the ending -e, resulting in an adverbial construction, such as rām-e=saite ‘with Ram’ (cf. Kakati 1962: 286). However, -e is not added to adjectives, and the case terminations of the locative and genitive are directly added to the nominative form, not to the form with -e (as would be expected if -e were the marker of the oblique case). Historically, -e was a former instrumental marker, but for contemporary instrumentals, the ending has been reinforced by adding another suffix (cf. Kakati 1962: 286). Occasionally, -e still occurs as the ending of a true instrumental. These instances seem to be highly idiomatic, though, forming adverbial constructions, e.g., anāyās-e ‘with ease’, lāh-e lāh-e ‘(very) slowly’ (cf. Kakati 1962: 286). Of the other instrumental endings, -ere and -edi are the instrumental suffixes of non-human entities (cf. Baruah 1980: 523). Whereas -ere is more often used in the Eastern part of the Asamiya area, -edi is a recently developed instrumental marker used in Western Asamiya (cf. Post 2008: 68).⁴ -ere and -edi are shortened to -re and di when the preceding sound is a vowel. The instrumental -ra dwārā marks a human agent of a passive construction, except when there is a perfect participle in the construction. In that instance, -e is the marker of the agent of this kind of attributive construction with a perfect participle, e.g., Gopāl-e likhā puthi, ‘the book written by Gopal’ and rām-e karā kām, ‘a work done by Ram (cf. Kakati 1962: 285). Again, this use goes back to the old instrumental function of the case ending -e, which seems to have survived in this construction. The perfect participle used non-attributively does not occur frequently in Asamiya; instead, a construction with a synthetic verb expressing the perfect aspect is preferred.⁵ The case markings of our interest are those which indicate the core arguments of a sentence. They will be discussed in the following Sections 3.1.2–3.1.3.

4 -edi may have originated from the combination of the original instrumental marker -e and the serial verb di ‘to give’, which has grammaticalized into a case marker of means (cf. Post 2008: 68). 5 When asked to translate the English sentence ‘The book was written by Ram’, an informant translated the sentence in an active way as kitāb-khan rām-e likh-ich-e (book-def Ram-erg write-prf-3.tr) ‘Ram has written the book.’. When asked to translate the sentence ‘Ram wrote the book’, to find a difference between the two constructions, the same translation was given, only this time a past perfect form of the verb was used: kitāb-khan rām-e likh-ich-il (book-def Ram-erg write-pst-prf.3) ‘Ram had written the book.’.

Asamiya: description   

   115

3.1.2 Case marking of the subject In various Asamiya grammars, the language has been analyzed as having a typologically rare subject marking, with an unmarked as well as a “marked” nominative case (cf. Goswami 1978: 40). Many authors consider the “ergative” case ending -e not as the ergative case, but as a variant of the unmarked nominative, which they leave undefined as the default form of the noun (cf. Grierson 1903; Kakati 1962; Sharma 1963; Goswami 1978; Das Gupta 1981; Goswami and Tamuli 2003). The marked form on -e, however, is only used for A. S is always indicated in the unmarked stem form; cf. the following example: (84)

bubul-e paṛh-i+āch-e, bubul sowā nāi bubul-erg read-prog+aux-prs.3 bubul sleeping not be.prs ‘Bubul is reading, Bubul is not sleeping. (Baruah 1980: 230)

The term “nominative” for this -e-marking is confusing, because there is an unmarked nominative case form in Asamiya. Typologically, a case form which is only used to mark A traditionally represents an ergative case. To avoid any confusion, I prefer to use the term ergative (cf. also Amritavalli and Sarma 2002). All nouns display the addition of -e when they are used as A of a finite verb. Some phonological restrictions apply: for nouns ending in -e or -ā, the -e alternates with -i (cf. Baruah 1980: 251), e.g., Mainā-i, ‘Moina’ (boy’s name), rajā-i, ‘king’. Personal pronouns behave slightly differently for subject marking, as is illustrated in the following Table.

1sg

2sg

3sg.m

1pl

2pl

3pl

2hon

nom maï

taï/tumi

si/teoṃ

āmi

tahaṃt

sihaṃt

āpuni

erg

maï

taï/tumi

si/teoṃ

āmi

tahaṃt-e

sihaṃt-e

āpuni

obj

mo-k/ mo-lai

to(mā)-k/ to(mā)-lai

tā-k/ tā-lai

āmā-k/ āmā-lai

tahaṃta-k/ sihaṃt-ak/ āponā-k/ tahaṃta-lai sihaṃta-lai āponā-lai

Table 3.2 Pronouns in Asamiya

Note that although the number distinction is not grammatically indicated in nouns in Asamiya, the pronouns have a different form for the singular and the plural. However, only the first person plural is an independent form; the second and third person plurals are the singular forms with a plural affix like -haṃt or -lok (e.g., tumi-lok) added to them. The conjugation of these two forms follows the

116   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

paradigm of the nouns, as exemplified in ex. (85), where the second person plural pronoun is marked with a plural lexical marker lok ‘people’ and the -e suffix. (85)

toma-lok-e tā-k eko no-kow-ā you-pl-erg he-obj a not-say-prs.2 ‘You don’t tell him anything.’ (Baruah 1980: 139)

The three forms for the third person pronoun, si, teoṃ and tekhet, correspond to the three second person forms taï, tumi and āpuni in grades of honorific quality, with the former implying inferiority/equality, and the last one implying a higher grade of honorificity (cf. Sharma 1963: 93). For the singular pronouns and the first person plural, the form of S is the same as that of A. Other pronominal forms tend to end more often on -e, even when used as S, for instance āṭāi/āṭāye and sakale/sakalowe, both meaning ‘all’ (cf. Baruah 1980: 226). (86)

ne sakalow-e ekailage eke-khan cāṇa-t bahib+nowārā or all-erg together one-def meeting place-loc sit+not being able ha-ich-e? be-prf-3 ‘Or couldn’t all sit together at one place?’ (Kakoti 2011: 3)

(87)

āmi sakalow-e jagannāth mandira-t somā-m we all-erg Jagannath temple-loc go-fut.1 ‘All of us will go into the Jagannath temple.’ (Baruah 1980: 574)

The marking with -e is not only limited to subjects of finite verbs. Non-finite verbs such as converbs, which occur regularly in Asamiya (cf. Post 2008), also take A’s marked with -e, cf. the following example. (88)

mīnuw-e chabi āṃkiba-lai kal-at si chabi Minu-erg picture draw.inf-obj ask-cvb he picture āṃkiba-lai dhar-il-e draw.inf-obj begin-pst-tr.3sg ‘After Minu had asked [him] to draw a picture, he started to draw a picture.’ (Baruah 1980: 865)

If the subject of both the converb and the main verb is the same, Asamiya seems to prefer that the subject is marked according to the verb it precedes, irrespective

Asamiya: description   

   117

of whether that verb is transitive or intransitive.⁶ Hence, it can sometimes appear as if an intransitive main verb takes an ergative-marked A, whereas, instead, the ergative marking is determined by the transitivity of the converb, as illustrated by the following examples. (89)

amṛt-e eko hā-nā na-kar-i āh-i+āch-e Amrit-erg one yes-no not-do-cvb come-prog+aux-prs.3 ‘Without responding, Amrit keeps walking.’ (Kakoti 2011: 16)

(90)

la’rāṭow-e āponā-lai bāṭ+cā-i+cā-i alap āgate son-erg you.h-obj way+look-cvb+look-cvb little ago su-i+pari-ch-e sleep-cvb+fall-prf-3 ‘After the boy waited and waited for you, he fell asleep a little while ago.’ (Baruah 1980: 840)

The general rule for the marking of the subject in Asamiya is that A is marked and S is unmarked. However, there are counterexamples to this rule. Unergative verbs (which are particularly common in IA, cf. Chapter  3) generally take a marked subject. Some of the most common unergative verbs in Asamiya are nāc ‘dance’, hāṃh ‘laugh’, kānd ‘cry’, and daur ‘run’ (cf. Baruah 1980: 482; Amritavalli and Sarma 2002). The examples below illustrate some unergative patterns: (91)

ākāsa-t megh-e garaj-ich-il sky-loc cloud-erg roar-prf-pst.3 ‘Clouds roared in the sky.’ (Baruah 1980: 459)

(92)

ingrāj-e bor beyākoi nāc-e Englishman-erg very bad dance-prs.3 ‘Englishmen dance very bad.’

The range of unergative verbs in Asamiya is quite extensive and includes verbs that are not commonly considered as typically unergative. Compare, e.g., the following example of Goswami and Tamuli (2003: 432) with the verb ‘to swim’⁷:

6 This is the same rule as in Gultari Shina (Hook 1996), but exceptions can occur. 7 Note that in Hindi, the verb tairnā ‘to swim’ can be used intransitively as well as transitively, meaning ‘to swim across’.

118   

(93)

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

ram-e saṃtur-il-e Ram-erg strike-pst-3tr ‘Ram swam.’

The following expression is also quite common in which the concept ‘to swim’ is expressed by a transitive, lexical compound construction: (94)

ram-e saṃtor mar-il-e Ram-erg swim beat-pst-3tr ‘Ram took a swim.’

The verb meaning ‘to sleep’ also regularly occurs with a subject marked with -e in Asamiya, e.g., (95)

rām-e āji derikoi su-l-e Ram-erg today late sleep-pst-3tr ‘Ram slept/went to bed late today.’

In comparison with the other IA languages, the verb meaning ‘to sleep’ behaves more often as an unergative verb in Asamiya. Intransitive verbs that take an -e marked subject also show the transitive conjugation. Asamiya has a different conjugation for transitive and intransitive verbs in the third person past tense (Section  3.2.1). Kakati (1962: 334) points out that some verbs in Asamiya always take a transitive ending in the third person, and he argues that in all of these verbs, a cognate object is implied. His examples are kāhile ‘he coughed’, larile ‘he ran’, and sule ‘he slept’. These verbs also take an ergative-marked subject (cf. ex. (95)). An even more intriguing example is the following one, which is also found in Goswami and Tamuli (2003: 425): (96)

ram-e sadae saṃtur-iba-lai za-e Ram-erg daily swim-inf-obj go-prs.3 ‘Ram goes to swim every day.’

The main verb za-e is intransitive, just like the infinitive saṃtur-iba, but, ‘to swim’ is unergative. The subject is marked because it is either the subject of the infinitive, assuming that an infinitive form can control the marking of its subject (as a converb) or because it is simply an exceptional marked subject of the clearly intransitive main verb za-e meaning ‘to go’. Goswami and Tamuli do not elaborate on this example, but in general, the apparent ungrammatical marking of an

Asamiya: description   

   119

intransitive subject is quite common in colloquial Asamiya. Kakati (1962: 285), for instance, points out that S sometimes takes an -e ending when the argument is emphasized, thus implying a certain discursive function of -e. Additionally, -e frequently occurs as a marker of the subject of a non-finite verb construction, which again is evidence of the extensive distribution of the marker (cf. 3.1.2). Moreover, the use of a marked A across all tenses is unusual in non-Eastern IA languages, where the marking is generally restricted to the perfective. The frequent distribution of -e has contributed to the general view that -e is a variant of the unmarked nominative, though this view ignores the predominant distribution pattern of -e as an ergative marker.

3.1.3 Differential object marking and the dual marking of IO 3.1.3.1 O-marking In Asamiya, the objective marker of O and IO is -k. O is only marked when it is animate and/or definite. If O is inanimate, then it only receives a marking when its definiteness is emphasized. On the other hand, an animate third person O may not take the marking when it is explicitly indefinite. The O in ex. (97), inginiyāriḥ, for instance, is indefinite and hence also unmarked. The O in ex. (98) is animate; however, the ‘new wife’ has not been referred to earlier in the discourse. It is therefore not possible for the hearer to readily identify her, and this is precisely the reason why mānuh occurs in the nominative, not in the objective.⁸ (97)

taï etiyā inginiyāriḥ na-paṛ-a ne? you now engineering not-do-prs.2 q ‘Don’t you do engineering now?’ (Baruah 1980: 156)

8 Note that it is easy to consider the O in these examples as incorporated, in particular in ex. (98), which is a kind of double object construction. biyā ‘wedding’ is one of the two O’s, but it forms a lexical compound with the verb karā, yielding the meaning ‘to marry’. The person with whom the marriage is contracted, is the second O, in this example mānuh ‘wife’. For a discussion of incorporation in Hindi and the reasons why a similar unmarked O in that language cannot really be considered to be an incorporated noun, see Section 2.4.2.2 (cf. also Klaiman 1990). The syntactic incorporation of an unmarked O in Asamiya is more difficult to assess than it is in Hindi, because Asamiya lacks, for instance, O-agreement, which is a mechanism that can be taken into account as syntactic evidence for or against the incorporation of O (depending on whether there is agreement with O or not).

120   

(98)

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

rajā-i ejanī natun mānuh⁹ biyā karā-l-e king-erg a.f new wife[f] wedding do-pst-3tr ‘The king married a new wife.’ (Bhattacharyya 1997: 54)

Compare ex. (98) with the following example (99). The verb has the same meaning, but O is now a definite and given referent, which has already been mentioned earlier in the discourse: (99)

rajā narakāsur-e dewī-k biyā karā-ba-lai king Narakasur-erg goddess-obj wedding do-inf-obj khuj-ich-il want-prf-pst.3 ‘King Narakasur wanted to marry the goddess.’ (Baruah 1980: 652)

In the next example, the inanimate O kathāke is definite, determined by the adjective ‘all’, and marked with the postposition -k: (100) si ghara-r sakalo kathā-k-e sambhāli la-l-e he house-gen all thing-obj-emph charge take-pst-3tr ‘He took charge of every single thing in the house.’ (Baruah 1980: 1021) First and second pronouns used as O are always marked, because they are mostly animate, and they are never indefinite. The form of the pronouns marked with -k shows a modification of the stem vowel, e.g., maï becomes mo- and taï becomes to- (cf. Table 3.2). (101) āpuni mo-k kenekai cin-e you.h me-obj how know-prs.2h ‘How do you know me?’ (Baruah 1980: 156) Third person pronouns, e.g. tā-k, are also almost always marked, because their referents tend to be identified previously in the discourse.

9 The use of mānuh is slightly unusual in this example, because normally mānuh refers to a man, although it can be used in the meaning of ‘person’.

Asamiya: description   

   121

3.1.3.2 Dual marking of IO Whereas the marking of O is dependent on its semantics, the IO is obligatorily marked in Asamiya. The marking of an IO is the same as that of an animate/definite O, viz. -k. Nevertheless, unlike other IA languages, Asamiya differentiates between O and IO by means of a second marker which only functions as marker of IO, i.e., -lai. -k is the most common marker of an IO functioning as a recipient in general, whereas -lai is the marker of the beneficiary role (Kittilä 2005b). According to Baruah (1980: 211), -lai is only used for some categories of IO, namely, for the so-called “destinational dative” (what Kittilä 2005b calls the “recipient-beneficiary”)¹⁰. It denotes someone to whom something is given for his/her benefit (Das Gupta 1981: 92); or, it may as well denote an action performed for the benefit of the lai-marked argument. The following examples display appropriate instances to use -lai.¹¹ (102) maï tāi-lai eikhan cāikel ān-ich-oṃ I her-obj this cycle bring-prf-1 ‘I have brought this cycle for her.’ (Baruah 1980: 193) (103) āji puwā bhāiṭi-lai-o eṭā pāijāmā cilā-l-e today morning Bhaiti-obj-emph a trousers stitch-pst-3tr ‘This morning [she] stitched trousers for Bhaiti also.’ (Baruah 1980: 406) In a sentence in which the IO is exclusively the recipient and not the beneficiary, the neutral marking -k is preferred, such as with speaking verbs and neutral transfer verbs. In ex. (104) and (105) both -k or -lai are possible, depending on whether the emphasis is on the mere transfer of the basket or on the benefit of the transfer for the girl. (104) mālik-e āpunā-k pāthar-bor ka’t āch-e master-erg you.h-obj stone-pl where be-prs.3 āgatei ka-l-e earlier tell-pst-3tr ‘The master already told you where the stones are.’

10 According to Kittilä (2005b: 270–271), the difference between the semantic roles of beneficiary and recipient-beneficiary is that the role of beneficiary simply benefits from an action, whereas in a construction with the role of recipient-beneficiary, there is a transfer that brings benefit to the recipient-beneficiary. 11 In Hindi, the lai marked argument in these examples may be indicated by ke lie, though the objective postposition ko is not impossible.

122   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

(105) āpuni chowālī-janī-k hāladhīyā phula-r tukuri eṭā di-ch-il you.h girl-def-obj yellow flower-gen basket a give-prf-pst.3 ‘You had given the girl a basket with yellow flowers.’ According to Das Gupta (1981: 92), -lai marking the IO of a variant of the verb meaning ‘to give’ indicates a beneficiary gift. Conversely, when -k marks the IO, it denotes an unreserved gift, which cannot be taken back, and is not necessarily for the good of the recipient. Therefore, the receivers of untouchable or untenable entities, such as messages, advice, news etc., are marked with -k, as illustrated in the following examples. (106) āpuni bipula-r bandhu-jana-k khabaraṭo di-ch-e ne? you.h Bipul-gen friend-def-obj message give-prf-2h q ‘Have you given the message to Bipul’s friend?’ (Baruah 1980: 229) (107) rabibāre maï sihaṃta-k kathāchabi dekhu-wā-oṃ Sunday I they-obj picture see-caus-prs.1 ‘I show them pictures on Sunday.’ (Baruah 1980: 709) If it is impossible to replace -lai with -k, -lai can be replaced with a longer postposition, as for instance in sentences such as the following, where the genitive case form combined with kāraṇe or bābe(i) functions in the same way as -lai in ex. (108)–(109). Again the meaning of a recipient-beneficiary is implied, e.g.: (108) maï tahaṃta-r=kārane natun kitāp ān-ich-oṃ I you-gen=for new book bring-prf-1 ‘I have brought new books for you.’ (Baruah 1980: 252) (109) teoṃ-r=kāraṇe mo-k eṭā ausadh lāg-e he-gen=for I-obj a medicine need-prs.3 ‘I need a medicine for him.’ (Baruah 1980: 157) Baruah (1980: 211) further mentions that gen=kāraṇe/bābei is the only option for marking a beneficiary when there is no sense of ‘motion’ implied. In the following example, gen=bābei is not likely to be replaced by -lai: (110) āru ājhikopati la’rā-keiṭā-r=bābei sakalo nijhei kar-i+ga’-l and until today boy-pl-gen=for everything self do-cvb+go-pst.3 ‘And till today he did everything for the boys himself.’ (Kakoti 2011: 4)

Asamiya: description   

   123

The postposition -lai indicated originally a locative and is still used in this sense, with various degrees of abstractness, compare ex. (111)–(115). (111)

edin camunḍī mandira-lai ga-ich-e one day chamundi temple-to go-prf-3 ‘One day they have gone to Chamundi temple.’ (Baruah 1980: 212)

(112)

tekhet awase’ sesa-lai na-r-’l she of course end-to not-wait-pst.3 ‘She, of course, did not wait for the end [to come].’ (Baruah 1980: 342)

(113)

maïnā-lai tā-r maram lāg-i+ga’-l Moina-to he-gen love attach-cvb+go-pst.3 ‘He felt a wave of love for Moina.’ lit.: ‘Love directed at Moina came over him.’ (Kakoti 2011: 6)

(114) māhīmāk-e tejīmalā-k biyā-lai pathā-l-e stepmother-erg Tejimala-obj marriage-to send-pst-3tr ‘The stepmother sent Tejimala to the marriage.’ (Baruah 1980: 770) (115)

si mainā-r mukha-lai cā-l-e he Moina-gen face-to look-pst-3tr ‘He looked at Moina’s face.’ (Kakoti 2011: 6)

The postposition lai also marks the goal-infinitive, as in ex. (116): (116) teoṃ āmā-k khāb-lai di-ch-il he us-obj eat.inf-to give-prf-pst.3 ‘He gave us to eat.’ (Baruah 1980: 666) The different ditransitive verbs may thus be split into two groups, 1/ the verbs indicating gifts or displacements, e.g., ‘to give’, ‘to bring’ etc., and 2/ verbs indicating a displacement of something untouchable and irretrievable, such as ‘to say’, ‘to tell’, ‘to betray’ etc. For the first group, there is an option to use -k or -lai as markers of the IO; in the second group, the IO is invariantly marked with -k. Note that the verb meaning ‘to give’ occurs equally with an IO marked with -k as with -lai. An earlier variant of -lai, the double marking -k-lai, is still occasionally attested, however, it is less frequent (cf. Kakati 1962: 286). -k-lai is not a combination of the objective suffixes -k and -lai. According to Kakati (1962: 289), it is his-

124   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

torically the former genitive suffix -k to which -lai is added, not the contemporary objective suffix -k. Clearly, -k-lai is reminiscent of the Hindi complex postposition ke lie. The meaning of -k-lai is, as expected, close to the meaning of -lai. (117)

amrita-k-lai gāwaṃ-r mānuh-e bahut āsā kar-ich-il Amrit-for village-gen people-erg a lot hope do-prf-pst.3 ‘The villagers had hoped a lot for Amrit.’ (Kakoti 2011: 4)

3.1.3.3 Experiencer constructions The experiencer construction, or non-canonical subject construction with experiencer verbs, frequently occurs in IA languages (cf. Verma and Mohanan 1991; Bhaskararao and Subbarao 2004, Section 2.4.3). In all IA languages, experiencer verbs show an alignment that is different from the other verbs. Commonly occurring examples of experiencer verbs in IA are verbs meaning ‘to know’, ‘to think’, ‘to consider’, ‘to become visible’, ‘to meet’¹², ‘to like’, etc. Many of these verbs are compound verbs, consisting of a noun or adverb combined with a verb. In Asamiya, the objective marker -k is also the suffix marking the experiencer. The verb lāg, literally meaning ‘to be attached to’, frequently occurs in Asamiya in an experiencer construction. The verb appears in the third person, while the experiencer takes the postposition -k, as illustrated in the following example. (118) teoṃ-r=kārane mo-k etā ausadh lāg-e he-gen=for I-obj now medicine be attached-prs.3 ‘I need a medicine for him.’ (Baruah 1980: 157) In contrast to the other IA languages, the genitive case marker also regularly functions as the indicator of the experiencer in Eastern IA. In Central and Western IA, this is not a function of the genitive. (119) cowāc-on, tomā-r pacand ha-ich-e ne? look-imp you-gen like be-prf-3 emph ‘Look, do you like it?’ (Baruah 1980: 193)

12 The verb meaning ‘to meet’ in IA could be better paraphrased as ‘to stumble upon’, ‘to be available to someone’. In Tsez, the subject of this verb is expressed with an allative case (cf. Cysouw and Forker 2009).

Asamiya: description   

   125

(120) rātul rinṭi-r bar ānando lāg-ich-e Ratul Rinti-gen very joy be attached-prf-3 ‘Ratul and Rinti are feeling very happy.’ (Baruah 1980: 212) (121)

tā-r haṭhāt mana-t par-i+ga’-l ratnezwa-r he-gen suddenly mind-loc come-cvb+go-pst.3 Ratneshwa-gen dedāi-r kathā brother-gen word ‘He suddenly remembered the words of Ratneshwa-Dedai.’ (Kakoti 2011: 6)

The use of the genitive is the general way to mark the experiencer in Bangla, e.g. ex. (122) (Radice 2007: 145). (122) ama-r am bhalo lag-e I-gen mango good be attached-prs-3 ‘I like mangoes.’ In Oriya, the same non-canonical construction also occurs, with either an objective marker or a genitive, cf. ex. (123) (Ray 2003: 467). (123) rama=ku bhoka rama=obj hunger ‘Rama is hungry.’

lag-u-ch-i be attached-prog-prs-3sg

In most IA languages, including Asamiya, obligational constructions take the same form as experiencer constructions (cf. Chapter  2). Masica (1990: 336), however, points out that in Asamiya, an obligation can also be expressed with an impersonal construction, as in the following example. The verb in this example does not agree with maï, although maï is a nominative form: (124) maï zā-bo+lāg-e I go-inf+be attached-prs.3 ‘I have to go.’ The use of non-canonical subjects is determined by the semantics of the verb (cf. Section 2.4.3). While in an ergative pattern, the marking is determined by the transitivity of the verb, non-canonical subjects exclusively occur with specific verbs in the lexicon, viz. verbs with an experiencer meaning. As a rule, the verb does not agree with the experiencer argument but with the stimulus role, which

126   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

is in the unmarked case form. Whereas the experiencer role is semantically determined by the meaning of the verb, ergative subjects are syntactically determined by the form and tense of the verb. This position concurs with Genetti’s (2007: 294) view that experiencer constructions have “a different argument structure altogether”. The occurrence or non-occurrence of experiencer constructions in a language is not influenced by the main alignment pattern of the language, nor does it influence that pattern.

3.1.4 Verb agreement in Asamiya In Eastern IA, the copula has merged with the participial form, thus forming a single verb, consisting of a stem, a tense/aspect infix (the former copula), and a personal ending. Asamiya has an extensive system to indicate the honorific grade of the second person. Three possible ranks of honorificity are distinguished in the verb conjugation, viz. inferior, familiar, and honorific. Note that number and gender are not grammatically indicated in Asamiya, neither the nouns nor the verbs indicate these categories. The following simple conjugations are there: 1. Present conjugation 2. Future conjugation 3. Perfect conjugation (can also be used to express the progressive aspect, cf. Goswami 1981: 112): the infix -ich- to which the present tense endings are added. 4. Past conjugation ending on the past suffix -il-. 5. Past perfect conjugation: the infix -ich- to which the past tense endings on -il- are added. The latter three are of particular interest for determining alignment in Asamiya, therefore their endings are represented in more detail in the following tables.

1 2 inferior 2 familiar 2 honorific 3

-ich-o -ich-[a] -ich-a -ich-e -ich-e

Table 3.3 Endings of the present perfect in Asamiya

The transitive verb   

1 2 inferior 2 familiar 2 honorific 3

   127

-il-o -il-i -il-ā -il-e -il-e/-il

Table 3.4 Endings of the past in Asamiya

1 2 inferior 2 familiar 2 honorific 3

ich-il-o ich-il-i ich-il-ā ich-il-e ich-il

Table 3.5 Endings of the past perfect in Asamiya

Besides these simple conjugations, there are a number of complex conjugations taking an auxiliary, which express various kinds of aspect. For instance, the conjugated future forms of the verbs acch or thāk are added to form the future continuous, and similarly, the past continuous is formed with the past tenses of these verbs (cf. Das Gupta 1981: 120). Subjunctive forms are formed with the invariable suffix heten which is added to the conjugated verb. The agreement of the verb in Asamiya is with the subject, under all circumstances. However, the past tense of the third person ending on the suffix -il displays a remarkable pattern depending on the transitivity of the verb. An intransitive verb displays no ending, and a transitive verb adds the ending -e. The following Section 3.2 focuses on this unusual feature of the verb in Asamiya, and on similar patterns in other Eastern IA languages.

3.2 The transitive verb In all Eastern IA languages, there is a remarkable emphasis on the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs in the past tense of the third person. The different marking of transitive and intransitive verbs is typologically rare, but it is attested in other languages. We find it, for instance, also in Tibeto-Burman languages such as Dolakha Newar (cf. Genetti 2007), and in Austronesian Pileni (Næss 2002), amongst others. In Asamiya, there is an ending -e that is added only to the third person of transitive verbs, which indicates the difference between transitive and intransitive third person conjugations. In other Eastern IA lan-

128   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

guages, different mechanisms are used to indicate whether a verb is transitive or not. Note that Asamiya is a language that displays person agreement on the verb. In fact, having lost grammatical gender and number, the person of the subject argument is, besides the indication of the honorific grade, the only category that is cross-referenced on the verb.

3.2.1 The transitive verb in Eastern Indo-Aryan In Asamiya, the third person transitive of the verb in the past tense takes -e as ending, whereas the third person intransitive has no marking. Compare examples (125) and (126). The first one is a transitive construction, and the verb takes the ending -e, whereas the second one is an intransitive construction in which the -e is absent from the verb. Note that this alternation only occurs with the past tense. In the present perfect constructed with -ich-, the third person ending is always -e, regardless of whether the verb is transitive or intransitive, cf. ex. (127). In the future and the past perfect, on the other hand, the third person form does not take a marking.¹³ (125) dām kimān la-l-e? price how much take-pst-3tr ‘How much (price) did he take?’ (Baruah 1980: 318) (126) seikhan eghār satuāh cal-il that eleven weeks run-pst.3 ‘That [movie] ran for eleven weeks.’ (Baruah 1980: 341) (127) bipul kalai ga-ich-e? Bipul where go-prf-3 ‘Where has Bipul gone?’ (Baruah 1980: 229)

13 Grierson (1903 V, I: 403) notes that past perfect verbs may take an -e ending when they are transitive, e.g., bulichile ‘he had spoken’. He also attested an intransitive verb marker with -e, i.e., āhile ‘he came’. In later grammars, these exceptions are no longer mentioned. Kakati (1962: 344), however, points out that the form āhile is used in Asamiya but not as a finite past tense verb. The suffix -ile denotes a converb deriving from a past participle in -il to which the locative suffix -e is added. The translation is not ‘he came’, but, e.g., maï āhile ‘upon my coming’.

The transitive verb   

   129

Perfective verb forms in Asamiya are historically derived from the OIA past participle (Chatterji 1926: 940–941). The perfect verb form in Asamiya evolved from a form of the main verb combined with the auxiliary verb (a)ch- ‘to be’ in the present tense (Kakati 1962: 347). The auxiliary form takes the present endings, and -e is the standard ending of a third person in the present tense. In contrast, the past tense form on -il- was originally a past participle. According to Kakati (1962: 330), forms on -il used to occur as adjective participles in Early Asamiya; only in modern Asamiya has the form on -il- “been restricted to the predicate”. He also adds that person agreement only appeared after this restriction in usage was established. Synchronically, the different marking is a kind of indication of transitivity of the verb, which is not always as clear. Kakati (1962) for instance gives the example of maril-, a past tense of the verb mar, which could mean the intransitive ‘died’ or transitive ‘beat’. Adding -e to maril makes it clear that the verb is transitive. (128) māhīmāk-e tejimalā-k barakai mār-il-e stepmother-erg Tejimala-obj much beat-pst-3tr ‘The stepmother had beaten Tejimala a lot.’ (Baruah 1980: 771) (129) becerī tejimalā mar-il poor Tejimala die-pst-3 ‘Poor Tejimala died’ (Baruah 1980: 771) The past tense in Asamiya expresses a strict past meaning and lacks an explicitly overt copula that expresses aspect (cf. Davison 2002). This past tense category exemplifies the true counterpart of the past tenses based on the participle known from the other IA languages. As in other IA languages, the forms on -il- display a deviation of the alignment pattern that is normally found with the other tenses. In Asamiya, it is only in the past tense that there are two different endings for a transitive and an intransitive verb. According to Kakati (1962: 333, following Chatterji 1926: 983), the -e ending of a transitive past third person verb is an extension from the -e ending that is obligatory for the third person of the present and perfect tenses. The past perfect, ending in -ichil, however, does not take any additional ending in the third person. This past perfect form is derived from a form of the main verb combined with a past tense form of the copula, viz., (a)ch-il. This copula is intransitive. Hence, the past perfect takes the endings of an intransitive past tense on -il, which means that in the third person, there is no transitive -e suffix added after -il. In the other Eastern languages, Bangla and Oriya, a systematically different ending for a transitive or intransitive past tense third person verb is absent. In

130   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

1 2nh 2h 3nh 3h

bol-l-am bol-l-e bol-l-en bol-l-o bol-l-en

Table 3.6 Past conjugation of the verb bol ‘to talk’ in Bangla (Radice 2007: 167)

Bangla, the past tense also consists of an old participial form on -l- combined with personal endings (cf. Chatterji 1926: 941). However, Grierson (1903 V, I: 13) observes that even in standard Bangla, variation exists for the third person form of a verb in the past tense. In particular, the ending of a transitive verb may be -e instead of -o/-a¹⁴. He gives the examples khāle ‘he ate’, and puchhle ‘he asked’. For intransitive verbs, the ending remains as -o/-a or zero, e.g., gela (gelo), or gel, ‘he went’. In addition, Grierson maintains that in written texts, a transitive verb may end on -e, such as dile instead of the regular dila ‘he gave’ (1903 V, I: 46, 65). Furthermore, in his discussion of the dialects of Bangla, the marking of a third person transitive verb is invariantly mentioned. The following table gives an overview of the different markings of the third person verb form in the past tense in the various dialects described in Grierson’s Linguistic Survey.

language

tr

itr

Standard (Katwa/Burdan) Western Western Saraki (Ranchi) Western Khariathar (Manbhum) Western Mal-Paharia (Sonthal Parganas) Southwestern (Midnapore) Northern (Dinapore) Northern (Malda) Northern Koch (Malda) Eastern (Dacca) Eastern (Mymensingh) Eastern (Jessore) Southeastern (Chittagong)

-e -e/-ek -ek -ek/-ak -aṃ -a -e -e Ø -ā/-o -ā/-o-/Ø -e -a

-a -o -ek -ek/-ak -aṃ -a Ø -o Ø -ā/-o -ā/-o/Ø -o Ø

Table 3.7 Third person verb endings in the past tense in dialects of Bangla (Grierson V, I)

14 The variation between -o and -a is probably due to pronunciation and is found in spelling (Radice 2007: 167). Similarly to Asamiya, is often pronounced as [o] in Bangla.

The transitive verb   

   131

The variability can be categorized according to the geographical situation of the dialects. Eastern Bangla dialects, spoken in contemporary Bangladesh display markedly less variation: transitive and intransitive verbs are marked in the same way, except for the Jessore dialect, which appears more westwards. In Western dialects, there is a difference, and often, the -k sound in the marking is attested. This marking is also found in the Bihari languages, suggesting that it is a typical feature in this area. Northern Bangla dialects are spoken around the area of Asamiya, and tend to show a preference for an -e marking on transitive verbs, as in Asamiya. Although it is clear that in Bangla the verb can be differently marked for transitivity, it is also obvious that this marking is far less systematic than it is in Asamiya. Because in contemporary standard Bangla the different marking is apparently absent (cf. Radice 2007; Nasrin and van der Wurff 2009), it can be expected that this difference will also fade away in the non-standardized dialects, if it has not already done so.

3.2.1.1 The transitive verb in the Bihari languages The variety in agreement patterns is at least as great in the Bihari languages. In the following Table 3.8, the differential markings on the verbs determined by transitivity are outlined. These differences do not necessarily occur on the level of the conjugational ending; they may also occur in the tense marking infix.

language

tr

itr

Asamiya

3rd p. past -e

3rd p. past Ø

Magahi

3rd p. past -lk-

3rd p. past -l-

Bhojpuri

3rd p. past -al-as

3rd p. past -al

Maithili

3rd p. past -ainh/-ak

3rd p. past -ah/Ø

Table 3.8 Differences between transitive and intransitive conjugations in Eastern IA

Magahi, Bhojpuri and Maithili have different markings for the third person past tense form according to the transitivity of the verb. In Bhojpuri, -as is added to the past form of transitive verbs (on -al), whereas the Bhojpuri intransitive third person verb does not take an additional ending. In Magahi, the difference is found in the tense-indicating suffix -l- to which -k is added only when the verb is transitive (cf. Verma 2003: 511). Besides this different marking for the third person, Magahi and Bhojpuri have a separate marking for an intransitive or a transitive past participle, indicated by

132   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

-l-. In Magahi for instance, a past participle may be used in combination with person agreement and a copula, forming a present perfect construction, such as in the following ex. (130) from Verma (2003: 511) (note that gender and number agreement have disappeared from Magahi): (130) ham sut-l-i+h-e I sleep-ptcp-1+aux-prs ‘I have slept.’ (131)

tu sut-l-a+h-e you sleep-ptcp-2+aux-prs ‘You have slept.’

In these examples, the copula is invariable, or ‘frozen’, and the person agreement occurs with the participle. The construction ham sutli can also occur independently as a past tense, meaning ‘I slept’ (cf. Verma 2003: 511). However, there is a second construction in Magahi in which the copula indicates the person and the participle is invariable. Two examples are shown below (Verma 2003: 512): (132) ham sut-al+h-i I sleep-ptcp+aux-prs.1 ‘I am asleep.’ (133) tu sut-al+h-a you sleep-ptcp+aux-prs.2 ‘You are asleep.’ (134) ham khai-le+h-i I eat-ptcp.tr+aux-prs.1 ‘I have eaten.’ The construction with an intransitive verb, ex. (132), indicates the stative aspect. However, with a transitive verb (ex. (134)) it indicates, in the words of Verma (2003: 512), “I am in the state of having had the experience of eating it”.¹⁵ The

15 Note that this Asamiya construction resembles the stative constructions in Hindi (Chapter 2). If a transitive stative participle in Hindi is combined with a copula, and A is not marked with the ergative postposition (e.g., sītā sārī pahnī huī hai ‘Sita is [in the state of] wearing a sari’), then the meaning is stative, as in the Magahi sentence ham khaile hi ‘I am in the state of having eaten

The transitive verb   

   133

meaning of a transitive verb is more difficult to reconcile with a stative interpretation, so one harks back to what is basically a perfect aspect meaning. Verma further notes that an intransitive participle may also take the stative construction of a transitive verb in which case an “extra stative meaning resulting in a contrastive finite string” is intended. She gives the following example: (135) ham sut-le+h-i I sleep-ptcp+aux-prs.1 ‘I have had the experience of sleeping.’ In Bhojpuri, the third person past tense displays a difference in endings between transitive and intransitive verbs, as in the other Eastern IA languages. Whereas the third person ending of a transitive verb is -as, e.g. dekh-al-as ‘he saw’, the intransitive third person consist only of the marker of the past -al, e.g. cal-al ‘he went’ (cf. Tiwari 1960: xli). Secondly, both transitive and intransitive participles are formed with -l. However, from the moment the transitive participle is combined with an auxiliary, it takes the ending -e, e.g., u dekh-(a)l-e bā ‘he has seen it’, whereas the intransitive participle remains invariable. As in Magahi, an intransitive participle combined with a copula expresses a stative (cf. Verma 2003: 528). According to Tiwari (1960: 183), the e-ending of the transitive participle is an old locative suffix. In his view, the intransitive participle is adjectival, and attributively used to determine the subject, whereas the -e ending of the transitive verb indicates a more ‘nominal’ meaning.¹⁶ The past participles used in combination with a copula also take different markings depending on the transitivity of the verb in Maithili, viz. -ne (trans.) and -l (intrans.). The following examples are from Yadav (2003: 487): (136) ram khai-ne+ch-aith Ram eat-pst.tr+aux.prs-3h ‘Ram has eaten.’ (137) ram ge-l+ch-aith Ram go-pst.itr+aux.prs-3h ‘Ram has gone.’

it’. If the Hindi stative participle is, however, combined with a copula in an ergative construction (e.g., sītā=ne sārī pahne hue hai ‘Sita has been wearing a sari’), the construction is closer to the Magahi construction with the invariant copula, e.g., ham sutli he ‘I have slept’. 16 This is reminiscent of the use of participles, such as āhile in Asamiya.

134   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

3.2.1.2 Honorific agreement in Maithili As one of the few Eastern IA languages’ verbs, Maithili verbs display agreement with O. The indication of honorific agreement plays an important role in the complex agreement system of Maithili (cf. Grierson 1903 V, I: 24; Stump and Yadav 1988; Bickel et al. 1999; Yadava 1999; Bickel 2003; Bickel and Yadava 2000). Only the agreement system in Magahi resembles the agreement in Maithili, but in Magahi, it is far less complex (cf. Verma 1991: 129). Maithili has a conjugational system for person and honorific agreement. Number and gender are not grammatically indicated in the language.¹⁷ Verbs in Maithili agree with the nominative subject in person and honorific grade. Tense is indicated on the stem. The conjugated past is formed on the basis of a participle with -l-, e.g., ge-l-i ‘I went’.

1 2h 2mh 2nh 3h 3nh

imperfective

perfective

-i -i -ah -e(ṃ) -aith, -athinh -aik

-ahuṃ -ahuṃ -ah -e(ṃ) -ainh/-ah -ak

Table 3.9 Maithili verb endings displaying subject agreement

Verbs in Maithili may additionally agree with a second argument. Oddly, the verb does not agree with an unmarked O, but with any marked object from the sentence. This may be a marked O, an IO, a possessive form added to the subject or to O, or an experiencer; in other words, a non-nominative argument (cf. Bickel et al. 1999:491; Mishra 1990: 110). According to Jha (1958: 472, qtd. in Stump and Yadav 1988), the verb displays secondary agreement with the “most prominent NP”. With prominence, Jha means three things: the NP is either emphasized, highly honorific, or highly animate. Stump and Yadav (1988: 308) suggest a hierarchy of agreement: on the left side, agreement with the argument is possible; the arguments on the right side are not likely to cause secondary agreement. 3H < 2MH < 2NH, 3NH < 1, 2H

17 Gender seems to have disappeared only recently in spoken Maithili, and the remains of gender agreement are still found in formal and literary writing. They appear to be particularly persistent in combination with the third person, where there are different endings for masculine and feminine gender (cf. Stump and Yadav 1988).

The transitive verb   

   135

The ranking of features of arguments in a hierarchy is of course reminiscent of Silverstein’s hierarchy (cf. Chapter  2). Following Silverstein, speech act participants (henceforth SAP) are associated with accusative alignment, whereas other arguments seem to prefer ergative alignment. With respect to verb agreement, this implies that, following Silverstein, secondary agreement with an objective first or second person form would be unexpected, and agreement with a third person form would be expected. Stump and Yadav’s hierarchy indeed indicates that third person forms tend to control secondary, ‘non-nominative’ agreement more often than first and second person forms do. However, it is also clear that the honorific grade plays an equally important role in determining agreement in Maithili. As Stump and Yadav (1988) point out, the higher the honorific grade of the argument is, the more likely it is that secondary agreement follows as well. However, the second honorific person is an exception, because this argument will almost never control secondary agreement. The 2h pronoun follows the pattern of the first person entirely. Secondary agreement is illustrated by the forms listed in Table 3.10. Some are transparent, and one can notice the separate markers for primary and secondary agreement (e.g. -i-ainh, 1-3h), others are entirely merged into one form. Only in 3h the present and past tense take different endings. Grierson (1903 V, I: 24) discerns some regularities: – combinations of a subject with an honorific second argument requires the addition of -nh; – an honorific second person subject triggers the same verb conjugation as a first person subject; – the subject marker -ai/-ainh in combination with a second person object becomes -au/-aunh, -ah for a first person; – -k can be added to all forms on -ai or -au, without changing the meaning.

object 1 A/S 1 A/S 2h A/S 2mh A/S 2nh A/S 3h

A/S 3nh

past: -ainh

object 2h

past: -ainh

object 2mh object 2nh object 3h

object 3nh

-iah

-iauk

-athinh, -akhinh

-athinh, -akhinh

-(ak)ah

-(ak)auk

-iaik -iaik -ahak -ahik -athunh, -akhunh, -ainh -(ak)aik

Table 3.10 Secondary agreement in Maithili

-iainh -iainh -ahunh -ahunh -athunh, -akhunh, -ainh -(ak)ainh

136   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

The occurrence of -ak- when the subject is 3nh only happens in the past tenses and with transitive verbs (cf. Yadava 1999: 151). Examples of agreement are found below (cf. Bickel et al. 1999). In the first example, the intransitive verb refers to an unexpressed possessor. (138) barad bhāg-al jā-it+ch-auk ox run-ptcp go-prs+aux.prs-3nh.2nh ‘Your ox is running away.’ (139) hun-kā=saṃ kitāb nahi paḍha-l ge-l-ainh he-obl.h=abl book not read-ptcp pass-pst-3nh.3h ‘The book could not be read by him.’ In the last example, a passive verb, paḍhal gelainh, agrees with the subject kitāb, 3nh, and with the ablative of the agent-object, which is 3h, hunkā=saṃ. The next example is one of the rare occasions when there is three-fold agreement, which only occurs when there is a combination of the following arguments: 1/2nh/3h: (140) ham to=rā kaniya=keṃ I you=obj bride=obj ‘I showed you the bride.’

dekh-au-l-iaunh show-caus-pst-1.2nh.3h

Secondary agreement has been discussed in detail by Bickel et al. (1999: 497) by making use of the social concepts of FACE and EMPATHY. FACE is defined as “a common interest in maintaining each other’s FACE” shared by the people (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987). For Maithili, this means that a first person speaker should treat a second person honorific speech participant the same way as when (s)he would refer to him-/herself so that no (social) difference is expressed in the words of the speaker in an conversation between the speaker and speech partner. Secondly, in conversation, all higher honorific persons should be overtly marked on the verb to indicate their social status. This is a possible explanation for Stump and Yadav’s hierarchy (1988): the higher the honorific quality of the argument, the more likely it is that it controls secondary agreement. The second honorific person constitutes an exception because as the first person, it rarely controls secondary agreement (and is therefore situated at the right side of the hierarchy). The second concept, EMPATHY, refers to the third persons that can control agreement. The definition of empathy is taken from Kuno (1987: 206): “EMPATHY is the speaker’s identification, which may vary in degrees, with a person or thing that participates in the event or state that he describes in sentence” (Bickel et al. 1999: 503). Third persons are not SAP but are incorporated into the conversation

The transitive verb   

   137

through the “empathy” of the speakers. The higher the third person is on the social hierarchy, the stronger the need is that (s)he is involved in the speech act and that, (s)he is referred to by the verb. The hierarchy constituted by the concepts of “face” and “empathy” is actually a variation on Silverstein’s animacy/SAP hierarchy, but on the basis of the feature of honorificity. Honorificity is included as a feature that can determine referential hierarchy in Bickel’s (2011) overview of possible features of referential hierarchies. Nevertheless, as Bickel (2008) points out, the mutual influence between hierarchies of features and types of alignment, particularly agreement patterns, should not be overestimated. Maithili is a case in point, given that the conventional association between SAP and accusative alignment is not completely followed. Firstly, honorificity and other social concepts are at least as important as the difference between pronouns and nouns. Secondly, the secondary agreement found in Maithili is not ergative agreement in the sense that the verb always agrees with S/O; on the contrary, secondary agreement in Maithili seems to be with the most “prominent”, objective-marked argument.

3.2.1.3 Honorific agreement in Magahi The agreement pattern in Magahi is similar, but less complex, than the one found in Maithili. Verbs in Magahi agree with the subject argument, but secondary agreement, in which the verb can agree with any marked object is equally possible. In Table 3.11 and Table 3.12, the past tense endings in Magahi are given.

1 2h 2nh 3h 3nh

-i/-io/-iau -a -e -thin/-thun -ai/-o/-au

Table 3.11 Verb endings in Magahi, agreement with subject

object 2h

object 2nh

object 3h

object 3nh

A/S 1

-io

-iau

-iain

-iai

A/S 3h

-ko

-kau

-kain

-kai

A/S 3nh

-ko

-kau

-kain

-kai

Table 3.12 Verb endings in Magahi, secondary agreement

138   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

Table 3.12 is an overview of the secondary agreement suffixes in Magahi. When the subject is a second person, there are no secondary agreement suffixes. Only first and third person subjects allow object indication on the verb. The suffix is then -o or -au. Verma (1991) observes that this suffix is sometimes used without the overt presence of a second person and calls this the “addressee component” (comparable to the so-called dativus ethicus, cf. Section 5.2.2). Ex. (141) and (142) illustrates the consequence of this agreement: (142) is directed at someone who is not overtly referred to in the conversation: (141)

ham okrā I he.nh.obj ‘I saw him.’

dekh-al-iai see-pst-1.3nh

(142) ham okrā dekh-al-io I he.nh.obj see-pst-1.2h ‘[Let me tell you,] I saw him.’ The agreement pattern of Maithili and Magahi is exceptional among the IndoAryan languages. Firstly, it is unusual that the verb only agrees with a marked object. Secondly, agreement with an unexpressed “addressee component” seems to be unattested in any other IA language (but see Kashmiri, Chapter  5). The parameter of honorificity, though, is also well-observable in other IA languages. Nepali is the best known example, with its separate verb conjugation for kings and noblemen. However, in Nepali, the honorificity of a certain argument does not determine the verb agreement. It is no coincidence that the regions with Maithili speakers and Nepali speakers border each other. I concur with Bickel et al. (1999) who claim that the influence of the honorific grade of the arguments on the agreement in Maithili is a result of the social stratification in this area. As Masica (1991: 344) observes, following Jha (1958), the secondary agreement in Maithili is of recent origin. It is reasonable to assume that former verb endings, which used to indicate gender and number, shifted to indicators of honorificity when gender and number disappeared as grammatical categories. Whereas social stratification may be considered as the trigger of the honorific agreement pattern, evolutions in verb agreement found in the other IA languages should also be taken into account. The possibility of object agreement is present in Central and Western IA languages. Even though this possibility is far less outspoken in the other Eastern IA languages, it constitutes the background of secondary agreement in Maithili and Magahi.

The transitive verb   

   139

3.2.2 The transitive verb in an Eastern Hindi variety In the Eastern IA languages, the participial origin of the perfective verb forms is less noticeable than it is in other IA languages, because the person agreement is expressed by the finite verb. An interesting language for a comparative case study in this respect is Awadhi. Awadhi is spoken in the central states of Uttar and Madhya Pradesh and has been considered as an Eastern dialect of Hindi. However, it also shares properties with Bhojpuri and other Eastern IA languages. In Awadhi, one finds a tense system based on participles (as in Central IA), but the verb forms all display person agreement with the subject (as in Eastern IA). Furthermore, Awadhi has another feature in common with Eastern IA, i.e., the language displays a different pattern for transitive and intransitive verbs in the past tense (referred to as conjugation t & i below). Besides this different conjugation based on the transitivity of the verb, Awadhi also possesses two morphologically different conjugations for the intransitive (conjugation i1 and i2) and transitive (conjugation t1 and t2) past tense verbs. The first conjugation displays person marking on the copula, as in Hindi and other Central IA languages, the second conjugation indicates the person in the participial form, aligning Awadhi with the Bihari languages.¹⁸ Awadhi is therefore illustrative to compare the difference between a tense system based on participial forms and one based on finite verbal forms that indicate person agreement. Table 3.13 (based on Saksena [1937] 1971: 248, 260) illustrates the first kind of conjugation. The copula agrees in person with the subject in the present tense. When the verb is intransitive (i1), the ending of the participial form, e.g., marā, ‘died’, agrees in gender and number with S, m.sg. -ā, m.pl. -e, f.sg. and pl. -ī (īṃ for third person plurals). For transitive verbs (t1), the oblique -e ending is added to the participle, e.g., dekhe ‘seen’, no matter what the number or gender of A is.

18 Masica (1991: 477) refers to Smith (1974), who describes patterns of agreement with the subject as well as with O in Awadhi, particularly in the language spoken on the border areas between Awadhi and Kanauji (the latter language normally only displays agreement with S/O).

140   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

tr t1 sg

pl

itr i1 sg

pl

1m

dekhe hauṃ

dekhe han

marā hauṃ

mare han

1f

dekhe hauṃ

dekhe han

marī hauṃ

marī han

2m

dekhe hai

dekhe hau

marā hai

mare hau

2f

dekhe hai

dekhe hau

marī hai

marī hau

3m

dekhe hai

marā hai

mare haiṃ

3f

dekhe hai

marī hai

marīṃ haiṃ

Table 3.13 t1 and i1

Ex. (143) illustrates the agreement pattern of the past tense verb (Saksena [1937] 1971: 432–433). (143) kā ī=ma ke gulgul-ā tum lih-e+h-au? q this=from some sweet-pl you.f take-pst.tr+aux-prs.2pl ‘Have you taken some sweets from this?’ It should be noted that a transitive verb can also take the intransitive conjugation in some circumstances. In Saksena ([1937] 1971: 248) the examples mai dekhā (m.sg.) hauṃ and mai dekhī (f.sg.) hauṃ are mentioned, where the transitive participle dekhā resp. dekhī agrees in gender and number with its subject, as if it were an intransitive participle. The meaning of the participle is, in this case, different. Saksena translates these sentences as: “I am the one who has been seen” instead of “I have seen”. The participle, conjugated in this manner, lacks the predicative, finite verb meaning that it normally has as a verb and rather is considered as an adjectival participle determining the first person pronoun. This is reminiscent of the intransitive past participles in Magahi, e.g., sutle hi (Section 3.2.1.1), that take the transitive suffix, which subsequently leads to a change in the meaning. The second conjugation of the participle in Awadhi (i2 for intransitive and t2 for transitive verbs) is closer to the person conjugation of the participles in the Eastern IA languages. In contrast to the first conjugation, the participial form agrees in person; when the optional copula is added, it remains in the invariant third person singular form hai in all circumstances. This is the ‘frozen’ form of the copula, which we also find in other conjugations in Magahi, Bhojpuri and Maithili (cf. Verma 2003: 511). The difference between the intransitive and transitive conjugations is especially clear when it comes to gender agreement. Transitive forms only agree in number and person with the subject, whereas intransitive verbs do have a different ending when the subject is masculine or feminine. In example (144) a transitive verb is followed by an intransitive verb, both having

The transitive verb   

   141

a feminine subject. The form lihisi (t2) is the same for the masculine and singular paradigm, while lauṭaīṃ (i1) is a typical intransitive feminine form (Saksena [1937] 1971: 432–433). (144) bahū jale ui lauṭa-īṃ tale daughter-in-law when she.pl return-pst.f.pl then tīni gulgul-ā nikāri lih-isi three sweet-pl take out.inf take-pst.3sg ‘Before she [the old lady] returned, the daughter-in-law took out three sweets.’ The conjugations t2 and i2 are exemplified in Table 3.14.¹⁹

tr t2 sg

itr i2 pl

sg

pl

1m

dekheuṃ hai

dekhen hai

mareuṃ hai

maren hai

1f

dekheuṃ hai

dekhen hai

mariuṃ hai

maren hai

2m

dekhisi hai

 dekheu hai

mare hai

mareu hai

2f

dekhisi hai

dekheu hai

mare hai

mariu hai

3m

dekhisi hai

dekhini hai

3f

dekhisi hai

dekhini hai

Table 3.14 t2 and i2

In conclusion, in Awadhi, there are two past conjugations, one of which is closer to Hindi and its varieties (t1 and i1) and the other one of which is closer to the Eastern languages (t2 and i2). Awadhi does not take the infix -l- to indicate a past tense like the Eastern IA languages do. The conjugations differ according to whether the verb is transitive or intransitive. Hence, in Awadhi, although the case marking in itself is not exceptional, the indication of the transitivity of the verb for the past tenses is an important factor influencing the formal expression of the verb in the clause.

19 In the third person, the following forms are restricted to one conjugation: the third person plural of a transitive verb always ends with -ini (conjugation t2), while the third person forms of the intransitive verbs always end, according to the gender and number of S, with ā, ī, e or īṃ, with nasalization of the copula haiṃ, as in i1.

142   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

3.3 Ergative marking in Eastern Indo-Aryan Asamiya is the only Eastern IA language where the marking of A occurs systematically (cf. Section 3.1.2). In modern grammars of Bangla (e.g. Radice 2007) and Oriya (Neukom and Patnaik 2003), there is generally no mention of an -e marking for the subject. Grierson (1903 V, I: 14, 34) points out that the -e ending is sometimes used as the ending of human subjects of transitive verbs in Bangla (though not obligatorily), and Chatterji (1926: 741) regards -e as a nominative form that was already obsolete in Western Bangla during his time, but occurred commonly in Eastern Bangla (and in Asamiya). The -e ending in Bangla is no longer related to a specific argument role but tends to occur, albeit exceptionally, with human nouns, particularly when the nouns are plural and indefinite (cf. Nasrin and van der Wurff 2009: 140), see the following example (Chatterjee 2008: 105): (145) lok-e brisṭi-r por kokhono+kokhono akas-e people-erg rain-gen after sometimes sky-loc ramdhonu dakh-e rainbow see-prs.3 ‘People sometimes see a rainbow in the sky after the rain.’ The form lok-e is reminiscent of the pronominal forms ending in -e that are also found in Asamiya and always take -e, irrespective of whether they are A or S (cf. 3.1.2). In Oriya, however, the subject of any verb is unmarked, though again, certain pronouns retain the ending -e, e.g., tume ‘you’, or the marker of indefiniteness added to a singular noun jaṇe ‘one person’ (cf. Ray 2003: 454–457). However,–e is not associated with a particular argument role. This is also the thrust of Neukom and Paitnik (2003: 47). They discern a nominative case with a zero ending. However, later in their study, they discuss the nominative case separately: “Many nominals with human referents show a suffix -e in the nominative case” with examples of the plural suffix -mane, and some other pronominal forms such as kie ‘who?’, anek-e ‘many’ etc. Note that these forms ending with -e do not have an unmarked nominative form. Regardless of whether they are used as A or S, they always occur with -e.²⁰

20 Neukom and Paitnik (2003: 35) also analyze the suffix -e that is added to nouns as a marker of indefiniteness and is often in the function of O, e.g., ghaṇṭa-e ‘an hour’, pahar-e deba ‘to give a blow’. They distinguish this use of -e from the -e of the nominative, for the justifiable reason that the indefinite -e may be added before a case marker, e.g., akha-ṭi-e-re ‘in a sackcloth’,

Ergative marking in Eastern Indo-Aryan   

   143

Whereas the suffix -e has merged with the nominative case and is no longer recognizable as an ergative marker in Bangla and Oriya, in Asamiya -e clearly functions as a marker of A. Since Asamiya is the most eastward spoken IA language, influence of Central IA on the ergative marking seems to be improbable and can hardly explain the different evolution of Asamiya in comparison with its closest related languages. A hypothesis worth taking seriously is that the ergative case marking in Asamiya was reinforced through language contact. Asamiya is spoken in an area in which there is contact with a wide array of languages of at least three non-Indo-European families. Some of the most wide-spread languages are Bodo, Garo and Koch (Tibeto-Burman), Mundari, Santali and Malayan (AustroAsiatic) and Khasi (Mon-Khmer), amongst others (Post 2008: 63; Kakati 1962: 32). Many inhabitants of Assam are bilingual, using Asamiya outside the home and a non-IA language as the language inside the home. Besides the possible influence on the ergative case marking, the linguistic contact situation has led to some other extraordinary deviations from most IA languages. For instance, the use of classifiers to indicate plurality, gender, diminutives, and definiteness, and the indication of possession on the relational and kinship nouns is obviously due to the Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic influence. Furthermore, there are certain parallels between the ergative marking in Asamiya and Tibetan. Tibetan is a language with an ergative marking that is optional in the present tenses but obligatory in the perfect constructions. Particularly revealing is the fact that the ergative marking often assumes a discursive function (cf. Tournadre 1996: 372 la visée communicative) by occurring in an unexpected position, such as a marker of S, cf. ex. (146) from Tibetan (Tournadre 1996: 300):²¹

where ṭi is the postposed article, -e- emphasizes the indefiniteness, and -re is the locative case marker. However, in other instances the use of -e as an indefinite marker is not all that different from its use as a nominative marker. The classifiers jaṇ, ‘a person’, and goṭa or goṭi ‘a, something’ may also be combined with the indefinite suffix -e, and they express specificity (Neukom and Paitnik 2003: 120). Inanimate nouns cannot take the suffix -e (examples given in Neukom and Paitnik 2003: 50). Interestingly, in Oriya the subject can also be expressed in the genitive case form when it is animate and coordinated. Neukom and Paitnik (2003: 59) give the following example: mor tankar e kamṭa kalu ‘I and he did this work’, where mor as well as tankar are in the genitive form. However, this seems more of an extension of the experiencer construction with a genitive experiencer, than of a kind of ergative marker. 21 The ergative marker in Tibetan is also associated with volition, occurring as a marker of a volitional S in an intransitive construction. Although I have not found any evidence of -e as the marker of a volitional S in Asamiya, it is not unconceivable, and it has been reported to me by J. Tamuli (p.c.). However, verbs analyzed as volitional are in fact often unergative (e.g., ‘to sleep’).

144   

   Eastern Indo-Aryan: Asamiya

(146) kho-s lo nyishu btsonkhang nang-la bsdad-pa-red he-erg year twenty prison in-obl stay-pst-aor ‘He, [he] has stayed twenty years in prison.’ In sum, unexpected occurrences of -e as in the above example (96) or when it marks an “emphasized” S could be attributed to the influence of Tibetan languages on Asamiya. In general, the extended use of -e for all A’s, and not only for A’s of perfective verbs, may be due to the influence of surrounding languages, where ergative marking is standard for A.

3.4 Conclusion With regard to alignment, there are several features that unite the Eastern IA languages and contrast them with the other IA languages. First of all, in all Eastern IA languages, verbs agree with A/S. Importantly, the agreement is in person. Gender and number agreement may also occur but only in the Eastern IA languages where these categories have not disappeared. Secondly, in many Eastern languages, there is no ergative marking attested. Although Asamiya can be considered an exception to this generalization, even in this language, the ergative marking -e does not occur in the same distributional pattern as the postposition ne does in Hindi (cf. Section 3.1.2). The differences are that the use of -e is not bound to a particular tense/aspect of the verb. Rather, it occurs much more regularly in unergative constructions, although many of the unergative verbs have the same meaning as the unergative verbs in Hindi. The ergative marker also occurs as marker of the A of a non-finite verb (cf. Section 3.1.2). In comparison to Hindi, the ergative marker in Asamiya occurs much more often, and it is possible, and quite probable, that this spread happened under the influence of language contact with a non-IA language (cf. Section 3.3). Asamiya is spoken at the eastern border of India, and hence, it is the remotest from the “ergative” Central and Western IA languages. The ergative marking in Asamiya is clear evidence that the “ergative case” is not a feature that exclusively belongs to Central and Western IA. Another feature making the transitive constructions of Eastern IA differ from the classical accusative pattern, is that certain Eastern IA verb forms do agree with O. The agreement is, however, less straightforward than it is in Hindi. The -e suffix added to the third person past tense in Asamiya, can be considered to be an agreement marker that cross-references to O, because it only occurs when the verb is transitive. Because gender and number are no longer grammatically encoded in Asamiya, O-agreement necessarily takes a simplified form. In particu-

Conclusion   

   145

lar, in Asamiya, there is no possibility that the verb cross-references to the gender and number of O. In the literature, two explanations have been proposed for the historical development of the -e marking of transitive past tense verbs in Asamiya. Either the transitive verb received an additional marking, or the intransitive verb lost its marking. Today, this first explanation is the preferred one among most scholars of IA, and it is indeed the most plausible. The -e ending in Asamiya has been explained as an extension of the present tense ending. For other languages, it has been suggested that the transitive ending is derived from a locative suffix added to a participle. According to Chatterji (1926), the zero-marked intransitive third person verb form is associated with an adjectival function. He claims that this verb form is a participial form that lacks person agreement. The e of a transitive third person past verb form is said to indicate the “verbality” of the form, amounting to the possibility of expressing person agreement on the verb. This explains, according to Chatterji, the discrepancy that exists between transitive and intransitive third persons. Although it seems rather farfetched to consider the third person of an intransitive verb in the past tense as the only “participial” form in the conjugational paradigm, it stands to reason that there is a link between the person agreement of the verb, i.e., the “verbal” rather than the “adjectival” nature of the verb, and A/S agreement. Dixon (1994), for instance, suggests that person agreement, which he calls “bound pronouns”, displays a cross-linguistic tendency to pattern accusatively, whereas gender and number agreement do not show such a preference. On this view, the -e suffix on the transitive past verbs in Asamiya must be interpreted as a historical remnant of the participial origin of the past tense, and as indicating agreement (but not necessarily person agreement) with O. Importantly, the distinction in conjugation between a transitive and an intransitive past tense verb is not exclusively a property of Asamiya, but occurs in the Bihari languages as well (cf. Section 3.2.1). In Maithili and Magahi, one even finds object agreement, although the pattern is of a different nature from what is commonly known as O-agreement in ergative constructions. Verbs in Maithili and Magahi may display secondary agreement with a marked argument that is high in animacy, definiteness, and honorific grade. Although the secondary agreement pattern seems to be determined either by social factors or by discourse elements, the possibility of secondary agreement with O is a typical feature of IA languages in general. However, this kind of agreement is not the type of agreement with {S, O} that is part of the definition of ergativity.

4 Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali Nepali is the most important of the Northern IA languages spoken in the Himalayas. Nepali is also known as Khas Kura or Khas Bhasa, the ‘language of the Khas’, a Nepali-speaking ethnic group. The name Gorkhali is also used, and refers to the language of the city and the people of Gorkha (Riccardi 2003: 540). The Nepali themselves often call their language Pahari or Parbartiya, meaning ‘the language of the mountains’ (Acharya 1991: 2). The name Pahari also refers to a group of languages spoken in the mountains, of which Nepali is only one representative (others are for instance Kumaoni, Garhwali). Today, Nepali is spoken by appr. 17,209,000 people all over the world, appr. 11,053,000 of whom reside in Nepal (Ethnologue 2010, Census 2001). Nepali’s most important competitors in Nepal are Tibeto-Burman languages, particularly the group of the Newari languages. Newari was originally named Nepal Bhasa (‘the Nepal language’). Although a Newari language was once the language of the capital Kathmandu, Nepali is currently the dominant language in Nepal. Nevertheless, many speakers are of course bilingual. Some Newari dialects have been heavily influenced by Nepali; influence in the other direction is less clear (cf. Riccardi 2003: 546). Nepali shares many resemblances with Eastern IA languages with regard to its alignment. It has also been argued that Nepali originated in the language of the Rajput people of the Indian state of Rajasthan in the West, who would have entered Nepal between the 11th and 15th century (Wallace 1982: 152–153). The oldest inscriptions found in Nepal are dated 1255 AD (Riccardi 2003: 543). It is believed that they were made by an emperor of the Khas, and indeed, it seems that this group of people was not native to the mountains, but entered Nepal from the West, bringing with them an Indo-Aryan language. The language of the inscriptions is related to Nepali, but it is only in the 17th century that inscriptions were made in a language that can be considered the ancestor of modern Nepali. From that date onward, a considerable amount of literature has been composed in Nepali (Riccardi 2003: 544). Whether or not historical sources will confirm the relation with Western IA, on a synchronic level, some of the Nepali morphology seems to be closely related to the morphology of the Rajasthani languages. As such, Nepali represents a link between Western and Eastern IA. The examples in the following Chapter derive from the short stories assembled in Hutt (1997) and Acharya (1991), children’s stories (Thapa 2001) and a questionnaire conducted in various places in Nepal (2009).

Nepali: description   

   147

4.1 Nepali: description 4.1.1 Case marking in Nepali Like Asamiya, Nepali has no gender or number marked on the noun and the adjective. The plural is optionally indicated by means of a lexical suffix -harū which in turn may be marked for case. In contemporary Nepali, nouns are not generally inflected and only have an unmarked (nominative) form, although there is an older, oblique form. The nominative form on -o is used before a postposition, e.g., lāuro=le ‘the stick’. If an adjective or demonstrative determines such a noun in combination with a postposition, then the adjective/demonstrative is normally in the oblique case, e.g., yo śahar ‘this town’, yas śahar=mā ‘in this town (Hutt and Subedi 1999: 68). However, in the colloquial language, the demonstrative often retains its nominative form. Certain nouns ending in a vowel still display the oblique before a postposition, e.g., nom. choro ‘boy’, obl. chorā (cf. Srivastava 1962: 91). The postpositions given in Table 4.1 function as case markers and were also defined as such by previous scholars (e.g., Turnbull [1923] 1982; MorlandHughes 1947).

nom erg obj gen loc ins

Ø le lāī ko mā le

Table 4.1 Case marking in Nepali

The postposition le marks A and it also functions as the marker of the instrumental case. The postposition lāī marks O when it is animate and/or definite, and it is also the marker of IO. According to Turnbull ([1923] 1982), only one argument can be marked with lāī in a sentence. When both O and IO occur in a sentence, the preference is to mark the IO. The paradigm for pronouns is only slightly different from that of nouns. In contrast to nouns, most pronouns have a distinct oblique form in combination with the postposition le. The first person singular is ma but when the le-postposition is added it becomes the form maiṃ=le. However, when other postpositions are added, it remains ma, e.g., ma=lāī. The genitive of personal pronouns is a separate possessive form, e.g., mero ‘my’. Aside from these minor differences, pronouns pattern identically to nouns. Like Asamiya, Nepali differentiates between

148   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

honorific and non-honorific forms. The second and third persons have several forms according to the honorific grade of the argument.¹

4.1.2 Case marking of the core arguments A and S in the present tense take the nominative marking. In a construction with a perfective verb form, A takes the ergative marker le, and S is unmarked. Below are examples of the classic case marking pattern in Nepali. The next example is a sentence with an animate A marked by le, and an unmarked O; while in ex. (148), there is an inanimate A and an animate, marked O. Note that animacy is only a parameter in the marking of O. Also consider that O need not be present for a sentence to have a transitive verb and a marked A. O may also be a clausal object, as in ex. (149). (147) rājā=le mukh bharī pāṇī hāl-e king=erg mouth full water put-pst.3sg.h ‘The king put his mouth full [with] water.’ (Thapa 2001: 12) (148) baigun=ko kāṃḍā=le tyas=lāī ghoc-yo aubergine=gen thorn[f]=erg she=obj prick-pst.3sg ‘A thorn of the aubergine-plant pricked her.’ (Thapa 2001: 6) (149) lāuro=le bhan-yo, ko h-o? stick=erg say-pst.3sg who be-prs.3sg ‘The stick said, who is it?’ (Thapa 2001: 7) Just like in Asamiya, some unergative verbs can take a cognate object. These are, in particular, the so-called verbs of “bodily emission”, such as ‘to vomit’, ‘to urinate’, ‘to cough’, etc. The use of a transitive subject in combination with such verbs is a wide spread phenomenon in IA and is not limited to IA alone (cf. Section 2.4.4). However, in Nepali, le also occurs in other constructions. First, le is the marker of the instrumental case, used to express a means or an inanimate agent. The head to which it is added can be a noun, participle or infinitive, e.g., hunā=le, lit.: ‘because of being’ > ‘because of this situation’. Whereas in Asamiya, the ergative

1 Nepali grammaticalizes different layers of honorificity; for instance, certain forms are only used to address or refer to members of the royal family.

Nepali: description   

   149

marking -e marks the agent in a passive sentence (cf. Chapter 3), in Nepali, the postposition bāta is used. However, the passive rarely occurs with an overt agent. Impersonal passives are much more frequent in Nepali, and often, the difference between an experiencer construction and a passive construction is semantically not clear (cf. Clark 1963: 107–108, ex. (150)). (150) tyo timī=lāī cāh-in-ch-a? that you=obj want-pass-prs-3sg ‘Do you want that?’ (< ‘Is this wanted for you?’) Verma (1976: 277) analyzed kocā as an agent in the following passive sentence; it is more probable, however, that kocā is a pure instrumental rather than an agent. Considering that the verb is causative, an inanimate A would be quite unusual. (151)

kocā=le yo kothā saphā gar-ā-i-yo broom=erg this room clean make-caus-pass-pst.3sg ‘This room was (caused to be) made clean with a broom.’

The following example from Abadie (1974) illustrates that le can occur twice in a sentence, simultaneously marking both A and the instrumental. In comparison, the objective marker lāī can occur only once in a sentence. (152) lathi=le maiṃ=le sisi phuṭa-eṃ stick=ins I=erg bottle break-pst.1sg ‘I broke the bottle with the stick.’ Although there are differences in the marking of the passive agent, the ergative postpositions in both Nepali and Asamiya obviously share the feature that they are used to mark the instrumental as well. Second, in Nepali, independently used transitive participles, transitive converbs and infinitives may take a le-marked A (cf. Bickel and Yadava 2000: 354).² In ex. (153), the perfect participle gar-e-ko (‘made’) is used as a determiner of āwāj (‘sound’), which is the O of another determining participle, sundā. The A of gareko, unīharū=le (‘they’), differs from that of the intransitive main verb ga-yo, and it is indicated with le.

2 This stands in contrast to Hindi, in which the overt S/A of a non-finite verb form must be either in the objective or genitive case (cf. Bickel and Yadava 2000, Section 2.4.2.1).

150   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

(153) unī-harū=le gar-eko karākakuruk-kacyākakucuk=ko āwāj he-pl=erg make-prf.ptcp noise=gen sound sun-dā poi=ko man=mā pani kehī ciso hear-prs.ptcp.m.sg husband=gen mind=loc too little chill pas-na ga-yo enter-inf go-pst.3sg ‘Hearing the sound of the noises they made, a little chill entered the husband’s mind too.’ (Hutt 1997: 53) Wallace (1982) draws attention to the behavior of Nepali converbs (or “Conjunctive participles” in his terminology). In his opinion, converbs on -i or on -era are, as per definition, perfective; thus, if they are transitive, their A should be marked with le. Peterson (2002) supports this idea by suggesting that the infix -e- found in the ending -era is the perfective marker. In many cases, the subject of the converb is different from that of the main verb, which explains why there is no conjunction reduction and why both subjects are marked according to their verbs. However, if the main verb and the converb share the same subject, the subject is only expressed once in the sentence, and its case marking is either determined by the main verb or by the converb. Below are two of Wallace’s examples (1982: 168) in which the converb is transitive and the main verb intransitive. As in the other IA languages, A and S are treated in the same way in coordination patterns. However, because A and S do not share the same morphological marking, there is a possible conflict if one verb is transitive and the other intransitive. The subject may be marked according to the converb or according to the main verb. In the following examples, the le-marking is controlled by the transitive converbs bheṭera and khāera. (154) mai=le tyas=lāi bheṭ-era I=erg he=obj meet-cvb ‘I met him and went home.’

ghar=mā house=loc

ga-eṃ go-pst.1sg

(155) us=le bikh khā-era mar-yo he=erg poison eat-cvb die-pst.3sg ‘He died while eating poison.’ There are also examples of the opposite situation; that is, where the subject is in the nominative because of the intransitive main verb, although the converb is transitive. This pattern is the most frequent (cf. Wallace 1982: 172). Note that in

Nepali: description   

   151

the latter example, it is not clear whether unī is controlled by the second converb, the intransitive gaera, or by the main verb ḍaṭin.³ (156) chorā mahīnā din=ko bidā pā-era kalkaṭṭa=bāṭa son month day=gen leave get-cvb Kolkata=abl ghar ā-e home come-pst.3sg ‘The son came home from Kolkata after getting a month’s leave.’ (Wallace 1982: 168) (157) unī korībāṭī gar-era jhyāl=mā ga-era ḍaṭ-in she make-up do-cvb window=loc go-cvb stand-pst.f.3sg ‘After she put on make-up, she went to the window and stood there.’ (Hutt 1997: 49) Third, le can function as the marker of the experiencer argument in modal constructions of obligation or permission, for instance with the verb par ‘must’. It occurs in variation with the lāī-postposition, which, as in Hindi, marks the experiencer argument of an experiencer construction. Less frequently, the argument of a construction of obligation can also be left in the nominative case (Clark 1963: 146). According to Abadie (1974), when le is used, the modal should be interpreted as having an “internalized necessity” with a greater obligatory power than when lāī is used. Below are two of her examples illustrating the difference.

3 The reason why the converb determines the marking of the subject in some sentences, whereas in other sentences the main verb is determining, has not yet been systematically investigated in Nepali. An interesting hypothesis for Newari has been brought forward by Genetti (1988). Newari is a Tibeto-Burman language, spoken in close contact with Nepali. Quite the same situation of conjunction reduction is found in this language, i.e., sometimes the subject of the main verb and sometimes that of the converb is deleted. Genetti explains this by arguing that it is always the subject in a topic role that is maintained. It is left for further investigation if this is also the reason for conjunction reduction in neighbouring Nepali. Note that in IndoAryan in general, there is quite some variation on this rule. In Hindi, it is always the main verb that determines the case marking of the subject. In Asamiya, the general rule seems to be that the case marking of the subject is determined by the verb which it precedes, irrespective of whether that verb is transitive or intransitive (cf. Chapter 4). In Gultari Shina, the subject case is usually determined by the converb (if the converb is an experiencer verb, the experiencer/ subject takes the objective case), unless the subject follows the converb because it then takes the case determined by the main verb (Hook 1996).

152   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

(158) mai=le mantri hunu+par-ch-a I=erg minister be+must-prs-3sg ‘I should be a minister.’ (159) hami=lāī ta jhan rittai hinnu+par-ch-a ke we=obj more empty walk+must-prs-3sg what ‘At least we can walk empty [without a load].’ On the basis of data from Kathmandu, Clark (1963: 146) maintains that le and, albeit to a lesser extent, lāī are used with a transitive infinitive verb. In combination with intransitive infinitives, lāī is the least common marking of the experiencer and le the most common marking; the nominative occupies an intermediate position between these two in terms of frequency of occurrence. For Hutt and Subedi (1999), intransitive verbs take a lāī-marked argument and transitive infinitives a le-marked argument, which is almost the opposite of Clark’s observation. By all accounts, it is clear that a great deal of regional variation is involved (Karki and Shrestha 1974: 73; Bickel and Yadava 2000: 359) and that there is no clear preference for either le, lāī or nominative marking. Nevertheless, the le-marked experiencers of modal constructions of obligation/permission do not act in the same manner as the le-marked A’s of perfectives, in the sense that the former do not control agreement. Nor is there agreement with the lāī-marked argument; however this is as expected because the verb never agrees with an objectivemarked argument in Nepali. In these kinds of expressions, either le is used in its modality of instrumental marker, or (non-native?) speakers of Nepali have found it acceptable to replace the object-marking postposition lāī with the subjectmarking postposition le. In Hindi, one finds a similar extension of the ergative marker (cf. Section 6.2.4). Interestingly, the ergative marking le is also often added to A of an imperfective construction. Because this is an exceptional pattern in IA, it will be discussed in Section 4.2.

4.1.3 Verb agreement in Nepali Nepali has an extended verb system to express various nuances of tense and aspect use, and the forms in this system have been labelled in different ways in the literature (cf. Morland-Hughes 1947; Srivastava 1962; Clark 1963; Verma and Sharma 1979; Wallace 1982; Matthews 1984; Acharya 1991 and Riccardi 2003).

Nepali: description   

   153

In particular the perfective verb forms have been given many different names.⁴ The Nepali simple past is a form consisting of the root combined with inflective person endings. Other forms are created by combining the root or the participle of the main verb with the copula meaning ‘to be’. There are two possible ways to form the perfect and past perfect; one of them periphrastic, the other synthetic. The two forms do not occur in the same circumstances; for instance, Acharya (1991) considers the periphrastic perfect to be a present perfective and the second perfect a past unknown.⁵ The constructions with these forms do not, however, display a different case marking and agreement pattern.

simple present imperfect present continuous present subjunctive simple past present perfect second present perfect past perfect second past perfect past continuous definite future indefinite future conditional future

root-chu root-theṃ pres.part.-dai+chu root-um root-eṃ past.part.-eko+chu root-e-chu past.part.-eko+thieṃ root-e-theṃ pres.part.-dai+thieṃ inf.-ne+chu root-uṃlā/uṃlī inf.-ne+thieṃ

gar-chu gar-theṃ gar-dai+chu gar-uṃ gar-eṃ gar-eko+chu gar-e-chu gar-eko+thieṃ gar-e-theṃ gar-dai+thieṃ gar-ne+chu gar-uṃlā gar-ne+thieṃ

Table 4.2 Tenses in Nepali (1st person singular)

Verb agreement in Nepali is straightforward: the verb always agrees with A/S, even when A is ergative. This is illustrated in ex. (160), where banāī is f.sg., in agreement with A. (160) ṭunṭunī=le āphno guṃḍ banā-ī bird[f]=erg one’s own nest[m] make-pst.f.3sg. ‘The bird made its nest.’ (Thapa 2001: 5) Agreement is equal for all tenses, and O-agreement does not occur in Nepali. In general, Nepali shows agreement in person and number. The copula chV ‘to be’

4 For instance, the form ‘root-e-chu’ has been called ‘present unknown’, ‘second perfect’, ‘narrative’, ‘short completed present’, ‘unknown past’ and ‘present perfect’. 5 A more extensive semantic discussion of this “second perfect” is found in Michailovsky (1996).

154   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

sg.m

sg.f

pl.m/f

1

chu

chu

chauṃ

2

chas

ches

chau

3

cha

che

chau

Table 4.3 Conjugation of chV

1 2 3

sg

pl

-eṃ -is -yo (m), -ī (f)

-yauṃ -yau -e

Table 4.4 Endings of the simple past

also displays gender agreement (cf. Table 4.3), just like certain forms of the future and the simple past. The present participle on -da(i) is invariant in the present continuous tense. Gender agreement of the participle on -eko, but also of the copula chV, is often absent in spoken languages, and sometimes in written languages as well. According to Genetti (1999: 545), agreement in number can also disappear in the spoken language, thus creating an agreement pattern identical to that of the Eastern IA languages, in which there is only agreement in person. Scholars have sought to explain this subject agreement pattern, because, considering the different case marking of S and A, it is not the pattern one expects to find. The Nepali agreement pattern differs considerably from the Hindi agreement pattern, in which the perfective verb agrees with an unmarked O. In Hindi, if O is marked, there is no agreement in gender, number and (optionally) person. Wallace (1982: 188) offers a historical explanation for the Nepali pattern on the basis of a comparison with the pattern found in Hindi. He surmises that, in an undefined previous stage of the Nepali language, O-agreement occurred in perfective constructions. He assumes that this “Old Nepali” agreement was identical to the one in Hindi, i.e., there used to be agreement with an unmarked O. In his opinion, the ultimate cause of the contemporary subject agreement and the absence of O-agreement is the disappearance of grammatical gender. In modern Nepali, only nouns with a clear female human reference are grammatically feminine. Consequently, all feminine O’s are marked with lāī because they necessarily refer to an animate being. Wallace argues that, analogously to Hindi, there would never have been gender and number agreement with a feminine O in a hypothetical Nepali O-agreement system because

Nepali: description   

   155

all feminine O-arguments are marked, and marked O’s cannot control agreement. All perfective verb forms would take the masculine singular form, which, according to Wallace, is the default form of the verb when there is no agreement with an argument. He further contends that the gender/number agreement of the finite verb is additionally combined with so-called “pronominal affixes”. These affixes display person agreement with the subject. According to Wallace, because most of the conjugated verbs displayed masculine singular agreement in combination with a pronominal affix referring to the A, gender/number agreement in general was reanalyzed as being controlled by A, not by O. This reanalysis subsequently spread to every transitive construction, and O-agreement was lost. There are several problems with Wallace’s account. First, it is not certain that Old Nepali patterned in the same way as Hindi or that the Nepali objective postposition lāī prevented agreement in the manner of the Hindi objective postposition ko. On the contrary, in Rajasthani, the finite verb consistently agrees with O, irrespective of the marking of that argument (cf. Chapter 6). On the basis of modern Nepali, it is impossible to determine which type of verb agreement dominated in the older stages of the language, but, in general, the Nepali language seems to be more closely related to Rajasthani than to Hindi (e.g., the Nepali ch-form of the copula is identical to Harauti, in Hindi the copula has the onset h-; the postposition lāī is more closely related to Rajasthani naiṃ than to Hindi ko; etc.). Second, Wallace’s “pronominal affixes”, which are controlled by subject argument, are not well-defined, and he himself admits that “there is really no evidence to indicate definitely one way or another what the origin of the Nepali personal suffixes is” (Wallace 1982: 186). The pronominal affixes he refers to are the person endings of the simple past, similar to the endings of the copula chV (Table 4.3). Both finite verbs in the simple past and periphrastic verb constructions with chV agree in person with the subject in contemporary Nepali. Because Wallace cannot define the origin of the pronominal affixes, it is possible that the finite verb has always agreed with {A, S}, in gender, number and person, by means of these pronominal affixes; therefore, there is no need to assume a previous stage in which there was O-agreement. Another counterargument against the view that the disappearance of grammatical gender led to subject agreement is given by Beames (1966: 179). Although Beames deals in particular with Bangla, the argument can also apply to Nepali. He maintains that the disappearance of grammatical gender differentiation in Bangla was an effect of the language’s use of tense conjugations with personal agreement as opposed to participles. Because the conjugation in Bangla did not display gender agreement, the only remaining formal indication of grammatical gender on nouns and pronouns came to be considered obsolete. Beames’ view of the language change at issue is the opposite of Wallace’s argument. Obviously, it is only possible to resolve the matter by investigating Old Nepali sources.

156   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

Cross-linguistically, a mismatch in alignment between case marking and agreement patterns such as the one in Nepali is not exceptional (cf. Section  1.1.4.2). The pairing of an ergative case marking and an accusative agreement pattern has been related to the assumption that person agreement derives from bound pronouns (Dixon 1994). Free, lexical pronouns display the cross-linguistic tendency to pattern accusatively.⁶ Therefore, bound pronouns on the verb (i.e., person agreement) are also expected to display an accusative pattern, irrespective of the marking of the overt argument with which they agree. In contrast to the simple past forms in Hindi and Rajasthani, which only agree in gender and number, Nepali does display person agreement with the controlling argument. Hence, the mismatch between the case marking and the agreement pattern in Nepali does not need to be “caused” by gender simplification but may very well be related to the occurrence of person agreement (Wallace’s “pronominal affixes”). In the IA languages, person agreement seems to have the effect that gender/number agreement on the verb is often absent. In modern colloquial Nepali, person agreement is consistently followed, but gender and number agreement is less strictly applied (Genetti 1999). In Asamiya, one finds a similar pattern to the one in Nepali: there is consistent accusative verb agreement combined with the consistent ergative marking of A. In Asamiya, grammatical gender and gender/number agreement have completely disappeared.

4.2 Reanalysis and extension of the postposition le The postposition le marking A can appear in imperfective constructions in Nepali, that is, in constructions without a perfective marker -e-. This phenomenon has been described by several authors, including Turnbull ([1923] 1982), Clark (1963), Verma (1976), Kachru and Pandharipande (1979), Wallace (1982, 1985) and, most recently, Li (2007). Below are a few attested examples of this rather unusual occurrence of le in several imperfective constructions. Present (161) tapāīṃ=ko hajām=le mero ghāu kina kāṭ-i-diṃ-dai-na you.h=gen barber=erg my wound why stitch-lnk-give-prs-neg.3sg ‘Why doesn’t your barber stitch my wound?’ (Thapa 2001: 6)

6 However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, the pronouns, therefore, do not need to have a nominative form for A and S; a pronominal A and S can show the same oblique/ergative form.

Reanalysis and extension of the postposition le   

   157

Imperfective (162) dinhauṃ ṭunṭunī=le tyas=lāī praṇām gar-th-ī day.pl bird[f]=erg she=obj greeting do-iprf-f.sg ‘[there were] days when the bird greeted her.’ (Thapa 2001: 5) Present Continuous (163) yas=le bhan-dai+ch-e she=erg say-cont+prs-3f.sg ‘She is saying.’ (Thapa 2001: 10) Present Subjunctive (164) kina hāmī=lāī kasai=le samjh-os? why we=obj someone=erg remember-sbjv.3sg ‘Why would anyone remember us?’ (Hutt 1997: 62) Past Continuous (165) tyas=le keval ṭunṭunī=ko baccā khān-ch-u bhanera she=erg only bird=gen child eat-prs-1sg quot soc-da+th-ī think-cont+pst-f.sg ‘She was only [repeatedly] thinking “I eat the children of the bird”.’ (Thapa 2001: 5) Definite Future (166) ṭunṭunī=lāī nai khā-e-ṃ bhanera rājā=le soc-ne+ch-an bird=obj emph eat-pst-1sg quot king=erg think-fut+prs-3sg.h ‘The king will think “I ate the bird”.’ (Thapa 2001: 11) Indefinite Future (167) tarsā-eko ra na-tarsā-eko hajūr=le thāhā terrify-prf.ptcp or neg-terrify-prf.ptcp you.h=erg knowledge pā-i-bakse-lā! get-lnk-royal.h-fut.3sg ‘Terrified or not terrified, you will find out.’ (Hutt 1997: 52) The postposition le can be used with every Nepali tense but the frequency of occurrence varies. Moreover, le is not mandatory in any of the previous examples. Use of le is entirely optional for speakers; the examples without le are considered as grammatical as those with the postposition.

158   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

In addition to these occurrences of le with a simple tense, the postposition also occurs in combination with tenses using a compound verb construction; e.g., the intransitive verb rah ‘to stay’ is used to indicate the progressive. The copula rah is intransitive, but if the main verb is a transitive verb, then le can again be used as in the examples below: (168) her-ūṃ na timī=le mero ghāu kasarī na see-prs.1sg not you=erg my wound how not kāṭ-da-rahe-ch-au? stitch-cont-prog-prs-2sg ‘I don’t understand how you cannot stitch my wound?’ (Thapa 2001: 6) (169) svara-harū=le mānauṃ us=lāī bolā-i-rah-ekā+ch-an voice-pl=erg as if he=obj call-lnk-prog-prf.ptcp.pl+prs-3pl ‘[it was] as if voices were calling him.’ (Hutt 1997: 75) If these sentences are translated into Hindi, they are constructed with a nominative A. However, in Nepali, rah forms an integral morphological part of the verb (e.g., gar-e-rah-e-chu ‘I was doing’), while in Hindi, rah is morphologically more independent in the verb construction (e.g. kar rahā/rahī hūṃ ‘I (m/f) am doing’, ham kar rahe haiṃ, ‘we are doing’, cf. Chapter 2). It could be argued that in the Nepali rah-construction, the auxiliary verb is formally more grammaticalized than in Hindi. Consequently, it is possible in Nepali to overrule the argument from Hindi that rah is intransitive and therefore does not take an ergatively marked A because Nepali rah has completely lost its lexical meaning in this construction. The transitivity of the construction is determined by the main verb rather than the lexically empty auxiliary. Nevertheless, the fact remains that constructions with rah are imperfective, and le only optionally marks A in this kind of construction. In this respect, Nepali deviates entirely from most Indo-Aryan languages. The postposition ne in Hindi is never used in combination with a present, progressive or continuous tense. In Asamiya, the ergative marker -e does occur in imperfective constructions, but obligatorily (cf. Section 3.1.2), whereas in Nepali speakers seem to have the choice to use it or not. This apparently unmotivated extension of the postposition in Nepali has led to many accounts that attempt to explain the remarkable distribution of le, but a unified explanation has not yet been attained.

Reanalysis and extension of the postposition le   

   159

4.2.1 Previous accounts 4.2.1.1 Focalization Traditional grammarians and most teachers’ books of Nepali explain the peculiar occurrence of le marking A with imperfectives by arguing that le is used to stress A. This account would provide a fairly straightforward explanation for the optional nature of the postposition, under the condition that it is only used when emphasis is involved. However, native speakers denied that le is a marker of emphasis on A (Abadie 1974). Moreover, the emphasis explanation raises the question of precisely why A is emphasized or must be emphasized. Hutt and Subedi (1999: 116–117) observe that le is used outside its normal range in the following three situations: (i) “if the sentence says that it is part of the natural order of things for the subject to perform the verb, and therefore states that this is a role that is specific to the subject”, (ii) “if the sentence is a question asking who or what is the subject of a transitive verb”, or (iii) “if the sentence is a response to a question […], or focuses in any way upon the subject of the verb”. The latter two occurrences suggest that a ‘focalization’ of A may be the factor that causes the addition of the postposition le. ‘Focus’ is defined in Dik (1989: 277) as a pragmatic function indicating “that information which is relatively the most important or salient in the given communicative setting, and considered by S [Speaker] to be most essential for A [Addressee] to integrate into his pragmatic information”. The speaker may either “add pieces of information” or “replace” them. It is implied that there is a setting/background in which the conversation takes place and that the hearer/addressee already has some information at his/her disposal. In the first instance, the information in focus is new and adds something to the information already available; in the second case, the speaker contrasts the focused information with already known information and consequently changes the available information. Question-answer pairs are ideal constructions for illustrating focus, according to Dik (1989: 279), and this observation is illustrated by the occurrence of le in Nepali (consider situation (ii) and (iii) in Hutt and Subedi 1999). The example given by Clark (1963: 279), repeated in Bickel (2011), illustrates that the focus is on karmiharu ‘the workmen’ in the answer to the question.

160   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

(170) bāhira ke-ko khalbal? – karmi-haru=le chānā hāli-rahe-ch-an outside what-gen noise worker-pl=erg roof lay-prog-prs-3pl ‘What’s the noise about outside? – It’s the workmen, laying the roof.’ In ex. (170), karmiharu is new information that adds up to the already known information (there is noise), but le may as well be used when another A-argument is introduced that differs from an A-argument in a prior clause. This A-argument need not be new; it can be an argument that has thus far been unimportant to the discourse (Tichekhoff 1978: 156–157). For instance, in ex. (171), saubhāgyavatī=le replaces guṃḍo as the new central argument, although it is arguably not a totally new argument in the discourse: (171)

yo sun-ī guṃḍo bhan-da+ch-a […] ani this hear-cvb rascal[m] say-cont+prs-3sg.m then Saubhāgyavatī=le bhan-da+ch-in […] Saubhagyavati[f]=erg say-cont+prs-3sg.f ‘After he heard this, the rascal is saying […] and then Saubhagyavati is saying […].’ (Hutt 1997: 51)

In ex. (172), the le-marking seems to be simply emphasizing the A-argument, but instances such as these are rather rare. (172)

hajūr=ko sammān puryā-una ma jābī=le ke you.h=obj sufficient honour-inf I paltry woman=erg how sak-ta+th-eṃ can-cont+pst-3sg ‘How can a paltry woman such as I honor you sufficiently?’ (Hutt 1997: 50)

Although acceptable for the previous example, the focus/emphasis approach is not applicable to all examples. For instance, a number of Nepali native speakers produced the following sentence when asked to translate the English sentence The workmen are laying the roof (note that the informants used a slightly different lexical expression for workmen, but the construction is basically the same as in ex. (170)). (173) jyāmi-haru=le chānā lagā-dai+ch-an worker-pl=erg roof put-cont+prs-3pl ‘The workmen are laying the roof.’

Reanalysis and extension of the postposition le   

   161

No additional context was supplied; no question is involved, nor is there any extra-lingual emphasis on A. Furthermore, because the expression has no welldescribed context, there is no background situation and the speaker does not need to add or replace particular information. Neither focus nor emphasis is in evidence. Many examples can be explained as related to the marking of focus, either because A is simply emphasized (cf. ex. (172)) or because a new A is introduced or stands in opposition to a previous A (cf. ex. (170)). However, many other sentences do not seem to have a focalized A whatsoever, even though the A-argument is marked with le. In other words, emphasis/focus may be the motivation of the occurrence of le when a new A that is different from the previous subject is introduced; in other instances, emphasis/focus is clearly not the decisive factor.

4.2.1.2 Syntactic restrictions Kachru and Pandharipande (1979; followed by Riccardi 2003: 557) offer an alternative explanation based on syntax for le marking the A of imperfective verb constructions. Their hypothesis is easily refuted regarding the attested examples. They claim that le is the marker of all imperfective verb forms, i.e., perfective, future and subjunctive forms. In contrast to what they claim, however, simple present tenses may also take A marked with le (cf. ex. (161)). Furthermore, most examples in the data are present tense constructions. Although le occasionally appears in combination with future or subjunctive forms, this combination is by no means obligatory. Combining a future or subjunctive form with an A marked with le is a matter of choice rather than obligatory. Similarly, Abadie (1974) argues that le never occurs with progressives; however, it is not difficult to find examples where le does occur as the marker of A of a continuous verb (cf. ex. (163)). Informed by the Tibeto-Burman ergative pattern, Abadie further suggests that the presence of le may indicate a greater volitionality of A. However, convincing evidence for this opinion is not found in the texts.

4.2.1.3 Disambiguation hypothesis Abadie (1974) examines the disambiguating or distinguishing functions of case markers. She suggests that A can be marked with le when it is impossible for the hearer to identify the agent of a clause. The postposition then functions as a disambiguating suffix. This idea is similar to the already discussed focalization function of le, particularly the instances when le is used to introduce a different A. The disambiguation hypothesis has been further explored and extended by Verma (1976) and later by Li (2007). Verma (1976) restricts le-marking to focaliza-

162   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

tion contexts but at the same time argues that every inanimate A is obligatorily marked with le. In a markedness-based framework, an inanimate A is atypical, and according to Verma, le therefore functions as a distinguishing device only to identify an otherwise unrecognizable (due to its inanimate nature) A. This view on DSM in Nepali is related to a common view on DOM, in which an atypical (hence functionally marked) O also needs to be formally marked (Aissen 2003, Section  1.1.3.2). Bickel (2011: 406), following Clark (1963) and Pokharel (1998), endorses this analysis and argues that “the odds for this {S, A}-status decrease if the A is abstract or inanimate or non-topical; in all these cases, A arguments are more likely to be projected into an ergative {A}-relation even in the nonpast”. The assertion that non-topical arguments tend to be marked with le is somewhat contradictory to the view that le-marked arguments express focalization, given that there is a continuum between focal and topical arguments (Dik 1989: 266, who defines topic broadly as “the entity of a discourse”). However, Bickel seems to refer to a narrower definition of topicality that excludes focus. Abstract A’s indeed occur regularly with le, yet there may be another explanation for this observation that is in line with Hutt and Subedi (1999)’s situation (i): “if the sentence says that it is part of the natural order of things for the subject to perform the [action expressed in the, SV] verb, and therefore states that this is a role that is specific to the subject”. For instance, ex. (174) from Bickel (2011) is non-perfective, but constructions such as these generally occur with le added to the inanimate A. (174) dhumrapān=le aru=lāī smoking=erg other=obj ‘Smoking harms others.’

kharab harm

gar-ch-a do-prs-3sg

A similar instance is found in Verma (1976: 276); see ex. (175): (175)

curut=le dhit cigarette=erg appetite ‘Cigarettes kill appetite.’

mār-ch-a kill-prs-3sg

However, the nature of the expression in ex. (174) and (175) is such that it might also be analyzed as expressing a general truth, and this condition has been used to explain the presence of le (cf. Hutt and Subedi 1999). Thus, A may be marked because it performs “the natural order of things”, not because it is abstract or inanimate. Non-topical and, to a certain extent, abstract concepts are ‘interpretable’ in the sense that much depends on the context and the speaker to decide whether s/he wishes to interpret or convey an argument as being focused, emphasized

Reanalysis and extension of the postposition le   

   163

or fully abstract. Inanimates, however, form an undisputable referential category and thus are likely to be marked in a consistent manner. However, Abadie (1974) provides examples of inanimate A’s that do not take le, such as yo kathā bhan-da+ch-u ‘this story says’; similar constructions can also be found in other sources, e.g.: (176) sireṭo muṭu cheḍ-lā bhane jasto gar-th-yo wind heart pierce-fut.3sg quot if do-iprf-3sg ‘The wind blew (acted) as if it would pierce the heart.’ (Acharya 1991: 191) (177) santān vinā svarga=ko bāṭo chek-in-ch-a bhanne children without heaven=gen way bar-pass-prs-3sg quot hindū dharma jān-os hindu belief/rule know-sbjv.3sg ‘May the Hindu belief/rule, saying that the way to heaven is barred to one if he does not have children, know it!’ (Acharya 1991: 192) On the other hand, counterexamples in which A is animate but marked with le are abundant; for instance, consider ex. (161)–(168) and the following one. (178) mero sāthi=le momo khā-i-rahe-ch-a my friend=erg momo eat-lnk-prog-prs-3sg ‘My friend is eating momo’s.’ Some informants constructed this with le and some without le, even though ‘my friend’ is obviously not inanimate.

4.2.1.4 Stage- vs. individual-level predicates A new hypothesis has recently been advanced by Butt and Poudel (2007). The authors attribute the appearance of le to a conceptual distinction between stagelevel and individual-level expressions. It had been established earlier that selection of the copula is dependent on this difference. Nepali has two forms of the verb ‘to be’: ho is used for “a lasting/inherent property of a referent” (Butt and Poudel 2007: 5) and constitutes the individual level; conversely, chV expresses unique states limited in time and place. In Butt and Poudel’s words, this expression is “a property of a referent that holds for a slice of that referent’s spatio-temporal existence”, i.e., looked upon as if they were performed on a stage (hence stagelevel). This verbal distinction is extrapolated by Butt and Poudel to the distribution pattern of le. Imperfectives with le are considered individual-level expres-

164   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

sions, whereas the A-argument of a stage-level expression is said to be normally indicated without le; see the following examples from Butt and Poudel (2007: 7): (179) cālak=le gāṛi calāu-ch-a driver=erg car drive-prs-3sg ‘The driver drives the vehicles.’ or: ‘A driver drives a vehicle.’ (180) guru gāṛi calāu-ch-a teacher car drive-prs.3sg ‘The teacher drives the car [today].’ Butt and Poudel’s account focuses on the instantiations of le in a sentence where “it is part of the natural order of things for the subject to perform the verb, and therefore states that this is a role that is specific to the subject” (cf. Hutt and Subedi 1999: 116). Indeed, it is natural for a driver to drive cars. “Kind/generic NP’s” are considered typical instantiations of the individual-level and should always occur with le marking. Butt and Poudel further argue that “[i]n the past tense, the distinction collapses, as the past tense renders everything into a stagelevel predication” (Butt and Poudel 2007: 9). Thus, according to Butt and Poudel, every past tense construction is necessarily an expression on a stage level, and general properties of an A-argument (the individual level) are always expressed with a non-past tense. However, an A in a perfective construction always happens to take the postposition, which contradicts Butt and Poudel’s claim that stagelevel predicates never display a marked A. There does not seem to be any solid reason why le would indicate the individual level in the imperfective and the stage level in the perfective. On the other hand, Butt and Poudel (2007: 9) correctly observe that habitual expressions should “not be confused with individuallevel predication”. Accordingly, they claim that habitual expressions normally do not occur with a le-marked A. The stage- vs. individual-level parameter may be relatively straightforward with respect to constructed examples, such as those cited by Butt and Poudel (2007), but with respect to longer narratives, it is more difficult to explain the odd occurrence of le on the basis of this parameter. In some examples, the content of the predicate clearly refers to unique actions that are certainly not the usual behavior or condition of the subjects (cf. ex. (163) and the examples below). Specifically, a le-marked A often occurs in combination with verbs meaning ‘to say’ or ‘to do’, which are difficult to interpret as individual-level predicates or typical actions. Of the following examples, ex. (183) is particularly interesting because dinthyo is an imperfective verb form expressing a habitual action in the past. Butt and Poudel (2007) claim that this verb does not normally occur with a le-marked

Reanalysis and extension of the postposition le   

   165

A. In ex. (184), the men referred to are workers, not professional singers, despite the implication of the latter by the use of the postposition. (181) rājā=le sodh-e han yas=le pheri ke bhan-dai+ch-e king=erg ask-pst.3sg q she=erg again what say-cont+prs-3sg.f ‘The king asked: What is she saying?’ (Thapa 2001: 10) (182) āphu=le na-bok-era kas=le bok-i-din-ch-a? oneself=erg neg-carry-cvb who=erg carry-lnk-give-prs-3sg ‘If I don’t carry it myself, who will carry it?’ (Hutt 1997: 67) (183) bhaiṃsī=le tyām-tyām=mā dūdh din-th-yo buffalo=erg regularly=loc milk give-pst-3sg ‘The buffalo used to give milk regularly.’ (Hutt 1997: 70) (184) kasai=le dāiṃ+gar-ne belā=mā git gāuṃ-ch-an some=erg threshing+do-inf time=loc song sing-prs-3pl ‘Some sing at the time of treshing.’ (Hale 1973: 39) Although Butt and Poudel do not include habituals in their definition of an individual-level predicate and not all habituals are indicated with le, it is clear from the examples that le does occur in sentences with a progressive tense.⁷

4.2.2 Perfective aspect expressed by le While the focus/emphasis hypothesis seems particularly useful for interpreting many occurrences of le, the hypothesis cannot explain each and every occurrence of le in our data. Moreover, if one would rely on the rather vague notion of focus/emphasis as the only remaining explanation for the postposition, this

7 As an illustration of the frequency of the le-marker in combination with an imperfective verb form: from 8 different short stories, 270 finite imperfective verb constructions, transitive and intransitive, were analyzed. In 52 of them, all transitive, le marked A. It is clear that the le marking combined with imperfectives is certainly not a general pattern, and imperfective constructions without a le-marked argument are far more common. The main part of verbs with a le-marked A are in the simple present (26), which is as expected, because the simple present is the most frequent of the imperfectives in narrative literature. 11 verbs with a marked le are in a continuous tense, 4 in the imperfect, 4 in the present subjunctive and 7 in the future.

166   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

would entail that the explanatory power of the focus/emphasis hypothesis would be reduced considerably. On the other hand, Butt and Poudel (2007)’s account is remarkable in that they essentially transfer a property of a verb (i.e., the possibility of indicating whether an expression is on a stage level or an individual level) to an argument. Although it has been shown above that this property is not always discernable in corpus examples, the idea that le expresses a semantic feature normally attributed to the verb rather than the construction is worthy of further exploration. The normal use of le being to mark A of a perfective, I suggest that the optional use of le adds a sense of perfectivity, or completion, to the action, even though the verb is not in a perfective form (cf. Tchekhoff 1978: 160). This sense of perfectivity is related to the telicity of the action expressed by the verb, telicity being one of the properties of semantic transitivity (Hopper and Thompson 1980). In traditional linguistics, the perfective aspect of the verb is defined as indicating a completed action; it represents “a situation as a single whole”, denoting “a beginning, middle, and end” (Comrie 1976: 17–18). As an extension of this interpretation, the perfective designates a state of affairs that is ‘certain’ or ‘factual’ because the action is completed and irreversible. On this view, le is used to indicate a telic aspect whenever it is impossible for the verb to be in a perfective tense form. Note that tense and aspect in Indo-Aryan in general are closely intertwined and connected with the use of ergative marking (cf. Davison 2002, Section 2.4.2.3). Diachronically, the meaning of le undergoes reanalysis (cf. Harris and Campbell 1995) in the sense that the postposition was originally used as the indicator of A in a perfective construction, i.e., as an postposition of the ergative case, but when used in combination with an imperfective verb form, the meaning of the postposition le is reanalyzed and extended to indicating a telic aspect, without losing its ergative meaning of exclusively marking A and not S. In the following example, the telic aspect is clearly conveyed by the le-marking: (185) timī=le tyo musā=lāī mār-i-din-ch-au bhane ma bhāt you=erg that mouse=obj kill-lnk-give-prs-2sg if I food khā-ne+ch-u eat-fut+prs-1sg ‘If you kill the mouse, then I will eat.’ (Thapa 2001: 7) While both finite verbs in ex. (185) are imperfective, it is quite clear that māridinchau ‘you kill’ is supposed to be completed before, and is actually a condition for, khānechu ‘I will eat’. In accordance with the aforementioned hypothesis, I surmise that the examples should be interpreted as actions perceived as

Reanalysis and extension of the postposition le   

   167

complete or as established “facts” in the mind of the speaker, notwithstanding the fact that all examples invariably refer to the present or the future. For instance, the speaker conceives of the stitching in ex. (186) as already complete and expresses her amazement that the action has not yet been performed. (186) tapāīṃ=ko hajām=le mero ghāu kina you.h=gen barber=erg my wound why kāṭ-i-diṃ-dai-na stitch-lnk-give-prs-neg.3sg ‘Why doesn’t your barber stitch my wound?’ (Thapa 2001: 6) In most cases, imperfectives in which A is marked with le refer to repeated actions, but they are always finished in the present. Compare ex. (187) and (188), both containing marked A and referring to actions that are completed, with ex. (189), in which A is unmarked as if the action can be endlessly repeated, up to and including the present. There is no endpoint implied. (187) dinhauṃ ṭunṭunī=le tyas=lāī praṇām gar-th-ī. […] ab day.pl bird[f]=erg she=obj greeting do-iprf-f.3sg now tinī-harū āṃkhā band gar-era bas-dai-nan. he-pl eye close do-cvb sit-prs-neg.3pl ‘[there were] days when the bird was greeting her. […] Now they don’t sit with their eyes closed [anymore].’ (Thapa 2001: 5) (188) ghar=mā pani tyahī dhan ch-a bhanera yas=le house=loc now that wealth be.prs-3sg quot she=erg bhan-dai+ch-e say-cont+prs-3f.sg ‘“That wealth is now in the house”, she is saying.’ (Thapa 2001: 10) (189) jyotiṣi-hāru devīramaṇa=lāī sallāha din-th-e astrologer-pl D.=obj advice give-iprf-3pl ‘Astrologers were offering advice to Deviramana.’ (Acharya 1991: 191) An obvious counterargument to the view proposed here is that not all repeated actions with an end point in the past have an A marked with le. However, as was argued earlier, le is by no means obligatory. Using le is optional; that is, it is used if a speaker wishes to emphasize the completion of an action. In the aforementioned examples, the speakers apparently considered le to be necessary, thus

168   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

emphasizing the certainty and wholeness of the actions. Note that le also remains to be associated with transitive verbs in its function of ergative marker. In addition, when used with future and subjunctive verb forms, le adds the meaning of irreversibility and lack of choice to the expression. A le-marked A often occurs in rhetorical questions in which the speaker already knows the answer before posing the question. Either the speaker has no doubt about the answer or s/ he wants to convey this impression, as for instance in ex. (190) and (191): (190) kas=le timī=lāī birsa-na sak-ch-a? who=erg you=obj forget-inf can-prs-3sg ‘Who can [possibly] forget you?’ (Hutt 1997: 62) (191) kina hāmī=lāī kasai=le samjh-os? why we=obj someone=erg remember-sbjv.3sg ‘Why would anyone remember us?’ (Hutt 1997: 62) In ex. (191), the context is such that a woman is angry with a man because he appears to have forgotten her. In other words, she is convinced that there is no reason for anyone to remember her and her family, and she is denying the existence of such a reason before he can provide any arguments to convince her otherwise. In ex. (190), the man wants the woman to firmly believe that he can never forget her. Both speakers use a question, but by using le they leave no room for another than rhetorical interpretation of their question; in other words, they are already presupposing the answer. The future tense constructions in the following examples express the same certainty. (192) ṭunṭunī=lāī nai khā-e-ṃ bhanera rājā=le soc-ne+ch-an bird=obj emph eat-pst-1sg quot king=erg think-fut+prs-3sg. ‘The king will (certainly) think “I ate the bird.”’ (Thapa 2001: 11) (193) tarsā-eko ra na-tarsā-eko hajūra=le thāhā terrify-prf.ptcp or neg-terrify-prf.ptcp you.h=erg knowledge pā-i-bakse-lā! get-lnk-royal.h-fut.3sg ‘Terrified or not terrified, you will (certainly) find out.’ (Hutt 1997: 52) The extension of the telic aspect can be applied to a great number of examples. Moreover, the hypothesis advanced here is in line with some of the other accounts discussed above. First, it is compatible with the focus/emphasis account of the descriptive grammarians of Nepali (Clark 1963; Matthews 1984; Hutt and Subedi

Reanalysis and extension of the postposition le   

   169

1999), which was shown to hold for many instantiations. The occurrence of le is demonstrably linked to extra emphasis in the expression but le also occurs when the completion of the action is emphasized. The emphasis is then not on the subject but on the action that is conceived of as complete in the mind of the speaker. Secondly, Butt and Poudel’s division of unmarked stage-level predicates vs. le-marked individual-level predicates can also be integrated in the present account. The postposition le can be used to express an action on an individual level because that kind of action is, in a sense, “tense-less”, i.e. the action has already been completed at least once in the past. Conversely, actions on a stage level expressed in an imperfective verb form are often not completed (e.g., the teacher is driving the car right now), therefore A tends to remain unmarked. The perfectivity hypothesis avoids the contradiction that arises from the observation that le is used as a marker of A of a perfective stage-level predicate, although on Butt and Poudel’s account, le-marking is normally avoided on stage level. But if le is analyzed as indicating telicity, then le used with the A of a perfective verb form is only natural. The action expressed by an imperfective verb form may be on the individual level, but the crucial point is that the predicate refers to a completed action, or an action conceived of as such. In the expression of general truths, time does not matter. The remaining question is why the reanalysis and extension of le happened only in Nepali and not in other Indo-Aryan languages. Possibly, the extension of le is related to the A/S agreement one finds in Nepali. Similar to what has been observed for Asamiya, the strict relation between a perfective verb form and the ergative case marker may have been weakened from the moment the perfective verb displays person agreement instead of participial gender/number agreement. Thus, the space has been provided for the ergative marker either to spread to other tense constructions, or to disappear (as in Bangla). According to Wallace (1982: 166), le spread from the perfective to other tenses from the 18th century onward. Wallace offers examples of the earliest spread of le that are in accordance with the above account of the semantics of the postposition: le indicates the telicity and certainty of a specific expression. The following examples pose no problems for this account: the speaker wishes to express an indisputable fact. (194) kaliñga deśa=ko tyo rājā=kana sabai=le māṃ-dai+ch-an Kalinga land=gen he king=obj⁸ all=erg consider-cont+prs-3pl ‘Everyone knows that he is king of Kalinga.’

8 kana is the old suffix for the O. Nowadays it is still used as a respectful variant of lāī (cf. Turnbull 1982 [1923]: 12).

170   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

(195) mai=le huṃkāra gar-ā-uṃlā I=erg command do-caus-fut.m.sg ‘I will have you do my command.’ The spread of the postposition le in Nepali is of a different nature than the ergative marker -e in Asamiya. The use of the ergative marker -e in Asamiya is syntactically obligatory with any A, whereas the occurrence of the Nepali marker le in imperfective constructions is determined by semantic factors, in particular the perfectivity of the action. Syntactically, the postposition le in Nepali shows more similarities with the Hindi postposition ne, which is restricted to perfective constructions, than to the Asamiya ergative marker -e.

4.3 Language contact The extension of the use of le may have been influenced by language contact. Nepali is spoken in an environment in which there has been extensive contact with languages from other families, first and foremost Tibeto-Burman languages. Inhabitants of Nepal are often bilingual in Nepali and a Tibeto-Burman language such as Newari or one of the many other Tibeto-Burman languages spoken throughout the country. It is plausible that the ergative marking in Nepali has spread to imperfective constructions through the bilingual language use of Tibeto-Burman speakers – a hypothesis which seems to be confirmed by evidence from the Shina language. There are several regional variants of Newari. Because Nepali is now the official language of administration and media, the use of Tibeto-Burman dialects is not encouraged by the government or the media. Newari, like Tibetan, displays nominal ergativity (an ergative case) without verbal ergativity (O-agreement) (cf. Tournadre 1996: 18; Genetti 2007: 308), see the following example from Dolakha Newar (Genetti 2007: 309): (196) jin galti yet-ki I.erg mistake do-pst.1sg ‘I made a mistake.’ In Dolakha Newar, a dialect of Newari spoken outside the Kathmandu valley (cf. Genetti 2007: 1), every A is marked with an ergative suffix. However, in the Newari variant spoken in the Kathmandu valley, the ergative marking is obligatory with perfectives. With other tenses, in particular progressive ones, its use is optional (Genetti 1988: 30).

Language contact   

   171

Because there is no verbal ergativity, agreement is always with the subject in Dolakha Newar (cf. Genetti 2007: 308). Note, however, that just like in Asamiya, third person past forms of the verb may take a different ending depending on whether the verb is transitive or intransitive. According to Genetti (2007: 107), “[t]he suffix is -a when the verb is intransitive and -ju when the verb is transitive. Other differences are found in negative, imperative, prohibitive and optative forms”.⁹ There are other exceptions on the subject agreement pattern in Dolakha Newar; for instance, the verb may be marked for the third person while A is a first person. This deviation of the expected syntactic pattern is generally attributed to the notion of “control”; in particular, “the subject’s lack of control over the events denoted in the clause” (cf. Genetti 2007: 310), which is reminiscent of an impersonal experiencer construction (cf. Malchukov 2008, Section 2.4.3). In those exceptional cases, the finite verb does not agree with any other argument in the sentence but simply lacks agreement altogether. In spoken Nepali, number agreement is frequently avoided, and Genetti (2007: 175, 1999) attributes the absence of agreement in Dolakha Newar to the influence of Nepali. This is a plausible hypothesis; however, semantic notions such as control do have an influence on the agreement pattern in other Tibeto-Burman languages as well (cf. also for Tibetan: Tournadre 1996). Because of the long period of contact, mutual influence between Nepali and the Newari dialects is fairly obvious. However, the extent to which the alignment pattern of both languages has been influenced by this contact situation remains unknown. The influence may have gone in either direction. For instance, Kathmandu Newari may have lost the ergative marking with imperfective verbs as a consequence of language contact with Nepali, but it is also possible, and equally likely, that Nepali has extended the ergative le-marking to imperfective verb constructions under the influence of Newari. Ergative marking proves to be quite consistent in Newari, in spite of some exceptional patterns, and bilingual speakers must switch between Nepali imperfective constructions with an unmarked A and Newari imperfective constructions with a marked A. Note that other Pahari languages such as Kumaoni and Gahrwali, spoken more toward the southwest,

9 In Kathmandu Newar, a similar phenomenon is attested to an even greater extent. Hargreaves (2005) distinguishes the “conjunct” and “disjunct” conjugations in Kathmandu Newar, which are not only determined by the transitivity of the verb, but also by “agency” and “intentionality”. This ‘split’ pattern in conjugation seems, however, to be more closely related to evidentiality than to ergativity. It appears to be a Tibeto-Burman phenomenon as it also occurs in other Tibeto-Burman languages, as, for instance in Lhasa Tibetan (DeLancey 1985, 1986).

172   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

do not display a marking of A with an imperfective finite verb. An Indo-Aryan language displaying this extension is Eastern IA Asamiya, which is also spoken in an area where Tibeto-Burman languages are also common. The ergative -e marking in Asamiya occurs only in this Eastern language, not in Bangla or Oriya, which are in no contact with Tibeto-Burman languages. The Northwestern language Shina is another example of an Indo-Aryan language which has evolved in a bilingual setting with a Tibeto-Burman language. It is remarkable that Shina shows similar features to Nepali, though it is spoken much more westwards in the Himalayas. These features include ergative marking in imperfective constructions, and a perfectly accusative pattern of verb agreement. Shina is a name that denotes a group of dialects of which four variants have been studied so far, Kohistani, Gilgiti, Guresi, and Drasi (cf. Bailey 1924; Strand 1973; Bashir 2003: 878; Schmidt 2004; Schmidt and Kohistani 2008). Structure-wise, Shina is related to Kashmiri. It has been established that Shina is an IA language (cf. Masica 1991: 462), but it is spoken on the border of the IA language family and deviates in many respects from the better known IA languages. Some dialects of Shina display archaic IA features (Guresi and Gilgiti), while the innovations found in the other dialects obscure the IA genetic relationship (cf. Schmidt and Kohistani 2008: 3). With regard to alignment, Shina is unique, and the different dialects in Shina display minor differences in alignment patterns. Gilgiti Shina (Bashir 2003) is the best known variety of Shina, and more recently, Kohistani Shina has also been the subject of renewed investigation (cf. Schmidt and Kohistani 2008). Primarily, in all dialects of Shina, the noun, pronoun and adjective have two inflectional cases: the unmarked or nominative case and the oblique. As was pointed out by Schmidt and Kohistani (2008: 51), Kohistani and Guresi Shina possess two ways to mark A. The ending -s(a) is used for the “Ag.-I” (Agent-Imperfective), or the first ergative case form (ex. (197)), while there is a second ending -e/-i, which forms the “Ag.-P” (Agent-Perfective), or the second ergative case form (ex. (198)). The ending of Ag.-I is added to A, noun or pronoun when the verb is imperfective; the ending Ag.-P is added to the transitive subjects of perfective. In Gilgiti Shina, -s(a) is the only ergative marking. (197) be-s jo th-ooṇ-as kapar-y-o-gi? we-erg what do-1pl-aux.prs potsherd-pl-obj-with ‘What are we to do with potsherds?’ (Schmidt et al. 2008: 71) (198) ich-i se-ṇo gooz-a uch-y-ā-o bear-erg he-obj.pl home-obl take-caus-prf.m.sg-3 ‘The bear took them home.’ (Schmidt et al. 2008: 82)

Conclusion: alignment in Nepali   

   173

Since the first linguistic accounts, it has been suggested that Ag.-I. -s(a) has been borrowed from Tibetan (cf. Bailey 1924: 211; Hook and Koul 2004) because the marking of A in imperfective verb constructions is unusual in Western and Central IA, yet similar to Northern languages such as Nepali. Second, an ending on -s is not a frequent form of marking A in the neighboring IA languages, while it acts as the ending of the ergative form in Tibetan languages (cf. Bailey 1924: 11, qtd in Schmidt and Kohistani 2008: 51). The marking of A of an imperfective verb in Kohistani Shina is therefore quite exceptional. The marking of A of a perfective verb, on the other hand, is a feature often attested to in IA. The ending Ag.-P, -e/-i in Kohistani Shina may be considered as a kind of vestige of an old oblique form. Contrary to -s, -e/-i is a sound common to IA A-markings. In sum, the marking of A with a past tense verb is a regular feature of Western IA, while the marking of A with an imperfective seems to have been borrowed from the surrounding Tibetan languages into Kohistani Shina. In a parallel fashion, it is quite plausible that the ergative marking in Nepali and Asamiya has spread as well to imperfective tense constructions under influence of the bilingual language use of Tibeto-Burman speakers. Both Newari and Nepali do not show verbal ergativity. Whereas this is a common feature of the Tibeto-Burman languages, it is rather exceptional for Indo-Aryan. Nepali shares the kind of person conjugation of the verb with Eastern IA. However, the copula in Nepali is a more independent entity than the copula in Asamiya, which is particularly clear in the tenses with a perfect aspect. Compare, e.g., the Nepali present perfect gar-eko+chu and its shorter form, the second perfect gar-e-chu ‘I have done’, which is (in formal language) conjugated for gender, number and person, with the Asamiya perfect kar-ich-e ‘I have done’, which only conjugates for person (cf. Section 3.1.4). In the Eastern IA languages in general, agreement is also consistent with S/A. Therefore, it is realistic to assume that Nepali has undergone the same evolution as Eastern IA, in which – due to the system of person agreement – agreement developed in such a way so as to occur consistently with A/S. Again, there is a similarity with Shina. All verbs in Kohistani and Gilgiti Shina agree with the subject, irrespective of whether the subject is in the nominative case or the ergative case.

4.4 Conclusion: alignment in Nepali Nepali displays an alignment pattern that maintains the middle ground between the Eastern and Central IA languages. First, as in Asamiya, agreement in Nepali is with A/S. However, in contrast to the person agreement in Asamiya, Nepali displays gender, number and person agreement. Gender/number agreement is

174   

   Northern Indo-Aryan: Nepali

expressed on the copula and on some (third-person) forms of the tenses without a copula, but in colloquial language, it often appears to be neglected.¹⁰ The participial form, on which most of the verb tenses are based, is much more distinguishable in Nepali than it is in Asamiya; in particular, in the tense/aspect forms constructed with the perfect participle on -e(ko) and the present participle on -dai. The overt combination of a participle and a copula in Nepali is similar to the verb formation in Central IA. As in Hindi, the A of a perfective verb is always marked with an ergative particle in Nepali, the postposition le. The marking with le is similar to the ergative pattern in Hindi because it is primarily restricted to perfective verb constructions. In Hindi, this restriction must be observed in all circumstances, whereas in Nepali, the use of le is freer, and under certain circumstances, le in Nepali can mark the A of an imperfective verb. However, in contrast to the ergative marker -e in Asamiya, Nepali le is clearly related to the perfectivity of the construction. This is demonstrated by the fact that le only occurs in constructions in which there is a connotation that the action has ended, or is conceived of as such (i.e., entailing an ending). Therefore, the use of le in combination with imperfective constructions is not as structurally regular as in Asamiya; Nepali le occurs only occasionally in such constructions. Another similarity with the Hindi ne is that the Nepali postposition le can be used as the marker of the experiencer in a construction expressing an obligation instead of the objective postposition lāī, although this may be a dialectal preference. Whereas this particular use of ne is much less common in Hindi, it does occur in certain areas around Delhi and Lahore and thus also seems to be a regional variant (cf. Section 6.2.4). The postposition le resembles Asamiya -e in that it can mark the A of nonfinite constructions, viz. converbs, participles, and infinitival verbs. In Hindi, the ergative postposition cannot mark the A of such non-finite verbs. Nepali alignment is therefore somewhere in between these two strong currents of Eastern IA and Central IA. In the next chapter, a geographical leap takes us to Western Indo-Aryan languages, although we focus on the Northern part of the area. Spoken in the outer Western border of the IA language area, it is interesting to see how Western IA is related to Central IA and to examine whether the influences of Central IA have the same effect as in Asamiya and Nepali.

10 I do not mention honorific agreement explicitly in this discussion because honorific agreement in Nepali does not seem to influence the general alignment and is therefore included under person agreement.

5 Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri Kashmiri and the Northwestern IA languages in general have long been considered to belong to a language family other than IA, namely the Dardic family. The Dardic family was supposed to include Kashmiri and many less frequently spoken languages such as Shina, Pashai, Dameli and Kohistani among others (for an overview, see Bashir 2003), all of which are spoken in the mountainous region on the borders of the Indo-Aryan language area, close to Iranian languages. Since Morgenstierne (1961), however, “Dardic” has been reduced to a purely geographical concept, and linguistically, the Dardic languages form several subdivisions of Indo-Aryan (Koul 2003: 898). In this chapter, Kashmiri, the best studied variety of the Northwestern IA languages, is the central language. On a superficial level, Kashmiri and the Dardic languages seem to be very distinct from the Central and Eastern IA languages in terms of phonology and morphosyntax. For instance, the northwestern languages use pronominal suffixes (cf. Section 5.2) and Kashmiri and Poguli in particular display inverse transition. Kashmiri displays a verb second word order (V2), an exception to any Indo-Aryan language. However, in other, less extraordinary ways, Northwestern IA resembles Eastern and Central IA, for instance, in the case pattern and relation between the verb and its arguments. Finally, one should bear in mind that the northwestern languages are spoken on the outskirts of the IA language area, where language contact is of considerable influence. For instance, as has been shown in the previous chapter, Tibeto-Burman influence is noticeable on Shina. Furthermore, the genetic ties with, and areal closeness to, Indo-Iranian may also have played a role in the development of the language. Indian Kashmir is situated in the high north of India, bordering the Himalayas. Kashmiri is spoken by more than 5,600,000 people (Ethnologue 2010). Kashmiri has only recently been taught in primary schools (Koul 2005: 79).¹ The language is in heavy competition with English and Urdu, which are still considered to be of more social importance. Consequently, a high level of bilingualism exists for Kashmiri and Urdu, particularly in the city of Srinagar (in the city of Jammu, the competition is between Hindi and Dogri). According to Koul and Schmidt (1984), there are two main dialects of Kashmiri, which are spoken outside the cities in the valley, Kashtawari and Poguli (Koul 2003: 898). The following Section 5.1 gives an overview of the alignment features of Kashmiri, focusing on the case marking of the core arguments and verb agreement.

1 http://www.kashmirlife.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=25%3Ap ublic-affairs&id=519%3Aalien-mother-&Itemid=165

176   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

Section 5.2 discusses the phenomenon of “pronominal suffixes” in Western IA. Starting with the pattern of suffixes in Kashmiri, a comparison is drawn with other languages in the region. Section 5.3 examines Kashmiri and Marathi, two languages in which the alignment patterns of second person pronouns are distinctly different from the alignment patterns of other personal pronouns. Finally, Section 5.4 summarizes the Kashmiri characteristics and embeds them within a broader overview of the non-IA languages in the region.

5.1 Kashmiri: description 5.1.1 Case marking in Kashmiri Kashmiri has an inflectional case marking system that distinguishes four inflectional cases: nominative, objective, ergative and ablative (cf. Sommer 1997; Koul and Wali 2006).² The nouns are further declined in number and gender, cf. Table 5.1.

nom erg obj abl

m.sg

m.pl

f.sg

f.pl

– an/palat. as/is i

– av an av

– i/an i i

– av an av

Table 5.1 Case endings in Kashmiri³

The nominative in Kashmiri is the unmarked case, without an additional ending. Nominative plurals of masculine and feminine forms are irregular, and are formed in various ways. Most masculine nouns do not have a distinct plural form.

2 These cases have been given different names in the literature. For instance ergative is referred to as “agent” in Grierson (1911), and the objective case is most commonly denoted as “dative”. The terminology preferred here is in line with the other IA languages and is discussed in Chapter 2. 3 Kashmiri today is predominantly written in Arabic script (occasionally also in Devanagari). The vowel system of Kashmiri is more extensive than that of the other Indo-Aryan languages discussed. I choose to follow a common, simplified transcription of the vowels, i.e., the high vowels i and u, the lower high vowels ī and ū, mid vowels e/e:, ǝ/ǝ: and o/o:, lower mid a, and low central ā (cf. Koul 2003: 900). For consonants, I use the IA transcription. A sound which has undergone palatalization is indicated by y, e.g., myǝ:l ‘fathers’.

Kashmiri: description   

   177

If they do, the plural is formed by a change of vowel or a palatalization, or a combination of both, e.g., mo:l ‘father’, myǝ:l ‘fathers’. For these words, the ergative singular also takes the palatalized form, which implies that the nominative masculine plural form is syncretic with the ergative masculine singular form. The objective form of these particular nouns is -is instead of -as (cf. Wali & Koul 1997: 151). Feminine plurals often take the ending -i, but they can also be formed by the same mechanisms of the masculine plural.⁴ In addition to these four inflectional cases (cf. Masica’s layer I), other case functions, such as instrumental, possessive and locative, are expressed by means of postpositions added to the ablative or objective form of the nouns. This range of cases is similar to the wide range of postpositional marking in other IA languages (cf. Masica’s layer II and III). Pronouns follow the same inflectional pattern. The first two persons are proper personal pronouns; third person pronouns are anaphorically extended demonstrative pronouns.⁵

nom

erg

obj

abl

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

m.sg

m.pl

f.sg

f.pl

bi tsi yi me tse yemy me tse yemis me tse yemi

ǝsy tohy yim asi tahi yimav asi tahi yiman asi tahi yimav

bi tsi yi me tse yemi me tse yemis me tse yemi

ǝsy tohy yim asi tahi yimav asi tahi yiman asi tahi yimav

Table 5.2 Pronouns in Kashmiri (cf. Koul and Wali 2006: 51–52)

As already noted by Kachru and Pandharipande (1979: 202), the first and second pronominal ergative form is the same as the objective case form, while the third person takes a specific ergative case form. The authors claim that speech act

4 A detailed overview of this complex matter is found in Koul and Wali (2006: 29–31) and Shackle (1984). 5 There are three types of pronouns for the third person: proximate, remote within sight, and remote out of sight. For the sake of brevity, only the forms of the proximate pronoun are included in Table 5.2.

178   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

participants (SAP) do not have an ergative case in Kashmiri. However, the first and second person ablative form is the same as the objective and ergative form as well, so it seems more adequate to maintain a formal opposition between an unmarked nominative case form and all other ‘oblique’ case forms for the SAP, rather than the absence of an ergative case. The marking of the subject in Kashmiri is consistent. In the imperfective, A and S are nominative; in the perfective, A takes the ergative case form, while S is in the nominative.⁶ The marking of O is more complex. Its position on the referential hierarchy plays a role, as in Asamiya and Nepali, but in Kashmiri the importance of the hierarchy is extended to the relation between A and O. Differences in the levels on the referential hierarchy between two arguments of a transitive clause lead to the attestation of inverse and direct transitions (cf. Hook and Kaul 1987). The direct transition is the more ‘natural’, or functionally unmarked situation (cf. Comrie 1989: 128), where A is higher on the referential hierarchy than O. In these instances, the marking of O is nominative, as A, cf. tsi in ex. (199) from Hook and Kaul (1987: 52). (199) bi so:za-th tsi I.nom send.fut.1sg-2sg you.nom ‘I will send you there.’

to:r there

In the inverse transition, O is higher on the hierarchy than A, or both O and A are on the same level. For logical reasons, this hierarchy only occurs when both arguments are third person (cf. Hook and Kaul 1987). O is marked in the objective case form in the inverse transition, and the A is marked in the nominative; cf. the following example from Koul and Wali (2006: 117). (200) tsi ch-u-kh me parināv-ān you.nom aux.prs-m-2sg I.obj teach-ptcp.prs ‘You teach me.’ The distinction in case marking between direct and inverse transitions is only applicable in the imperfective (cf. Table 5.3 for an overview). In the perfective constructions, O always takes the nominative case form.

6 As with other IA languages, a number of intransitive verbs exists in Kashmiri that do take an ergative marking on S. These verbs fall in the same class of similar verbs in Hindi, known under various names as unergatives, anticausatives etc. and are discussed in Section 2.4.4, since they are not specific for Kashmiri alone.

Kashmiri: description   

A 1st person A 2nd person A 3rd person

O 1st person

O 2nd person

O 3rd person

Ø⁷ obj obj

nom Ø obj

nom nom obj

   179

Table 5.3 Marking of O in the imperfective construction⁷

Although O is unmarked in the direct transition, it is obligatorily marked on the verb by means of a pronominal suffix whenever it is a pronoun (cf. Section 5.2). Person is one of the features that are part of Silverstein’s referential hierarchies. In the person hierarchy, first and second person are the highest ranked, followed by third pronominal persons and ultimately by nouns. It is clear that in the case marking and agreement pattern in Kashmiri, this particular referential hierarchy plays an important role. In contrast to the other IA languages, in Kashmiri the alignment is determined by the relation between the two core arguments. In other words, the features of the person hierarchy displayed by A and O are ranked against each other, and the alignment is based on, and varies according to, this ranking. One could call this pattern an example of “hierarchical alignment”. This alignment type is not dependent on the semantic role or the syntactic function of the core arguments, but it is fully determined by how these arguments are ranked on the referential hierarchies (Siewierska 2004: 55–56). Hierarchical alignment is cross-linguistically associated with person agreement. Although it is true, however, that the occurrence of the pronominal suffixes in Kashmiri are in part determined by referential hierarchies, it is the case marking that is hierarchically based (cf. Table 5.3). In comparison to the other IA languages, the person hierarchy has a greater influence on the alignment pattern in Kashmiri. In perfective constructions, however, the influence of the hierarchy is restricted, given that O cannot be marked and is necessarily in the nominative case, irrespective of its ranking on the hierarchy. The IO is always marked in the objective, as in the following example from Koul and Wali (2006: 50).⁸

7 In sentences such as, e.g., ‘I see myself in the mirror’ the reflexive is expressed with a noun pān, which means that the reflexive is treated as a third person O, not as a first person pronoun. 8 In certain causative perfective constructions, the IO can take the nominative case, as in, for instance, kūr (‘the girl’) in asi parinǝ:v kūr hisāb (‘we taught the girl math’). In these instances, the verb agrees with the IO. However, the use of an objective case for the IO is also possible here (cf. Hook and Koul 1984b: 105).

180   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

(201) me di-yiv pǝ:ṃsi I.obj give-imp.h money ‘Please give me money.’ If an O that should be marked in the objective case occurs in a ditransitive construction, it may lose its objective marking. As in Nepali, a restriction exists on two objective-marked arguments in one clause. However, this construction rarely occurs (it is implied that there are three animate arguments in one sentence), and if it does, it is considered to be ungrammatical by some speakers (cf. Hook and Kaul 1987: 60). The inverse-direct transition is not only noticeable in the case marking, it also influences the agreement pattern and, in particular, the occurrence of pronominal suffixes (cf. Section 5.2).

5.1.2 Verb agreement in Kashmiri 5.1.2.1 The verb system There are three tenses in Kashmiri: present, past and future. The aspect can be imperfect, perfect or conditional. Kashmiri lacks a subjunctive (Wali and Koul 1997). a. The imperfective: present and future tenses and conditionals The present is a periphrastic tense consisting of a present participle and a copula, which is the verb āsun, meaning ‘to be’. The present participle in Kashmiri is indeclinable and ends on -ān. It is also the indicator of the imperfect aspect. Combined with the verb āsun in a present, past or future form, it expresses a habitual or progressive (Koul and Wali 2006: 86). The future tense may be expressed with a form of the participle (present or perfect), combined with a future copula, but there is also a synthetic future tense. This synthetic future tense consists of the root to which person-marking suffixes are added. In contrast to the conjugated form of āsun used for the present tense, the future does not agree in gender (cf. Bhat 1987). The conditional is formed in the same way as the future tense, i.e., indicated through suffixes added to the root. However, the conditional may also be formed periphrastically, with a present or perfect participle in combination with the copula in the conditional tense. b. The perfective: past tenses and perfects Kashmiri possesses a fully developed past tense and perfect aspect system. Tense and aspect do not merge (as they do in Hindi, cf. Davison 2002). It is the past tense

Kashmiri: description   

   181

that is most often used, while the perfect -mut-participle indicates the perfect aspect (Wali & Koul 1997: 233). Kashmiri has three kinds of past tenses, each of which are expressed with a different formation. Koul and Wali (2006: 86–87) label them proximate past, indefinite past and remote past, following Grierson (1911: 43). The proximate past is used for events that happened recently, the indefinite past for events that happened at an unknown point of time in the past, and the remote past is used for events that happened a long time ago. There is a past verb stem, in which the stem vowel alternates according to the conjugational pattern. Grierson (1911: 42) divides the verbs into three groups of formally different conjugations: 1/ transitive and impersonal verbs, 2/ 64 exceptional intransitives, and 3/ intransitives. The impersonal class of verbs are intransitive verbs behaving as transitives by taking an ergative subject and a neutral agreement form. These unergative verbs, which we also find in other IA languages, are discussed in Section 2.4.4. Group 2, the exceptional intransitives, are intransitive verbs that take, by exception, the same conjugation as the transitive verbs of group 1. However, unlike the impersonal verbs from group 1, they show no other formal feature of transitivity, such as the ergative marking of A. On a semantic level, Wali and Koul (2006: 99) argue that group 2 intransitives are different from group 3 intransitives because the first ones are more “active”. Group 3, then, includes the both semantically and formally intransitive verbs. Grierson (1911) further claims that there are four ways to form the stem of a past tense, irrespective of the type of conjugation: I. the root + palatalization of end consonant (this palatalization may be combined with a change of color of the vowel), II. root + yo:v; III. root + yāv; and IV. root + ey-āv. The different stem forms are assigned to the different conjugations to express the three past tenses:

proximate past indefinite past remote past

I/II

III

-y -yo:v-(y)eyo:v-

-yo:v-yāv-(y)eyāv-

Table 5.4 Grierson’s divisions of conjugational type I, II and III (updated with data from Koul and Wali 2006: 89)

Note that these endings, and the stem, are further modified according to the gender, number and case of the argument they agree with. The perfect aspect is expressed with the perfect participle ending on the inflectional suffix -mut and a form of the verb āsun. The copula may be in the

182   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

present, past or future tense, to form the present perfect, past perfect and future perfect tense, respectively.

5.1.2.2 Imperfective constructions The verb forms expressing present tense or imperfect aspect include the simple present, the future, past and future progressive, and present and future conditional. S and A of these verb forms are generally in the nominative case. The marking of O is accorded to the referential hierarchy and the direct-inverse transition patterns as outlined in Section 5.1.1 (cf. Hook & Kaul 1987: 52). The verb agrees with the nominative subject. Gender agreement is expressed by a vowel alternation in the stem of the verb. Person and number agreement is expressed by suffixes, which are different for the present and future tense. In the present and progressive tenses, the finite verb – the copula – takes no ending when the subject is a lexical NP or a third person pronoun. In Table 5.5, the past and present conjugations of the copula are given. However, when the subject is a first or second pronoun, so-called “pronominal suffixes” are added to the verb. The suffixes are different for number. The same pronominal suffixes also occur in other paradigms (cf. Section 5.2.2). (202) bi ch-u-s kitāb par-ān I.m.nom aux.prs-m-1sg book read-ptcp.prs ‘I am reading a book.’ (203) bi ǝ:si-s kitāb par-ān I.f.nom aux.pst.f-1sg book read-ptcp.prs ‘I was reading a book.’

masculine

feminine

present

sg

pl

sg

pl

1 2 3

chu-s chu-kh chu

chi chi-v chi

cha-s cha-kh cha

chi cha-vi cha

o:su-s o:su-kh o:s

ǝ:sy ǝ:si-vi ǝ:sy

ǝ:si-s ǝ:si-kh ǝ:s

ās-i āsi-vi āsi

past 1 2 3

Table 5.5 Past and present conjugations of the copula ‘to be’ in Kashmiri (Koul 2006: 33, 38)

Kashmiri: description   

   183

Verbs in a future tense agree in person and number with the subject by means of the personal endings from Tabel 5.6 (but see Section 5.2.2).

1 2 3

sg

pl

-i -akh -i

-av -iv -an

Tabel 5.6 Personal endings of the future

The verb endings of the future tense are directly attached to the main verb and not to a copula, as exemplified in ex. (204) with the verb vuch, ‘to see’, which receives the first person plural future ending -av. (204) əsy vuch-av hākī mac ti tso:ri baji we.nom watch-fut.1pl hockey match also four o’clock ‘We will also watch the hockey match at four o’clock.’ (Koul 1985: 225) If the nominative pronominal O is lower in person than A, the verb obligatorily expresses agreement with this argument by means of a pronominal suffix. Ex. (205) (Wali and Koul 200: 116) shows where the pronominal suffix for O is added, while ex. (206) shows where there is no need for a pronominal suffix, since O is nominal. (205) bi ch-u-s-an su I.nom aux.prs-m-1sg-3sg he.nom ‘I am teaching him.’ (206) tsi ch-u-kh bati you.nom aux.prs-m-2sg rice ‘You are eating food.’

parināv-ān teach-ptcp.prs

khev-ān eat-ptcp.prs.

Pronominal subjects and O are easily omitted without causing ambiguity, considering that the marking on the verb indicates the person of both arguments, as exemplified in ex. (207) (Wali and Koul 2006: 116).⁹

9 Note that verb and copula change place in this example. This is due to the V2-rule in Kashmiri, according to which the conjugated verb always occurs at the second place in a sentence.

184   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

(207) parināv-ān ch-ih-an teach-ptcp.prs aux.prs-2sg-3sg ‘You are teaching him’ If the O is nominal, the verb may take the pronominal suffix -n referring to this O, although the referent is not a pronoun. This pronominal suffix is optional, but the O receives a connotation of definiteness when the suffix is present, e.g. (208) (Koul 2006: 68). Interestingly, the suffix -n can refer to the following arguments: a third person pronominal O in the nominative case (ex. (205)); the inanimate O of a future verb (ex. (239)); and a third person animate O (ex. (208)). Furthermore, -n also occurs in the perfective constructions in again other ways (cf. Section 5.1.2.3). (208) bi an-a-n panun I.nom bring-fut.1sg-sg my own ‘I will bring my friend also’

do:s friend

ti also

Aside from nominative O’s, an O in the objective case form can also be marked on the finite verb by means of a pronominal suffix. If O is in the second person, the suffix is obligatory, and the pronoun itself may be overt. First or third pronominal O’s are obligatorily deleted if a suffix is added to the verb. Ex. (209) shows the pronoun as overt, so there is no pronominal suffix on the finite auxiliary, while ex. (210) shows the pronoun as covert, and a pronominal suffix causes a sound alternation in the stem of the auxiliary. Note also the difference with ex. (205), in which A and O have a different hierarchical relation. (209) tsi ch-u-kh you.nom aux.prs-m-2sg ‘You teach me.’ (210) parināv-ān teach-ptcp.prs ‘You teach me.’

me parināv-ān I.obj teach-ptcp.prs

ch-ih-ə:m aux.prs-2sg-1sg

The presence of a pronominal IO can also be indicated on the verb. As with an objective O, a second person IO is always indicated by a pronominal suffix and may be covert, while first and third personal pronouns IO are always deleted when their pronominal suffix is added to the verb. For instance, in ex. (211) and (212), the IO is not overtly expressed, but its person and number is inferable from the pronominal suffix that is added to the finite verb:

Kashmiri: description   

(211)

   185

bi ch-u-s-as kath van-ān I.nom aux.prs-m-1sg-3sg story[m] tell-ptcp.prs ‘I tell him a story.’ (Koul and Wali 2006: 117)

(212) bi soz-u-vi cāy kamr-as+manz I.nom send-fut.1sg-2pl tea room-obj.sg+in ‘I will send tea for you in your room.’ (Koul 1985: 220) In ex. (213) all pronouns are covert. This example also illustrates the order of the suffixes, viz. A-O-IO: (213) soz-ān ch-u-s-an-av send-ptcp.prs aux.prs-m-1sg-3sg-2pl ‘I am sending him to you.’ In Kashmiri, the pronominal suffix cross-referencing to the subject is always closest to the verb, followed by the suffix referring to O. The suffix referring to an IO, if present, always comes last. However, this is by no means the constituent order one finds in every language in the area (as discussed in Section 5.2).

5.1.2.3 Ergative case marking in the perfective In perfective constructions, A is in the ergative case form, and O is in the nominative case form – the same case as S. Contrary to the present tenses, O is never in the objective case. In the past tense, the intransitive verb agrees with its nominative subject for person, gender and number. Agreement in gender is expressed by alternations in the stem vowel of the verb. When S is third person, there is no verb ending. When S is a first or second personal pronoun, the verb takes the same personal endings as the copula verb in the present tense. Ex. (214) and (215) are intransitive verbs in a past tense, agreeing with S. (214) su gav vuny he.nom go.pst.m.sg now ‘He just went to the market.’

bāzar market

186   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

(215) subih-an go:-s bi sə:r-as ¹⁰ morning-obj.pl go.pst.m-1sg I.nom walk-obj ‘In the morning, I went for a walk.’ When the verb is transitive, A takes the ergative case. The finite verb agrees in gender and number with O, which is indicated by alternations in the stem vowel, as in the following examples. (216) ḍakṭar-an dyut zor zi project doctor-erg give.pst.m.sg emphasis[m] that project gatsh-i mukmal sapd-un need-fut.3sg complete make-inf ‘The doctor emphasized that the project should be completed.’ (Koul 2008: 1) (217) me por yi akhbār I.erg read.pst.m.sg this newspaper[m] ‘I read this newspaper.’ (218) yemy līch ciṭh he.erg write.pst.f.sg letter[f] ‘He wrote a letter.’ (219) me pəry akhbār I.erg read.pst.m.pl newspaper[m]pl¹¹ ‘I read newspapers.’ When O is a first or second pronoun, the person and number of the pronoun is obligatorily marked on the verb by a pronominal suffix. The verb of course still agrees in gender and number with O, cf. ex. (220): (220) temi on-u-s bi she.erg bring.pst-m-1sg I.nom ‘She brought me.’

10 Because of the first person singular ending -s, the stem cluster -av- becomes -o-. Sound alternations are extremely common in Kashmiri. 11 Note that akhbār has an invariant plural.

Kashmiri: description   

   187

The transitive past verb thus basically agrees with O, in the form of vowel alternation and the addition of nominative pronominal suffixes.¹² However, when the ergative subject is a pronoun, it can be indicated on the verb. The addition of a pronominal suffix is obligatory for an ergative second person A. First and third person pronominal ergative A’s can also mark the verb with a pronominal suffix and they may be deleted in this case, but the verb marking and the elision are optional and less common. (221) tahi sūz-av-ā yi āfsani kin you.erg.pl send.pst.m.sg-2pl-Q this short story[m] somewhere chāp-in+khə:tri? print-inf.obj+for ‘Did you send this short story anywhere for printing?’ (Koul 1985: 230) (222) tse əni-th¹³ zi mez you.erg.sg bring.pst.m.pl-2sg two tables[m]pl ‘You brought two tables.’ The same kind of agreement pattern and pronominal suffixes applies in tenses with a perfect aspect. The perfect participle ending on -mut and the copula āsun (‘to be’) agree primarily with O. The participle takes over the gender and number, and āsun follows the rules of the past tense. Ex. (223) is intransitive, ex. (224) and (225) are transitive. In these examples, the verb displays no ergative pronominal suffix. Ex. (226) and (227) are transitive constructions with a pronominal subject, and this time there is a pronominal suffix, which refers to A.

12 In “tritransitive” causative constructions with more than two objects, the finite verb seems to prefer agreement with the closest constituent in the nominative case, irrespective of the semantic role this constituent assumes in the clause. For instance, in the following sentences, the finite verb cāvino:v agrees with dad: māji cāvino:v me=athi ko:ri dad mother.erg had given.m.sg I=by girl.obj milk[m] ‘Mother had the milk given to the girl by me.’ cāvinǝ:v agrees with kūr in the following construction: māji cāvinǝ:v me=athi kūr dad mother.erg had given.f.sg I=by girl[f] milk[m]. ‘Mother had the girl given milk by me.’ (cf. Hook and Koul 1984b: 107). 13 The history of this form is as follows: any-th > anyi-th > ǝni-th (Hook p.c.).

188   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

(223) tohy ch-i-v-ā kəśīr-i you.nom.pl aux.prs-m.pl-2pl-q Kashmir[f]-abl ‘Have you gone to Kashmir?’ (Koul 2006: 71)

gə:-mity? go-ptcp.prf.m.pl

(224) me ch-e təm’sinzi sārey kitāb-i pari-matsi I.erg aux.prs-f.pl his all book[f]-pl read-ptcp.prf.f.pl ‘I have read all of his books.’ (Koul 1985: 249) (225) me ch-a yi I.erg aux.prs-f.sg this ‘I have read this book.’

kitāb book[f]

pər-mits read-ptcp.prf.f.sg

(226) tohi ch-u-v-ā yetī panun makān you.erg.pl aux-m.sg-2pl-q here one’s own house[m] banov-mut? make-ptcp.prf.m.sg ‘Have you here constructed your own house?’ (Koul 1985: 349) (227) tohi ch-a-v-ā ti kitāb you.erg.pl aux.prs-f.sg.-2pl-q also book[f] pər-mits? read-ptcp.prf.f.sg ‘Have you also read this book?’ (Koul 1985: 249)

5.2 Pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan 5.2.1 Bound pronouns or agreement markers? Pronominal suffixes in Western IA are known under various names, such as bound pronouns, pronominal clitics, pronominal affixes, (en)clitic pronouns and so forth. Although the term ‘suffix’ sounds perhaps more old fashioned than ‘clitic’, it is an adequate description for Kashmiri. According to Bynon (1989: 57) “clitics retain mobility, whereas affixes have fixed positions within the word”. ‘Clitic’ is a term often used in Romance linguistics, as in an example from Chilean Spanish given by Bynon (1989: 32): le di el libro a María, ‘I am giving the book to Maria’, where le is a clitic referring to María. It is not suffixed, although it does occupy a certain fixed position in the sentence. However, pronominal suffixes in Kashmiri are always added to the verb in a fixed position, occasionally even

Pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan   

   189

causing a phonological merge with the final sound of the verb form. Hence, the term ‘suffix’ seems to be more appropriate in this context than ‘clitic’.¹⁴ In historical typological literature, pronominal suffixation has been considered a stage in the evolution of dependent marking to head marking (cf. Givón 1976; Nichols 1986; Bynon 1989). It is generally accepted that agreement markers originate from pronouns. These pronouns used to be anaphoric, referring to a topicalized lexical NP. The anaphoric pronoun becomes gradually more “bound” to the verb and after turning into a clitic without any anaphoric meaning, it ultimately becomes an affix that is morphologically totally bound to the verb, i.e., a syntactic agreement marker (cf. Lehmann 1982). The overt lexical NP, to which the pronoun had been anaphorically related, is originally topicalized but becomes incorporated into the clause and eventually ends up as the syntactic and semantic argument of the sentence (Givón 1976; Bynon 1989: 31). The two stages of a ‘clitized’ pronoun and a ‘suffixed’ pronoun are not always easily distinguished (cf. Bresnan and Mchombo 1987). The most salient difference between the construction in the languages described by Givón (1976) (Bantu), Bresnan and Mchombo (1986) (Chichewa), and Bynon (1989) (Swabian German), and the pronominal suffix system in Kashmiri is that the suffixes in Kashmiri do not refer to a lexical NP but generally refer to a pronoun in an argument role. The topicalization of the lexical NP does not play a role in Kashmiri because there is no lexical NP involved. The pronominal suffix must always refer to a pronoun. The pronoun and the suffix can occur together, but sometimes, this co-occurrence is prevented by a combination of factors related to the argument role and the referential hierarchy of the arguments. A synchronic view is given by Siewierska (2004: 121–123), who distinguishes three different types of person agreement on the verb, which she calls person “markers”. The first of these are person markers that must always occur in combination with an overt referent. This type of person marker clearly expresses “grammatical agreement”, because it cross-references to the overt core argument. The second type involves the opposite situation in which a person marker does not occur in combination with an overt core argument. In this pattern, the person markers do not seem to be agreement markers because no overt argument exists for cross-referencing. However, this type of person markers might express “ana-

14 This opinion is certainly not universally accepted. Note for instance that Wali and Koul (1994, 2002) use “clitics”. Haig (2008) uses “pronominal clitics” throughout his work on Iranian. Pronominal clitics in Iranian, however, have a more flexible position than pronominal suffixes in Kashmiri.

190   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

phoric agreement” (cf. Bresnan and Mchombo 1986)¹⁵ in the sense that they could refer anaphorically to a nominal argument that is not expressed in the sentence. On that view, person markers are anaphoric pronouns that are “bound” to the verb. Finally, the third type either occurs in combination with overt core arguments or without overt arguments. The Kashmiri pronominal suffixes do not seem to belong to any of these three types. The main reason for this conclusion is that the Kashmiri pronominal suffixes refer, as a rule, to pronominal arguments – although, under certain circumstances, some suffixes do occur referring to an overt, nominal argument. Moreover, some of the Kashmiri pronominal suffixes are predominantly optional, whereas other ones are obligatory, and some only occur when there is no overt argument. In the remainder of this Section 5.2, I will make the terminological distinction between “pronominal suffixes” and “agreement suffixes”. I use the term “pronominal suffixes” when I refer to morphemes that refer exclusively to pronominal arguments. “Pronominal suffixes” are predominantly optional and they are capable of occurring in clusters of different pronominal suffixes. “Pronominal suffixes” come closest to being “bound pronouns”. Conversely, “agreement suffixes” are obligatory, and they can cross-reference to any nominal or pronominal argument. Therefore, “agreement suffixes” are instances of “grammatical agreement”. In spite of this apparently clear-cut distinction, differentiating between pronominal suffixes and agreement suffixes is sometimes merely a terminological issue that does not hold in an empirical study. This is also the case with Kashmiri. For instance, suffixes referring to a first or second person nominative subject of a present tense (e.g., the ones added to the verb āsun in Table 5.5) could be analyzed as agreement suffixes, considering that they are obligatory. It is also possible, though, to regard them as pronominal suffixes, given that they only refer to pronouns. A pronominal suffix referring to a second person ergative subject is obligatory, again overruling the optionality condition of most pronominal suffixes. The suffixes -n/-kh can indicate the number of the inanimate O in the future tenses and the animate O in the past tenses, making it disputable to classify them as purely ‘pronominal’ suffixes. Perhaps because of this complexity, in Kashmiri and other Western IA languages, the occurrence of pronominal suffixes is widely acknowledged and has sparked much of discussion (cf. Hook and Koul 1984; Hook and Kaul 1987; Wali and Koul 1994; Wali and Koul 2002; Butt 2004 amongst others). The fact that the suffixes occur in the northwestern area in particular,

15 The term “anaphoric agreement” is somehow unfortunate. It could be argued that it contains a contradiction: “agreement” presupposes an argument to agree with, while “anaphoric” entails that the person marker only refers to an argument earlier mentioned in the discourse.

Pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan   

   191

and also appear in Iranian languages, has led to the conjecture that pronominal suffixes are an area-bound feature.

5.2.2 Pronominal suffixes in Kashmiri There are three types of pronominal suffixes in Kashmiri, all of which related to the case marking of the pronouns they refer to.¹⁶ The pronominal suffixes referring to an argument in the nominative case are found in Table 5.7. They may cross-reference to 1/ the nominative subject of an imperfective construction, 2/ the nominative O of a perfective construction, and 3/ the nominative S of a perfective construction. These pronominal suffixes are obligatory in all instances. They are very difficult to distinguish from agreement suffixes, particularly because third persons do not have any overt pronominal suffix. As a result, no conclusive observable difference exists between an agreement suffix agreeing with a nominal third person and a pronominal suffix referring to a pronominal third person. In other words, the verb only agrees in gender and number with a third person, nominal or pronominal, and the lack of a nominative pronominal suffix indicates that the form is a third person (recall that pronominal suffixes are obligatory with first and second pronouns). The nominative suffix paradigm is illustrated with the verb āsun in Table 5.5.

1 2 3

sg

pl

s kh /

/ v(i) /

Table 5.7 Nominative pronominal suffixes (Koul and Wali 2006: 113)

The objective suffixes are used to cross-reference to an objective-marked O in an imperfective or to an IO, e.g., (210)–(213).¹⁷

16 For the sake of convenience and tradition (except for Hook and Koul 1984), I will borrow the terminology of the cases for the suffixes, thus referring to ‘nominative’ suffixes, ‘objective’ suffixes and ‘ergative’ suffixes. Of course, these suffixes do not fulfill the role of case markers, nor are they formally related to case forms. They simply cross-reference to arguments in that particular case. 17 These suffixes are commonly referred to as ‘dative’ suffixes. In line with the terminology I use for the cases, I prefer ‘objective’.

192   

1 2 3

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

sg

pl

m y s

/ v(i) kh

Table 5.8 Objective pronominal suffixes (Koul and Wali 2006: 114)

Their use is relatively straightforward. The second person suffixes are obligatory, while the first and third suffixes only occur if the pronoun is not overtly expressed. The overt presence of the pronoun is optional, just like the attachment of the suffix. The third person singular -s suffix, in particular, has a wider range of use than simply referring to O/IO. According to Hook and Kaul (1987), -s can also refer to a dativus commodi that is not overtly expressed, as for instance in the following example (Hook and Kaul 1987: 66): (228) su par-ya-s kitāb he.nom read-fut.3sg-sg book[f] ‘He will read the book to him/her.’¹⁸ The third type of suffixes are ergative. These are used to cross-reference an ergative subject in the perfective. Second person suffixes are obligatory, while first and third person suffixes may be optionally added.

18 This sentence would normally be translated as su pari kitāb tǝmis (Koul, p.c.). Hook (p.c.) pointed out to me that the suffix -s can refer to a wide range of arguments that are not overtly expressed in Kashmiri, such as an (indirect) beneficiary or a non-overt possessor, similar to the use of the pronominal suffix in Siraiki in ex. (246). While Hook and Kaul (1987) refer to this use of -s as a dativus commodi, -s can in fact be used on much more occasions than the ones that traditionally fall within the purview of the dativus commodi. I leave it to further research whether the use of -s is perhaps better described in terms of a dativus ethicus, which expresses a certain degree of emotional involvement. Note that in Eastern IA, in particular in Magahi, the verb can also be completed with a suffix referring to a non-overt argument, which has been called the “Addressee component”, showing involvement of a non-overt argument with respect to the conversational act (cf. Section 3.2.1.3).

Pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan   

1 2 3

sg

pl

m th n

/ v(i) kh

   193

Table 5.9 Ergative pronominal suffixes (Koul and Wali 2006: 116)

In the following example, the suffix -th refers to the ergative second person subject. Note that the verb agrees with O in gender and number, indicated in the stem of the verb. (229) tse əni-th zi you.erg bring.pst.m.pl-2sg two ‘You brought two tables.’

me:z tables[m]pl

In combinations of suffixes, the ergative suffixes directly follow the verb, which agrees with O in gender and number. When the ergative subject is an inanimate third person, -n (sg.)/-kh (pl.) is added at the end. If O is a third person, either pronominal or animate, the number of O is additionally marked at the end of the verb with the same suffixes, i.e. -n/ -kh (adding a meaning of definiteness to O, cf. infra). In ex. (230), the masculine singular of O is indicated in the vowel pattern of the stem on-, while the suffix -v- indicates that the second person ergative A and -n is added to indicate (redundantly) that the O is a pronominal third person: (230) tahi on-iv-on you.erg bring.pst.m.sg-2pl-3sg ‘You brought him here.’

su he.nom

yo:r here

Note that -n is not the expected suffix because that would be a nominative suffix referring to a nominative O of a perfective. However, the third person nominative suffixes are invariably zero suffixes, which is additional evidence of a preference for the ergative suffix to indicate the number and person of the unmarked O in analogy with the pattern of the imperfective constructions. Thus far, the roles of the suffixes have been described as discrete, and they seem to correspond with the case form of the cross-referenced arguments. However, the ergative suffixes form an exception, because they also refer to the unmarked O of an imperfective. As outlined in Section 5.1.1, the O of an imperfective takes the nominative case in a direct transition, i.e., when it is lower on the referential scale than the subject. In these instances, the verb takes an obligatory

194   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

suffix cross-referencing the pronominal nominative O, and this suffix shares its form with the ergative suffixes. (231) bi so:za-th tsi to:r I.nom send.fut.1sg-2sg you.nom there ‘I will send you there’ In the above example, the suffix -th cross-references an unmarked O of an imperfective construction. It may have become clear at this point that the ergative suffix paradigm cross-referencing an unmarked O contradicts the syntactic functions and case forms of the argument. Recall that ergative suffixes can refer to an ergative-marked A and to a nominative O. The conclusion must be that the suffixes are determined neither by the case of the arguments (ergative and nominative), nor by their syntactic function (A and O). Several accounts of this unusual state of affairs have been given in the literature. Hook and Koul (1984) explain it from an argument-distinguishing perspective, which relies on the linguistic principle of economy. They define the ergative suffixes in the negative, i.e., as “anti-absolutive” suffixes. In other words, the suffixes remain related to morphological case, although this time they do not cross-reference to a case form but are ‘in opposition’ with a case form, i.e., the absolutive. According to Hook and Koul, the ergative suffixes always refer to the counterpart of the argument in the absolutive case (1984: 130) and, as such, distinguish between the different arguments. In a perfective construction, the ergative suffix refers to the ergative marked A, and Hook and Koul’s absolutive case here is the unmarked (nominative) O. For the imperfective, it is less clear. The ergative suffix refers to the unmarked (nominative) O, but A is also unmarked nominative. Hook and Koul (1984) regard the nominative A as the “absolutive” case, considering the nominative O as the “anti-absolutive” case to which the suffix refers. It is assumed that the nominative A is “more” absolutive than the nominative O, because the subject role is traditionally associated with the nominative (/absolutive) case. According to Hook (p.c.), the distribution of the pronominal suffixes indicating the ergative and nominative core arguments is “chiasmatic”. By that, he means that the two forms display a paradigmatic distribution that on the surface resembles the form of a cross.¹⁹ In Kashmiri, this kind of distribution applies to

19 Hook (p.c.) draws an interesting parallel with Harauti, in which a similar “chiasmatic”, or inverse, distribution of alignment features can be observed, but this distribution occurs in the word order. As discussed in Section 6.2.2, in Harauti both A and O can be marked with the

Pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan   

   195

the ergative and nominative suffixes: the ergative suffixes refer to the (ergative) A in perfective constructions and to the (nominative) O in imperfective constructions, while the distribution of the nominative suffixes is the other way around. For example, nominative suffixes refer to the (nominative) A in imperfective constructions and to the (nominative) O in perfective constructions as in the following Table:

perfective imperfective

A (erg) ergative suffixes A (nom) nominative suffixes

O (nom) nominative suffixes O (nom) ergative suffixes

Table 5.10 “Chiasmatic” distribution of the pronominal suffixes in Kashmiri

Sometimes, the order in which the pronominal suffixes are attached to the verb indicates a similar “chiasmatic” distribution, as in the following examples: (232) bi ch-u-s-ath tsi I.nom aux-m.sg-1sg-2sg you.nom ‘I am seeing you.’ (233) bi ch-u-s-ath tse I.nom aux-m.sg-1sg-2sg you.erg ‘You have seen me.’

vuch-ān see-ptcp.prs

vuch-mut see-ptcp.prf

In ex. (232), the nominative suffix -s- refers to A (bi) and directly follows ch-uwhich agrees in gender and number with A. In ex. (233), on the other hand, the same suffix -s- refers to O (bi) but it occurs in the same position in the complex verb form. However, this nominative-ergative order in ex. (233) is exceptional in Kashmiri. It occurs only sporadically in present perfect constructions (Hook 1987: 67). Normally, the ergative suffix precedes the nominative suffix, as for instance in the next example (Hook 1987: 67):

same postposition naiṃ. This postposition marks the ergative A in perfective constructions, but in an imperfective construction, the same postposition can also mark O. The second core argument in these constructions is unmarked. Interestingly, the unmarked argument is always the first argument in the sentence so that the word order in imperfective constructions (A-O) may be said to be reversed vis-à-vis the word order in perfective constructions (O-A) (see Allen 1960: 10). Hook also draws attention to the case marking in Pashto and to verb agreement in the Iranian language Vafsi-Tati and Assyrian, which display similar “chiasmatic” distributions.

196   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

(234) tse on-uth-as bi you.erg bring.m.sg-2sg-1sg I.nom ‘You brought me.’ The concept of a “chiasmatic” distribution is a convenient tool for describing the behavior of the ergative suffixes in Kashmiri, considering that one core argument is cross-referenced by these suffixes in order to distinguish the arguments from each other, irrespective of the case or the syntactic function of that argument. Another hypothesis has been put forward by Wali and Koul (1994). They relate the use of the ergative pronominal suffix uniquely with case roles, disregarding the case form, and they do this from a generative perspective. For them, the use of the ergative suffixes indicates that “the bare nonperfective object shares an identical lexical case with the ergative” (Wali and Koul 1994: 29). In contrast to the formal evidence, they claim that the oblique form of the ergative is only a superficial feature and that, lexically, the ergative is neither oblique nor “absolutive”, completely similar to the case of “the bare nonperfective object” (the nominative object in an imperfective construction). On the basis of the distribution of the pronominal suffixes, they characterize the ergative by the features [-absolutive, -oblique] in opposition with the “absolutive” [+absolutive, -oblique], and the “dative”, a pure oblique, by [-absolutive, +oblique]. That way, the ergative case is on a par with the case of the unmarked O of an imperfective construction, which also has these negative feature values. However, their arguments in favor of applying the [-absolutive] and [-oblique] values to the ergative in Kashmiri stem from two other IA languages, Marwari and Marathi. They assume that in Marwari, there exists some kind of a “bare” ergative, i.e., a pronoun that is used as A for a perfective verb form but which is formally not marked as an ergative. Nevertheless, they argue, there is no agreement between the subject and the verb, which should be the case if the unmarked pronoun were “absolutive”. Consequently, the ergative does not have the feature value of [+absolutive]. Similarly, in Marathi, an oblique case (marking O) triggers neutral agreement, while an ergative form has no influence whatsoever on the agreement. The ergative, thus, also lacks the property to control neutral agreement, and lacks [+oblique]. Wali and Koul’s search for arguments for the feature values in languages other than Kashmiri of course raises some questions. First, it provides the undesired space to adduce counterevidence for their claims, again, from other languages. For instance, the ergative marked subject in Nepali is marked by agreement on the verb, while in Marwari, the verb does agree in gender and number with the oblique-marked O. The evidence of these languages contradicts Wali and Koul’s hypothesis based on Marathi and Marwari; by all means, however, the subject of the argument is still Kashmiri. Moreover, the formal evidence in Kashmiri of a difference between the ergative case of A and the nomina-

Pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan   

   197

tive case of O of an imperfective should not be ignored out of hand. This is because only case displays a different marking associated with a different argument role. The ergative A and O only share the same pronominal suffixes; the suffixes of every nominative O are obligatory, while only those of the second person are obligatory for the ergative. In this view, Wali and Koul seem to make the mistake of transferring features of the pronominal suffixes to the cases. Case marking can, however, assume a different function and alignment from verb agreement (cf. Section 1.1.2). It seems that, all in all, Wali and Koul’s argument boils down to what Hook and Koul (1984) had already observed: the ergative pronominal suffixes are anti-absolutive in the sense that they are used in transitive sentences to refer to the “less” nominative (or “absolutive”) argument. In imperfective construction the identification of A and O is entirely dependent on the verb agreement pattern (cf. Hook and Koul 1984: 129). The pronominal suffix referring to A is obligatory, and if O is pronominal, the use of a suffix is also obligatory. The hypothetical combination of two nominative pronominal suffixes, one referring to A and one to O, would only enhance the ambiguity of the case marking instead of resolving it, because it would be impossible to distinguish the arguments even on the basis of the suffixes.²⁰ The use of objective suffixes for O is no option because a marked O is already crossreferenced by an objective pronominal suffix in the imperfective. Ergative suffixes are otherwise not used in combination with an imperfective verb. Using them for the unmarked O, therefore, is a remaining option and economical solution. Interestingly, pronominal suffixes in Kashmiri can be “adopted” in constructions with a complement clause. Hook and Kaul (1987) distinguish various forms of adoption, which is in fact a kind of “raising” constructions. The main verb adopts the pronominal suffixes of O or IO of the verb, finite or non-finite, of a subordinate clause. This may lead to odd constructions, such as one in which an intransitive main verb is marked with an objective pronominal suffix because the subordinate construction is transitive, and the O has been adopted. The adoption of pronominal suffixes illustrates once again the flexibility of the Kashmiri head marking system.²¹ The application of the adoption “rules” is entirely optional. Below are a few examples where adoption is applied, all from Hook and Kaul (1987). The adopted suffix is marked in bold in the glosses.

20 Obviously, one could refer to the order of the suffixes, e.g., the first one refers to the subject, the second to O. From the study of the Kashmiri dialect Poguli, however, it appears that the order of the suffixes has changed through the ages in Kashmiri, so confusion could have persisted (cf. Hook 1987). 21 In other IA languages, the “raising” of an argument of a subordinate verb to the main verb is not uncommon, but the raising is observable in the case marking rather than the verb agreement (cf. Bickel and Yadava 2000).

198   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

(235) bi yatsha-n su vuch-un I.nom want.fut.1sg-3sg he.nom see-inf ‘I shall want to see him.’ (236) bi ā-s-ath tsi syiṭye:šan-i I.nom come.pst-1sg-2sg you.nom station-abl ‘I came to get you from the station.’

pyaṭh-itul-nyi at-abl get-inf

(237) tsi kus chu-h-e:n yatsh-ān bi you.nom who.nom aux-2sg-3sg want-ptcp.prs I.nom gotshu-s-an an-un shall.pst-1sg-3sg bring-inf ‘Who do you want I should bring?’ The future tense displays a particular pattern with respect to pronominal suffixes. According to Koul and Wali’s grammar (2006: 102–103), a third person inanimate O can optionally mark the verb for number. The suffix indicating a singular O is -n and for a plural O it is -kh (the vowel linking these suffixes with the conjugated verb alternates according to the sound laws in Kashmiri). The endings for the future tense with an inanimate O are shown in Table 5.11 below.

A

sg O

pl O

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

-an -ihǝ:n -i -iho:n -ihūn -in

-akh -ihǝ:kh -yakh -iho:kh -ihūkh -inakh

Table 5.11 Person endings of a transitive future verb with an inanimate O (Koul and Wali 2006: 103)

The following examples illustrate the options. Either O is not indicated on the verb as in ex. (238), or it is indicated, and then we find the verb form par-an as in ex. (239). (238) bi par-i yi kitāb I.nom read-fut.1sg this book[f] ‘I will read this book.’

Pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan   

   199

(239) bi par-an yi kitāb I.nom read-fut.1sg.sg this book[f] ‘I will read this book.’ The constructions in ex. (238) and (239) do not have exactly the same meaning. The indication of O in ex. (239) entails that this O, yi kitāb, is more definite/specific than the O in ex. (238). The second pattern of future conjugation, illustrated in Table 5.11, functions in the same way as the case marking ko of a marked O in Hindi, i.e., the -n/-kh suffixes mark the definiteness/specificity of O (cf. Masica 1986; Bhat 1987: 129; Koul and Wali 2006: 102). Furthermore, Hook and Kaul (1987) note that these future tense -n/-kh suffixes occur much more often in reference to an animate O than to an inanimate (but definite) O-argument, as in ex. (208) (repeated here as (240)): (240) bi an-a-n panun do:s ti I.nom bring-fut.1sg-sg my own friend also ‘I will bring my friend also.’ In line with the idea that -n/-kh are semantic indicators of definiteness is the fact that they can also refer to an inanimate ergative A, because they may indicate the definiteness of this A-argument.

5.2.3 Pronominal suffixes in Poguli Research on pronominal suffixes in Poguli has been done by Hook (1987), who gives an overview of the various suffixes used in the language, and in much earlier work by Grierson (1903 VIII, II) and Bailey (1908). Poguli is closely related to Kashmiri and is often considered to be a dialect of Kashmiri (Koul 2003). The pronominal suffix system is very similar to that of Kashmiri. Poguli displays additional resemblances to Kashmiri in other linguistic respects. An O in Poguli is for instance also consistently unmarked in a past tense. Furthermore, the case of O in an imperfective is, in Poguli, also determined by the relation of O and A on the referential hierarchy. The same conditions for a direct or inverse transition from Kashmiri could be applied to Poguli (Hook 1987: 65). The pronominal suffix system in Poguli is more elaborate than in Kashmiri, in the sense that there are four groups of suffixes instead of three, although for each person, many suffixes overlap in form. There are nominative, ergative, objective

200   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

and accusative suffixes²². The pronominal suffixes in Poguli also indicate gender (Hook 1987: 64), although this only seems to be the case for the nominative singular suffixes and the third person suffixes. It is, however, also possible that the agreement triggers the gender differentiation rather than the suffixes, given that sound alternations may be caused by the combination of agreement markers in the stem and the attached pronominal suffixes. I nonetheless follow Hook in giving both the masculine and feminine forms of the suffixes, e.g., -us (m.), -is (f.).

nom

1 2 3

erg

sg

pl

sg

pl

-us/-is -us/-is -u/-i

-asam -ath -uā/-ia

-m -t -ni/-nye

-n -u (-v) -ne/-nye

acc

1 2 3

obj

sg

pl

sg

pl

-s -n

-u (-v) -nan/-nyen

-m -t -s/-sā

-n -u (-v) -nan/-nyen

Table 5.12 Pronominal suffixes in Poguli

The accusative suffixes are the fourth kind of pronominal suffixes in Poguli. This type of suffixes are absent in Kashmiri. They refer to the nominative O of an imperfective, an argument which is indicated by the ergative suffixes in Kashmiri. The “anomaly” between nominative case form and ergative suffix in Kashmiri, as discussed in the previous Section 5.2.2, is thus absent from Poguli because the problem is resolved by an extra type of suffix. This leads to a possible hypothesis that Kashmiri, formerly, also used to have accusative suffixes but that they eventually merged with another type of suffixes, ergative or objective. This claim is not farfetched if one takes a closer look at the suffixes in Poguli; many forms are the same and can easily merge, particularly the forms of the ergative and objective suffixes. Possible combinations of suffixes in Poguli are rather restricted. First and second person ergative suffixes may be combined with objective ones, a com-

22 In Hook’s terminology these are called absolutive, ergative, dative and accusative suffixes, respectively.

Pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan   

   201

bination that we also find in Kashmiri and Sindhi. Nominative suffixes may be combined with objective or ergative ones, but other combinations are not found. However, it is remarkable that the order of the suffixes attached to the verb differs from Kashmiri. In Kashmiri, the suffix cross-referencing to the subject is always closest to the verb form, irrespective of whether it is an ergative or a nominative suffix. In Poguli on the other hand, the nominative suffix always comes first, even when an ergative suffix is present. Hook (1987) infers that the ergative-first order from Kashmiri must be a later evolution. However, as I will show in the following Sections 5.2.4– 5.2.5, the ergative is also the suffix in the first position in Sindhi and Siraiki. This suggests that there is another reason why the ergative suffix occupies the first position in Kashmiri. For instance, there could be a preference for indicating the grammatical relation of subject {A, S} in such a way that it must appear closest to the verb. The reason for the nominative-first order in Poguli may be that nominative suffixes are more similar to person agreement than to the pronominal suffixes of the kind found in Kashmiri, thus implying that the nominative suffixes in Poguli are obligatory and necessarily attached directly to the verb. In contrast, in the ergative construction in Kashmiri, agreement with O is indicated on the verb, and nominative suffixes are optional. Cross-linguistically, there is no outspoken preference for one of the two options. According to Siewierska (2004: 167), the person affix referring to O occurs more often before the person affix referring to A than vice-versa, but she does not consider the case marking of the arguments (i.e., she does not take into consideration whether A is ergative or nominative). Nevertheless, Siewierska argues that a possible motivation for this order is the “principle of relevance” advanced by Bybee (1985), which posits that elements which have a stronger “semantic and syntactic bond” are formally closer together than those which do not have such a bond. Siewierska (2004: 167) assumes that the “semantic and syntactic bond” between the verb and O is stronger than the bond between the verb and A, and that the suffix referring to O is therefore normally closer to the verb than the suffix referring to A. In Kashmiri, of course, O is already indicated on the perfective verb form by means of gender/number agreement.

5.2.4 Pronominal suffixes in Sindhi Another neighboring language of Kashmiri, Sindhi, also uses pronominal suffixes, albeit in a slightly different manner. Pronominal suffixes in Sindhi can refer to pronouns in the function of the ergative subject, O, IO and any object expressing a goal/source of motion. The latter objects, in particular, are never cross-referenced on the verb in Kashmiri. Another difference is that the suffixes in Sindhi

202   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

may also be attached to a noun or a postposition, in which case they refer to a pronominal possessor or to a (covert) pronoun determined by the postposition. There are two kinds of pronominal suffixes in Sindhi, ergative suffixes and object suffixes, cf. Table 5.13.

1 2 3

sg. erg

sg. obj

pl. erg

pl. obj

m(i)/māṃ ī/i iṃ

m(i) ī/i s(i)

(s)ūṃ, siṃ va ūṃ

(s)uṃ, siṃ va n(i), na

Table 5.13 Pronominal suffixes in Sindhi

The ergative pronominal suffixes refer to the pronominal subject of a transitive verb, but only in the perfective. In Sindhi, the simple past is expressed by participial form, which always agrees in gender and number with O. Moreover, ergative suffixes are only added to the verb when O is a third person. The following examples from Cole (2001) and Trumpp (1872) illustrate the use of the ergative suffix: (241) huna=khe āndo-mi he.obl=obj bring.pst.3sg-1sg ‘I brought him.’ (242) paṛh-iu-va read-pst.m.sg-1sg ‘You read [something, m.].’ These suffixes are optional, and they can, but do not have to, occur in combination with an overt pronominal subject. According to Khubchandani (1962), the overt use of the pronoun is preferred in formal language use and literature, while the use of a pronominal suffix without an overt pronoun is colloquial. The use of both pronoun and pronominal suffix is “substandard”. The ‘object’ pronominal suffixes are the second type. They could be added to any verb, and they refer to an O, IO or goal/source of motion. In brief, they refer to any objectival, non-subject argument possible. In the following example from Cole (2001), the use of the object suffix ni refers to an unexpressed third person plural IO:

Pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan   

   203

(243) tūṃ kitāb-a ḍīndo+hue-ni you book[m]-pl give.ptcp.prs+aux.prs.2sg-3pl ‘You used to give the books to them.’ Object suffixes only differ formally from the ergative suffixes for the third person. In combination with the copula hūanū, there is no formal difference at all between an ergative and an object suffix; the copula can take one of the two in reference to any argument role. In some constructions, combinations of an ergative and an object suffix occur. The object suffix then always follows the ergative suffix, as in ex. (244) from Cole (2001). Note that the first person singular ergative suffix mi alternates with māṃ when it is followed by an object suffix. (244) ca-yo-māṃ-si to īnd-āsīṃ say-m.sg-1sg-3sg then come.fut-1pl ‘I said to him that we will come.’ Cole (2001) distinguishes a third category of pronominal suffixes in addition to the object and ergative ones. She calls this the category of the nominative pronominal suffixes, which are used to refer to the subject of future tenses and intransitive past tenses (cf. 1st p.pl ending -āsīṃ from ex. (244)). Cole claims that nominative suffixes only exist for first and second person. For the third person, the verb agrees in gender and number with the subject, but there is zero-marking for person. Khubchandani (1962) and Trumpp (1872), on the other hand, consider these endings as (person) agreement on the verb, and not as pronominal suffixes. It is true that they are not optional. They also tend to indicate gender agreement in contrast to the ergative and object pronominal suffixes (e.g., tūṃ hal-eṃ ‘you[m] go’ vs. the feminine form tūṃ hal-āṃ ‘you[f] go’, Cole 2001). Furthermore, there is no restriction on the combination of “nominative suffixes” and object suffixes, contrary to the combination of ergative and object suffixes. Moreover, nominative suffixes only occur as attachments to verbs rather than to nouns or pronouns. For these reasons, the suggestion made by Khubchandani and Trumpp to consider them as person agreement seems more convincing than Cole’s proposition of a third category of suffixes. Sindhi also displays pronominal suffixes to indicate possessive and adverbial relations between nouns and postpositions. Pronominal suffixes can be added to nouns expressing human relationships or parts of the body. Postpositions can be combined with suffixes, giving rise, for example, to saṇu-mi ‘with me’. The forms are the same as the object suffixes, with slight variation concerning the second person. First and second plural pronouns are never cross-referenced by pronominal suffixes with nouns or postpositions.

204   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

The pronominal suffixes in Sindhi are clearly “bound pronouns”, in the sense that their form is almost identical to the one of overt pronouns (cf. Table 5.14). Note that in Sindhi, the ergative is expressed with the oblique form of the noun and pronoun.

sg.nom 1 2 3

sg.obl

āūṃ, māṃ mūṃ tūṃ to hī, hīu, hīa, hu, hua hina, hūna

pl.nom

pl.obl

asīṃ (t)av(āh)īṃ hī, hu

asāṃ (t)av(āh)āṃ hinani, hūnan

Table 5.14 Pronouns in Sindhi

5.2.5 Pronominal suffixes in Siraiki Siraiki/Saraiki is a language spoken in Pakistan, close to the Sindhi-area.²³ Khubchandani (1962) considers Siraiki to be a dialect of Sindhi; however, it seems to be more closely related to Punjabi than to Sindhi. The matter is not yet settled (cf. Shackle 1976: 2). As a Northwestern IA language, Siraiki displays a use of pronominal suffixes comparable to Sindhi, though slightly different in certain respects. The first source of the use of pronominal suffixes in Siraiki is Shackle’s reference grammar (1976). Akhtar (1997), and Butt (2004) also describe and analyze the same pronominal suffixes, but in their opinion, the language is Punjabi. However, pronominal suffixes in Standard Punjabi are a marginal phenomenon; they are, for instance, not mentioned in Bhatia’s reference grammar (1993). It is therefore probable that the language described by Akhtar is a variant of Punjabi, which is influenced by Siraiki. The accounts by Shackle and Akhtar will be discussed together. Note that although the pronominal suffixes are the same, they may occur in various degrees of obligation in the variants of Siraiki and Punjabi. In Siraiki, the suffixes only occur when the argument they refer to is not overtly expressed – it is impossible to find both a pronominal suffix on the verb and an overt pronoun together in one and the same clause. The suffixes are only attached to finite verb forms, and not to nouns or postpositions, as in Sindhi.

23 There has been some discussion about the name of this language; I follow Shackle (1976: 1) who prefers Siraiki above other nomenclatures such as Western Punjabi (avoiding confusion with Standard Punjabi) or Lahndī (not frequent among native speakers).

Pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan   

   205

There are two kinds of suffixes: nominative suffixes used for intransitive subjects, which only occur in constructions with a past participle, and oblique suffixes, which may cross-reference to possessives, marked O²⁴, IO and EXP, and to ergative subjects. The distinction between nominative and oblique pronominal suffixes is thus quite a deviation from the Sindhi system, in which the ergative suffixes, though referring to an oblique case, contrast with the suffixes referring to any object. The nominative suffixes in Siraiki do not differ significantly from person agreement. As with the nominative suffix paradigm distinguished by Cole (2001) in Sindhi, Siraiki has no nominative suffixes for the third person. An important difference between the person markings in Sindhi, however, is that the nominative suffixes in Siraiki are optional. With the past tense, the use of an ergative suffix is the most common. In particular, the third person singular oblique suffix -s or -sū is frequently used in the Punjabi dialect as described by Akhtar (1997).

1 2

sg

pl

s oṃ

se he

Table 5.15 Siraiki nominative pronominal suffixes

1 2 3

sg

pl

m o/i s(ū)

se he/je ne

Table 5.16 Siraiki oblique pronominal suffixes

It is possible to add two suffixes one after the other to the finite verb, but only in certain combinations. The ergative suffix comes first. The pronominal suffixes may also be added to the negational particle instead of to the verb, cf. the following example from Akhtar (1997). Because of their variability with respect to the verb/particle they attach to, the pronominal suffixes in Siraiki are closer to clitical forms.

24 Definite and animate O’s are marked in Siraiki. Since unmarked O’s are necessarily inanimate and/or indefinite, they are not likely to be pronominal, which may explain why they are not cross-referenced to by a pronominal suffix.

206   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

(245) kam nāī-s kī-tā work not-3sg do-pst.m.sg ‘He/She did not do the work.’ There is, in fact, only one important condition related to pronominal suffixes in Siraiki, which is that the suffix never occurs in combination with the overt pronoun to which it refers. The suffix -s(ū) seems not to appear in combination with a habitual tense (cf. Akthar 1997), which is constructed with the auxiliary ai. Akhtar (1997) further mentions that the third person suffix -s(ū) can also be attached to the verb while referring to a possessive pronoun. He provides the following example: (246) muṛ-e kam kar-d-e-s boy-nom.pl work do-prs-3pl-3sg ‘His boys work.’ This use is unique for Siraiki.

5.3 Second person importance: hierarchical relations and Marathi As discussed above, special importance is attributed to the second speech act participant in Kashmiri. Second person arguments are obligatorily cross-referenced by a pronominal suffix on the finite verb, while the pronominal suffixes of a first or third person are in most cases optional.²⁵ This suggests that the person hierarchy in Kashmiri is dominated by the second person (which is cross-linguistically not uncommon, as observed by Nichols 1992). However, with regard to case marking, the hierarchy seems to be “first person > second person > third person”. A first person A is related to the nominative marking of a second or third person O, while a second person A is related only to the nominative marking of a third person O (a first person O being objective). If the second person were the highest in the person hierarchy, the first and the third person O would be marked in the same way. Nevertheless, there is no other IA language in which the indication of a second person argument on the verb is always obligatory, except for Marathi. Marathi is one of southernmost variants of IA, spoken in and around the area of

25 The exception is the pronominal suffixes of a nominative O of an imperfective, which are always obligatory, irrespective of the person.

Second person importance: hierarchical relations and Marathi   

   207

Mumbai and the state of Maharashtra. Although quite far away from the northwestern area, Marathi also displays the use of pronominal suffixes, but only for second person ergative subjects.²⁶ In Marathi, third person A-arguments are marked with the -ne postposition when the verb is in the past tense. The finite verb then agrees in gender and number with O if it is unmarked. First and second pronouns, on the other hand, do not take a postposition or a different form for A. However, even with an unmarked A, the verb retains its agreement with the O. Remarkably, when A is second person, there is double agreement: in this case, the verb not only agrees with the O, but also with A for number. In particular, a suffix -s is added when A is second person singular, and -t when it is plural. In Western Marathi, these suffixes are obligatory, while they are optional in Eastern Marathi (cf. Pandharipande 1997: 412). Ex. (247) (from Wali 2006: 10) is an example of the marking with -s. (247) tu kāvitā you.m poem[f] ‘You read the poem.’

vāc-l-i-s read-pst-f.sg-2sg

The suffixes -s/-t, however, are not specifically associated with an argument in the ergative case. They primarily refer to a subject in the second person. Intransitive verbs in the past tense, for instance, receive the -s/-t when S in the nominative is a second person, as in bas-l-ā-s ‘you (m.sg) sat’ (example taken from Pandharipande 1997: 412). The suffixes -s/-t are also the endings of the second person in the present tense, irrespective of whether the verb is transitive or intransitive (cf. Wali 2006: 11; Pandharipande 1997: 409). The following example is from Wali (2006: 11). (248) tu ghari jāc-t-e-s you.f home go-prs-f.sg-2sg ‘You are going home.’ When the perfect participle in combination with a copula is used to express the present perfect, -s is added to the copula (which, if it is in the present tense, is the normal ending), but the participle itself displays no marking. The resemblance with the treatment of second person pronouns in Kashmiri is remarkable, with the only difference being that in Marathi the suffix always refers to A/S,

26 There are reasons to believe that Marathi also had other pronominal suffixes in former stages of its history, which have, however, disappeared in the course of time (cf. Hook 1987).

208   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

irrespective of the case (nominative or ergative), and whether the verb is transitive or not.²⁷ Rather surprisingly, however, Hook (2011) notes that in Old Marathi this -s/-t suffix cross-referenced to O, not to an (ergative) subject, as in the following example from (Master 1964: 130–131): (249) joḍunu tumhīṃ join you.nom ‘He joined you.’

dīdhal-e-ti give-pst.m.pl-2pl

This illustrates, once more, the variation and flexibility of pronominal suffixes. They occur in reference to A, O, and IO, and they are clearly not tied to only one type of alignment.

5.4 Conclusion The Northwestern IA languages have always been considered distinct from the central IA languages, to the extent that Kashmiri was said not to belong to the IA language family at all. In alignment structure, however, Kashmiri shows similarities to Central IA, particularly with respect to case marking. There is an ergative case marking that only shows up in perfective constructions. The same situation can be found in Hindi, with the difference being that in Kashmiri the case marking proceeds by means of an inflectional morpheme, not a postposition as in Hindi. The marking of O in Kashmiri, on the other hand, is exceptional for the IA languages. In contrast to Central IA, O is not marked in Kashmiri when it is definite or animate, and in imperfective constructions it is marked when it is higher in person than A. Although this produces an entirely different result of O-marking in Kashmiri and Hindi, the basic principle of the marking of O is nevertheless the same: O is marked when it is ranked high on the referential hierarchies. In the Rajasthani language Harauti, the rule that O is only marked when it is definite/ animate is also modified because of the marking of A: O can only be marked if A is not already (cf. Section 6.2.2). The marking of O in Kashmiri is not governed by entirely different principles, and it remains determined by the semantics of

27 Although the second person pronoun is undoubtedly the most powerful controller of pronominal agreement, other pronouns may also cause the addition of a pronominal suffix, at least in certain dialects. Wali (2006: 10) mentions dialectal agreement with a third person ergative subject, cf. ex. tyā=ne (he.erg) lili=lā (Lili[f]obj) mār-l-i-na (beat-pst-f.sg-3sg), ‘he beat Lili’.

Conclusion   

   209

the referential hierarchy. This conclusion is also corroborated by the finding that in Kashmiri the objective case is also used, as in all other IA languages, to mark the IO. Moreover, it seems as if Kashmiri somehow “compensates” for the fact that definiteness/animacy are not formally indicated on a nominal O by suffixing -n/–kh to the verb. When the suffixes -n/–kh are added to the verb, in the last position, they refer to a core argument that must be interpreted as more definite/ animate than when no verbal suffix is referring to it. Again, the same semantic properties of definiteness and animacy play a similar role in Kashmiri as in other IA languages, although they are indicated in different ways in both languages. With regard to the perfective constructions, Kashmiri displays a strict ban on the marking of O. Therefore, the perfective constructions in Kashmiri may be considered to come closest to the definition of ergativity, which says that O is treated in the same way as S. The lack of marking of O in the perfective constructions can be attributed to several factors. One of the most telling findings is that, already in the imperfective constructions, O is not marked in the same, semantically based way as in Hindi. The objective marker in Hindi, Asamiya, and Nepali is a semantic marker, and formally a postposition. The objective in Kashmiri, on the other hand, is an inflectional case. If the O in a Kashmiri perfective construction would be marked in the objective case, Kashmiri would display a tripartite pattern, with an ergative A, a nominative S, and an objective O. In the typological literature, such a pattern is considered uneconomical (cf., e.g., Comrie 1978), which may explain why it is avoided in Kashmiri. However, the tripartite pattern occurs in Hindi, Asamiya, and Nepali, but in these languages, the marking of O depends additionally on semantic conditions and differs from the purely syntactic marking of A and S. Although Kashmiri case marking is almost a textbook example of ergative case marking, it is important to point out that the Kashmiri perfective construction deviates from a “true” ergative construction as far as its agreement pattern is concerned. The perfective verb forms are, just like in Central IA, based on participial forms in combination with a copula. The participial form on -ān that in Kashmiri is used to form the past tense is invariant, and the perfect participle agrees in gender and number with S or O. The copula, however, is always expressed in Kashmiri (in languages such as Hindi and Rajasthani this is not always the case), and it occurs according to the verb-second (V2) rule in Kashmiri, which stipulates that the conjugated verb always occurs in the second position of the clause. Because the copula is always present, there is person agreement in every construction in Kashmiri – unlike in Hindi, where the perfect participle expressing the past occurs alone and only agrees in gender and number with S/O. In this respect, Kashmiri is more similar to Nepali than to Hindi. In general, in the perfective constructions, the verb agrees in gender, number, and person with

210   

   Western Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri

the unmarked O. The ergative A and IO can also be marked on the verb, by means of pronominal suffixes. Pronominal suffixes are somewhere between anaphoric bound pronouns and grammatical agreement. The nominative suffixes that refer to an imperfective A, S and a perfective O are obligatory, and they come closest to morphemes expressing grammatical agreement. Moreover, the nominative suffixes can occur with or without an overt core argument. The same situation holds for the ergative suffixes that refer to an unmarked O in an imperfective construction. They are obligatory, and therefore similar, again, to grammatical agreement. The ergative suffixes that refer to an ergative pronominal A are optional. The objective suffixes, on the other hand, only occur when the pronoun is not overt. Both the ergative A and the objective suffixes referring to a second person pronoun are obligatory, irrespective of the presence of the overt pronoun. In the neighboring languages of Poguli, Sindhi, and Siraiki, one encounters considerable variation in the use of pronominal suffixes. Poguli has a system that resembles Kashmiri, apart from being a little more extensive. The pronominal suffixes in Sindhi and Siraiki can be attached to nominal arguments and not only to verbs. In Siraiki, pronominal suffixes are only expressed on the verb when the argument is not overtly expressed, so this is a clear case of bound pronouns. In Sindhi, there is a preference for a pattern similar to the one found in Siraiki, but exceptions occur when the argument is overtly expressed. The exception to this ‘areal’ pattern is Shina; Gilgiti Shina and Kohistani Shina do not use pronominal suffixes. However, Bailey (1924: 218) mentions the occurrence of pronominal suffixes in the Guresi dialect of Shina. The versatility of the phenomenon of pronominal suffixes is confirmed by their occurrence in Indo-Iranian. In a number of IndoIranian languages, pronominal suffixes also occur, and again, there is no trace of a similar pattern between the languages, the variation is extensive (for an overview, see Emeneau [1965] 1980: 139). Pronominal suffixes in Iranian often function as clitics rather than suffixes because they do not have fixed positions in the sentence (cf. Jahani and Korn 2009; Kieffer 2009; Robson and Tegey 2009; Windfuhr 2009; Edelman and Dodykhudoeva 2009: 782; Bashir 2009). According to Haig (2008: 107), pronominal suffixes in Persian primarily refer to the “Indirect Participant”, which is his term for arguments expressed by the dative/genitive case in Iranian, e.g. IO, EXP, possessor, and goal/source of motion. Moreover, the O of a present tense verb and the A of a past tense verb can also be referred to by pronominal clitics, although this happens in a less consistent way, according to Haig (2008: 112). Pronominal clitics can be attached to nouns and prepositions, for instance, in order to cross-reference to a possessor argument or a complement in modern Persian, thus resembling the pronominal suffix system in Sindhi (Haig 2008: 337). Windfuhr and Perry (2009: 487) maintain that clitics in Persian may also refer to an argument that conveys an “indirect experience” expressed in the clause.

Conclusion   

   211

The presence of pronominal suffixes similar to the ones in contemporary Iranian has been attested to since the Middle Iranian stage (cf. Haig 2008: 105). From the Vedic/Avestic stage, however, enclitic pronouns occurred frequently in the Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages (cf. Masica 1991: 254; Emeneau [1965] 1980: 154). These pronouns were morphologically shortened versions of the normal pronouns, but they were not ‘suffixed’ to the verb. It is a plausible hypothesis that these old Vedic/Avestic clitics survived in the form of pronominal suffixes attached to the verb, or to any other part of the sentence in Iranian, and that under the influence of Iranian, the suffix system in Indo-Aryan became reinforced (cf. Emeneau [1965] 1980: 155). This diachronic hypothesis, however, has yet to have been confirmed by conclusive historical evidence.²⁸

28 A comparison with the Indo-Iranian languages should not be limited to the phenomenon of pronominal suffixes, a broader comparison between the alignment patterns in Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian may be very fruitful for historical and synchronic research as well, in particular with regard to the so-called “loss” of ergativity in Indo-Iranian. See Hewson and Bubenik (1997) on ergativity in Persian, Bynon (1979) on ergativity in Kurdish, Payne (1980) on Pamir languages and Matras (1997) on Kurmanji, among others.

6 Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani The Central IA languages are spoken in the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and Rajasthan. This central area, which is intersected by the Ganges and Yamuna rivers, is known as the ‘Hindi belt’ where Hindi is the official language (and the language of primary education), and where the local languages are considered by many of the inhabitants merely as dialects of Hindi. The Rajasthani languages are spoken in the state of Rajasthan, a rural and pastoral area in the west of the Hindi belt. “Rajasthani” (a concept introduced by G.A.G. Grierson in his Linguistic Survey (1903 IX, II)) includes all of the related “dialects” spoken in the state of Rajasthan. Rajasthani thus is not a specific language; rather, it refers to a cluster of languages, which, although intrinsically closely related, do display different features. As the standard urban means of communication in the area, Hindi is the dominant language of the Central Indo-Aryan region. A recurring comparison between Hindi and Rajasthani is unavoidable in this Chapter  because most of the literature on Central Indo-Aryan is based on Hindi. However, the alignment pattern of Hindi is not representative of all of the central Indo-Aryan languages, including Rajasthani. In addition to the Rajasthani language group, there are other groups of closely related dialectal varieties of Central Indo-Aryan. First, there are the “Hindi varieties”, some well-known dialects of Hindi, of which Braj, Bundeli and Awadhi are the most important. Hindi is only one variety of this group, and such a classification gives a fairly different perspective from approaches where Hindi is the central language. Second, the Bihari languages, which are discussed in Section  3.2.1, are also often included in Central IA because they are spoken between the two core areas of Central IA and Eastern IA. However, as was shown in Chapter 3, the alignment of the Bihari languages is closer to Eastern IA. Third, two important Indo-Aryan languages, Punjabi and Gujarati, are also included in Central IA. Note that Gujarati is in many respects similar to Rajasthani because they share the same ancestor (Old Western Rajasthani; cf. Tessitori 1914), whereas Punjabi displays more similarities with Hindi. For some other features, in particular the use of pronominal suffixes, Punjabi is similar to the Northwestern IA languages (cf. Section 5.2.5). The southwestern language Marathi has been partly discussed in Section 5.3, but other parts of its grammar are discussed in Section 6.2.4.¹

1 The examples in this Chapter are taken from several short stories in Marwari and Harauti included in Saraswat and Prem (1984), Sharma (1992) and from published linguistic sources. A native speaker has been consulted to verify the data.

Description of Marwari   

   213

6.1 Description of Marwari Marwari and Harauti are two Rajasthani languages. Marwari is the Rajasthani language with the highest number of speakers. Harauti is a smaller Rajasthani language, but it displays some typical case marking features which are unlike any other IA language. In general, if one refers to the “language” Rajasthani, the description applies most of the times to Marwari, the most widespread and best known Rajasthani dialect. Marwari is spoken by app. 13,023,000 people (Gusain 2004, Ethnologue 2010) in Western Rajasthan. Marwari has spread to other parts of India outside Rajasthan by emigration. It is also attested in Nepal and Pakistan. Marwari has the highest number of speakers, but its status as best known Rajasthani language is also due to its rich literary history (Kothari 1991: 9).

6.1.1 Case marking The main case functions in Marwari, and in Rajasthani in general, are indicated by postpositions. There are two inflectional case forms (layer I), the unmarked nominative form and the oblique. With consonant stems, the nominative and the oblique have merged in the singular, but not in the plural, cf. Table 6.1. The oblique form of the (pro)noun occurs only in combination with a postposition. Some of the layer II postpositions expressing semantic cases are syu for the instrumental function, meṃ and par for indications of place, amongst others. Layer III case markings are found in combinations of an oblique + genitive postposition + lexical postposition. The genitive postposition agrees in case (nominative or oblique), gender and number with its head like an adjective. In Marwari it takes the forms m.sg. ro, m.pl. ra, f.sg. and pl. ri. The postposition related to the marking of the core arguments is ne, or phonological variants of ne, e.g., nai, naiṃ, neṃ, depending on the dialect. ne is a multifunctional postposition in the Rajasthani languages, but most often it functions as the marker of O and IO, as in Marwari. Note that there is no ergative case marker in Marwari. In the paradigm of the pronouns, the nominative-oblique distinction is absent for first and second person, although there is a wide range of variation of pronominal forms. Third person pronouns are anaphoric extensions of demonstratives.

214   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

nom vowel nom consonant obl vowel obl consonant

m.sg

f.sg

m.pl

f.pl

-o/-au Ø -e/-ai Ø

-ī

-ā Ø -āṃ -āṃ

-ī

-ī

-ī

Table 6.1 Nominative and oblique case forms of nouns ending on a vowel and nouns ending on a consonant in Marwari

1 2 3

nom.sg

obl.sg

nom.pl

obl.pl

me, meṃ, m(h)ai(ṃ), māiṃ hum, mhu(ṃ), mhū taiṃ tūṃ (u)vo, o

me, mai

mhe mhā the, tame thā, tamā (u)vai

mhe

taiṃ uṇ

the, tame vāṃ

Table 6.2 Pronouns in Marwari

The variation in forms of the pronouns given in Table 6.2 is due to the different pronunciations in different regions. However, there is a clear distinction between two kinds of phonological tendencies in the range of first person singular pronouns, i.e. pronouns with an -e- or -ai-sound, and pronouns with an -u- sound. This goes back to a historical merging of cases, to which we come back in Section 6.2.1. Apart from these pronominal forms, there is also a second person honorific form in Marwari, i.e. āpām. Bahl (1989: 37) further distinguishes an inclusive and an exclusive first person plural pronoun, of which the inclusive is āṃpai, and the exclusive mhe. Like with the nouns, postpositions are added after the oblique forms of the pronouns.

6.1.2 Verb system and agreement in Marwari The verb system in Rajasthani is based on a combination of participial forms and a copula, conjugated for tense and mood. In the different languages, there are different forms of the copula ‘to be’, but two are prevalent: stems in hV- and stems in chV-. Subjunctive and future forms are synthetic, with a conjugational ending. In Marwari, there are two kinds of passives. One is constructed with the auxiliary verb meaning ‘to go’, (as also occurs in other Central IA languages such as Hindi). The second passive is a synthetic passive, formed with the infix -īj-. The

Description of Marwari   

   215

two passives are used in different contexts. For an overview of the verb paradigm in Marwari, see Grierson (1903 IX, II), Bahl (1991: 94), Gusain (2004). Marwari displays split agreement: in the imperfective constructions, the verb always agrees with A/S, but in the tenses with a perfective verb form, the intransitive verb agrees with S and the transitive verb with O. In participle-based constructions, there is agreement in gender and number marked both on the participle and the copula in a past tense, cf. ex. (250). In constructions with a participle and a past copula, there is no person agreement. Agreement in person is marked only on the present tense copula, cf. ex. (251); the participle agrees in gender and number. One exception noted by Khokhlova (1992: 89) is that a feminine participle does not differentiate for number, and neither does a third person present tense copula. (250) … jakai din mhārai=sūṃ ā bāt which day I.gen=abl this thing[f] ka-yī+h-ī say-pst.f.sg+aux-pst.f.sg ‘…on which day he had said this to me.’ (Barhat 1984: 41) (251) kāīṃ bhāī, kasy-o jādū kar-yo+h-ai what brother what-m.sg magic[m] do-pst.m.sg+aux-prs.3sg ‘What, brother, what magic have you done?’ (Hamsa 1984: 172) Note that the agreement with O is consistent in any transitive perfective tense construction. This implies that the verb always agrees with O, irrespective of whether that O is case marked or not, cf. ex. (252), where ma=naiṃ is marked, but still controls agreement. (252) mammī ma=naiṃ god=meṃ uṭhā+li-yo Mama[f] I=obj lap=loc heave+take-pst.m.sg ‘Mammy took me up in her lap.’ (Barhat 1984: 42) A deviating pattern of agreement has been reported for the Marwari spoken in the area of the city of Jodhpur (cf. Magier 1983; Khokhlova 2006). The pattern is crosslinguistically unusual, because it implies a split of agreement pattern between the participle and the copula. The example from Magier (1983) that is commonly cited is the following:

216   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

(253) mhaiṃ sītā=ne I.m Sita[f]=obj ‘I saw Sita.’

dekh-ī+h-ūṃ see-pst.f.sg+aux-prs.1sg

This agreement pattern is marginal, but is not in the process of disappearing, since it is still accepted by native speakers and used in recent literature (cf. ex. (254) from Stronski 2010: 86, Māṇak 2008, Jan. 44): (254) mhaiṃ aiḍi ḍukanaṃ ḍekh-i+h-uṃ I.m such shop[f]pl see-pst.f.pl+aux-prs.1sg ‘I have seen this kind of shops.’ In Gujarati as well, there are examples of such an agreement pattern. Gujarati normally displays the same pattern as Marwari, i.e., the perfective verb agrees with O in gender, number and person, as illustrated in ex. (255). Note that Gujarati does not have a different case form for a pronominal A or S – third persons and nominal A-arguments take an ergative case marking -e. (255) me kam kar-yuṃ+ch-e I work[n] do-pst.n.sg+aux.prs-3sg ‘I have done the work.’ However, occasionally a construction that is similar to the Marwari construction in ex. (254) appears, e.g., (256) me baghā menejament=ne vinantī I whole management=obj request[f] karī+ch-uṃ² do-pst.f.sg+aux.prs-1sg ‘I have requested the complete management [if…].’ In this pattern, the agreement of the participial form is as expected, i.e., it agrees in gender and number with O. However, the agreement of the copula is with A (1st person), which is unexpected, given that the agreement pattern of the aux-

2 http://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/2008/09/23/0809231925_ceo_death.html. Thanks to Peter Hook for drawing my attention to this example.

Description of Marwari   

   217

iliary normally corresponds to the agreement pattern of the participial.³ With respect to Marwari, Allen (1960), Bahl (1989) and Khokhlova (2002) claim that this agreement occurs only when A is a SAP, in particular a first person, so the referential hierarchy and possibly also the relation between A and O could play a role in establishing the conditions of this agreement. If A is high on the referential hierarchy, or higher than O, the copula agrees with A. Arguably, if both O and A are third person, it is impossible to recognize which argument the copula agrees with, since the copula only agrees in person, not in gender. Moreover, many forms of the copula are identical for number and person; for instance, in Gujarati, the second singular and the third singular and plural form of the copular verb are the same (che; Marwari and Hindi second and third person singular hai). Therefore it may seem as if the pattern only occurs with a first/second person A. In contrast to Allen (1960), Magier (1983) does not report on any conditions for A-agreement, according to him it may show up any time. He argues that it is exemplary of how ergative agreement is gradually disappearing. However, this split agreement pattern remains marginal and largely unattested in texts. Against the assumption that such pattern will spread and lead to pure subject agreement in Marwari, I would argue that agreement with O in Marwari is much more pervasive than in other Central Indo-Aryan languages such as Hindi.⁴

3 According to Klaiman (1987: 84), the pattern in which the agreement of the participle is different from that of the copula is also found in Mewari, though in a less complete form. In Gujarati and Mewari, it is possible to find examples in which the participle agrees with the O, but the copula occurs in the default form (3m.sg.), showing no agreement at all. Such a split between the agreement of the copula and the the agreement of the main verb has been reported in Marathi as well. 4 Khokhlova (1992: 90) gives the following example, which is perhaps indicative for the influences which led to the auxiliary-main verb split in agreement: mhaim saugan=lai lī+h-ūṃ I.m oath[f]=obj take.pst.f.sg+aux-prs.1sg ‘I swore an oath.’ She notes the split in agreement between the auxiliary and the main verb, and reports that this example is taken from a Jodhpur based Marwari speaking author. However, this example is exceptional because of the lai form of the objective postposition, which is typical for Northern IA languages, such as Nepali. In Nepali, agreement with A is the rule and not the exception, and it is possible that the lai-marking in this example indicates influence from Northern Indo-Aryan.

218   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

6.2 Differential marking In the Rajasthani languages, postpositions marking core arguments display a high degree of multifunctionality. The use of most postpositions in Rajasthani is based on principles of differential marking, in the sense that their occurrence is not only syntactically determined but also subject to semantic conditions (cf. Section 1.1.3). The postpositions in the different Rajasthani languages, as well as in Hindi and Punjabi, share a great amount of formal similarity, but they can function in the most divergent ways across the individual languages. The following sections 6.2.1–6.2.4 deal with differential marking in a range of IA languages, and more specifically: the variation in subject marking in Marwari from a historical perspective, the multifunctional postposition naiṃ in Harauti, the differential marking by means of the Gujarati and Marwari postposition ne, and the case marking in Punjabi, Gujarati and Marathi.⁵

6.2.1 Marwari subject marking: a historical perspective In contrast to Harauti, Hindi and other Central IA languages, there is no ergative postposition in Marwari. Consider the examples below. Ex. (257) is an intransitive sentence with a form for S mhaiṃ, of which I will assume that it is a nominative. A in ex. (258) is in the same form as the one of S in ex. (257). In ex. (258), the O śaraṇ=naiṃ is marked according to the criteria of DOM, i.e. it is an animate and definite argument. (257) mhaiṃ bego hī vāṃ=rai=kanaiṃ jā-y pūg-yo I fast emph he=gen=close go-cvb arrive-pst.m.sg ‘I got to him in a hurry.’ (Hamsa 1984: 170) (258) mhaiṃ śaraṇ=naiṃ dekh-ī I.m Sharan[f]=obj see-pst.f.sg ‘I saw Sharan.’ (Hamsa 1984: 172) The absence of an ergative case marking in the constructions with a perfective verb in a Central IA language is quite remarkable, considering that the agreement of transitive perfective verbs is with O, hence displaying an ergative agreement

5 Parts of the following sections are based on a revision of Verbeke (2010).

Differential marking   

   219

pattern.⁶ Historically however, there are traces that there used to be a separate form to indicate A in earlier stages of Marwari. First, there is an extensive variety of pronominal forms (cf. Table 6.2, Gusain 2004: 23–24; Drocco 2008: 98). It has been established by Khokhlova (1992) that the forms with the phoneme -u- come from the former nominatives of Old Rajasthani, whereas the forms with -e- or -aiwere formerly used only as obliques. In Old Rajasthani, the oblique was not only used as the inflectional form before a postposition. It also functioned on its own as an ergative case; compare, for instance, the oblique form rājāi ‘king’ in the following example from Old Rajasthani (Khokhlova 1992: 76): (259) mujh=nai rājā-i ādeś I.obl=obj king[m]-obl.sg order[m] ‘The king has given the order to me.’

dīdh-au+ch-ai give.pst-m.sg+aux-prs.3sg

In contemporary Marwari, these forms of the pronouns (mhai-, etc.) occur not only as obliques with a postposition, but also as unmarked pronouns designating S and A without a postposition. Consider the following examples (260)–(263). They illustrate that in contemporary Marwari, the hum, mhu(ṃ) forms and the me(ṃ), mhai(ṃ) forms are both used for A and S, despite their different historical background. Although ex. (260) shows an intransitive construction that always takes a nominative S, the first person form mhaiṃ is used. In ex. (261), the same pronoun (the variant māiṃ) is used as A of the verb ‘to say’. Ex. (262) has the pronoun mhūṃ as A. In the second part of the example, the second person pronoun tūṃ is A, although historically this was a nominative form restricted to intransitive sentences. Ex. (263) combines both forms mhūṃ and maiṃ in exactly the same construction, thus proving that there is no apparent difference in function between the two forms of the pronoun in contemporary Marwari. (260) mhaiṃ baḍā bābū=rī ṭebal=rai=sāmaiṃ ūbho h-o I big boss=gen table=gen=in front standing be-pst.m.sg ‘I was standing in front of the table of the big boss.’ (Hamsa 1984: 170)

6 Note that Kutchi Gujarati apparently has the same alignment: no ergative case marking but O-agreement (cf. Patel 2007: 36).

220   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

(261) lārlā dināṃ sagaḷ-ā pataṃg uḍāvai+h-ā, māiṃ passed days all-nom.m.pl kite[f] fly.prs+aux-pst.m.pl I mamma=naiṃ ka-yo ma=obj say-pst.m.sg ‘In the past days, everyone was flying a kite – I said to mamma.’ (Barhat 1984: 39) (262) mhūṃ pappū=naiṃ pūch-yo – tūṃ mā’ṭ sahib=naiṃ kyūṃ I Pappu=obj ask-pst.m.sg you master sir=obj why konī bulā-yo? not invite-pst.m.sg ‘I asked Pappu – Why did you not invite master?’ (Barhat 1984: 41) (263) mhūṃ mammī=naiṃ kai-yo, paṇ mammī isai kām=meṃ I ma=obj tell-pst.m.sg but ma such work=loc phaṃsar-ī h-ī ke mammī=naiṃ yād konī sunk-f.sg be-pst.f.sg that ma=obj memory[m] not rai-yo, maiṃ pāpā=naiṃ ka-yo – paṇ pāpā stay-pst.m.sg I pa=obj tell-pst.m.sg. but pa bhī me=rī bāt konī suṇ-ī also I=gen word[f] not hear-pst.f.sg ‘I told mamma, but mamma was sunk in so much work that mamma did not remember, I told papa – but papa also did not listen to my words.’ (Barhat 1984: 41) The oblique form of the third person singular uṇ rarely occurs as A or S. However, if it is used, there is free variation between the use of the oblique and the nominative pronoun vo for A (cf. Magier 1983: 245).⁷ According to Khokhlova (1992), the strict opposition between the ergative and the nominative is only maintained in the m.pl. paradigm. The form vāṃ is the oblique form of the third person plural pronoun, nominative vai, in combination with a postpostion. In some constructions, vāṃ is also used for A, as in ex. (264) and (265). Confirming Khokhlova’s research, I have found no examples where vāṃ occurs as S.

7 Of course, it is possible that there is a certain preference for a form dependent on the area where the language is spoken, and it is conceivable that the degree of contact with other Rajasthani languages or Hindi may influence the frequency of the occurrence of uṇ or vo.

Differential marking   

   221

(264) vāṃ pūch-yo – kām=meṃ koī dikkat to nīṃ he.erg?pl ask-pst.m.sg work=loc some problem[f] then not ā-ī? come-pst.f.sg ‘He asked – hasn’t any problem come up in the job?’ (Hamsa 1984: 171) (265) bāṃ savāl gaḷat batā-yo he.erg?pl question[m] wrong speak-pst.m.sg ‘He said, the question is wrong.’ (Barhat 1984: 40) A third person pronominal A is not exclusively expressed with the pronoun vāṃ. The originally nominative form vai in the following ex. (266) is widely attested, and can be used either as A or as S: (266) vai baṛā het=sūṃ mhārī āḍī sirkā-ī he.pl great care=with I.gen problem[f] solve-pst.f.sg ‘He solved my problems with great care.’ (Hamsa 1984: 170) If case is defined as a system of formal and functional oppositions (cf. Dik 1978; Masica 1991), vāṃ is not the structurally ergative case of the third person pronoun, given that the variant vai is used for A as well. The use of vai shows that there is no systematic difference between the marking of the S and A in Marwari, just as the other pronouns show. The concept of a systematic ergative case seems not to exist in contemporary Marwari. However, as the evidence showed for the first person singular, there used to be an ergative pronominal case. Moreover, remnants of this case can still be found in the third person plural paradigm, in which the use of the oblique case of the pronoun is restricted to A. An explanation for this fact may be found in the closeness of the third person pronoun and the nominal declension. The third person pronouns are anaphoric extensions of demonstrative adjectives, and as such they display more similarities to nouns than to the first and second personal pronouns. Indeed, nouns in Marwari generally possess a nominative and an oblique case form, but often there is no overt difference between the two cases. The oblique case is only used and recognized when it is followed by postpositions. However, in some paradigms we can again notice residual forms of an older ergative case, especially for the masculine plural paradigm; not coincidentally, these forms resemble the paradigm of the third person pronoun. It is only in the masculine paradigm ending in a vowel that the different cases take distinct inflections (cf. Table 6.1). Nouns ending in a consonant remain unchanged in the nominative

222   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

plural and oblique singular and take -āṃ for the oblique plural. The nominative is the case used for all subjects. Consider example (267); bhāyalā, a noun ending in a vowel, is in the nominative plural case. (267) sagaḷ-ā bhāyal-ā pūch-yo – āj mhā=nai all-nom.m.pl friend[m]-nom.pl ask-pst.m.sg today I=obj sagaḷ-āṃ=nai kiyāṃ yād kari-yā? all-obl.m.pl=obj why memory[m] do-pst.m.pl ‘All the friends asked – Why do you remember us all today?’ (Sharma 1992: 106) As in the third person plural pronominal paradigm, the paradigm of masculine plural nouns is most susceptible to traces of the older division between a nominative and an oblique without postposition (= ergative). According to Khokhlova (1992: 87), “in m.sg. paradigm of nominal stems in -o/-au, there exist free variation of nominative and ergative markers for A while S is generally marked by Nominative”. She gives the following examples (268) and (269), in which the stem of the noun, however, does not end in -o/-au, but in a consonant. (Khokhlova 1992: 87–88): (268) anek vidvān likha-‘r nahiṃ bhej+sak-yā many scholar.pl write-cvb not send+can-pst.m.pl ‘Many scholars could not send [their] articles.’ (Chandrasimh 1966:2) < after they had written [them], many scholars could not send [them] (269) bidvān-āṃ thor-au mārg dikhā-yau scholar-pl some-m.sg way[m] show-pst.m.sg ‘The scholars showed some way.’ (Bhandari 1966:20) For Khokhlova, the difference between the form vidvān (vidva:n) as S and bidvānāṃ (bidva:na:M) as A is illustrative of the discrepancy between the nominative case and the ergative case. However, in the feminine paradigm, the ending -āṃ is often used for S, as is shown in ex. (270), although the expected form is the invariant form āṃkhyā. The ending in -āṃ can be considered to be a mere variant of -ā for the nominative feminine plural, since it is not confined to marking A. (270) abkai vāṃ=rī āṃkhyāṃ mhārā=pai jamyoḍ-ī now he=gen eye[f]nom.pl I.gen=loc fixed-f.pl ‘This time his eyes were fixed on me.’ (Hamsa 1984: 170)

h-ī be-iprf.f.pl

Differential marking   

   223

In conclusion, the case marking of pronouns and nouns functioning as A is not ergative in Marwari because there is no systematic differentiation between the case marking of A and S. There is only one restriction on this general conclusion: the masculine plural third person pronoun vāṃ and some forms of masculine plural nouns are rarely, if ever, used for S. In Marwari, although both the historically ergative and nominative form of the first and second personal pronoun are still in use, it is only in the third person plural that a functional difference is still made. Third person plural A’s are restricted to the oblique form. At first sight, the case marking in Marwari seems to be in line with the crosslinguistic generalization that nouns, and by extension demonstratives, tend to be more marked than pronouns if they function as A: third person plural nouns and pronouns are more marked than first/second pronouns (cf. Silverstein 1976; Dixon 1994: 86, Chapter 2). However, as Filiminova (2005: 87) rightly remarks, if pronouns tend to pattern accusatively and nouns ergatively, then the development of case alignment in Marwari is rather unexpected. Following Magier (1983), she points out that in Marwari, the ergative case of the pronouns has “extended” to the case marking S, e.g., the old ergative form for the first person singular mhai is in contemporary Marwari also used for S (and in Gujarati, Hindi, Marathi). Filiminova further argues that, historically, the pronouns retained the distinction between ergative and nominative over a longer period of time than did the nouns (cf. Khokhlova 1995, 2001). Proof of this can still be found in modern Marwari: the pronominal forms mhai and hum are still formally clearly distinct from each other, whereas in the nominal paradigm, the difference between an oblique (formerly ergative) and nominative form has almost completely disappeared. This stands in contradiction with Silverstein’s prediction that the pronominal paradigm will display a greater tendency towards an accusative pattern than the nominal paradigm, given that, historically, the pronouns had different forms for marking A and S. Filiminova (2005: 109) therefore concludes that the case marking of pronouns is more “resistant to realignments and other changes than that of nouns”, and that the influence of the person hierarchy on ergative case marking is, at the least, modified by historical transitions and language-particular preferences.

6.2.2 Differential marking in Harauti Harauti is a Rajasthani language related to Marwari but spoken on a smaller scale in and around the twin cities Kota-Bundi (4,730,000 speakers according to the 2001 Census). In Harauti, as in the other Rajasthani languages, sentences with a perfective finite verb form display a different form of alignment than present tense sentences. Imperfective verb forms agree with the subject. The case marking is as

224   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

follows: A and S are in the unmarked nominative, and O is marked with the postposition naiṃ depending on to its place on the referential hierarchy. In constructions with a perfective verb form, the alignment is markedly different. First, agreement is with O whenever the verb is transitive. Secondly, A receives an ergative case marking. The Marwari pattern without ergative case marking is thus not followed in Harauti. Another peculiarity of Harauti lies in the fact that the same postposition used to indicate a marked O is also the marker of A in a perfective construction. There is a rule specifying that the postposition occurs only once in the sentence, preferably marking A (Allen 1960: 10). Though occasionally the double occurrence of the postposition naiṃ occurs, it is in general considered to be ungrammatical by most Harauti speakers (cf. Stronski 2010: 85). Grierson (IX, II: 203) attributes the use of naiṃ as ergative marker to the influence of the neighboring language Bundeli, which displays the same pattern as Hindi. The following examples illustrate naiṃ functioning as marker of A. In ex. (271) the transitive verb is in a past tense, and A is constructed with naiṃ. The verb agrees with O in gender and number. (271) mhaiṃ=naiṃ hāṃk-ā pāṛ-yā ar pāchai bhī I.f=erg scream[m]-pl scream-pst.m.pl and after also bhāg-ī paṇ moṭar nhaṃ ḍhab-ī run-pst.f.sg but bus[f] not stop-pst.f.sg ‘I screamed and ran after it, but the bus did not stop.’ (Prem 1984: 91) In ex. (272), A is again marked with the postposition naiṃ. Both elements of the present perfect construction, i.e., the past participle dekhī and the auxiliary chī, agree with the f.sg. O jhalak, which is referred to by the relative pronoun jyo. (272) ḍokarī=kī āṃkhyāṃ=meṃ yācanā=kī asī old woman=gen eye[f]obl.pl=loc begging[f]=gen this jhalak ch-ī jyo mhaṃ=naiṃ iṃ=sūṃ phalī glimpse[f] be.pst-f.sg which I=naiṃ she.obl=from first nhaṃ dekh-ī+ch-ī not see-pst.f.sg+aux-pst.f.sg ‘In the eyes of the old woman there was a glimpse of begging which I had not seen from her before.’ (Prem 1984: 92) In contrast with Hindi and most other central IA languages, an IO in Harauti is considerably more marked with a postposition other than naiṃ, the choice depending on lexical criteria of the verb. According to Allen (1960: 10), naiṃ is deliberately avoided as marker of the IO in perfective constructions because of

Differential marking   

   225

the rule that the postposition naiṃ cannot be used more than once in a clause. Hence, a definite/animate O is not marked in the same way as IO. Nevertheless, naiṃ does appear as the marker of an experiencer. Below are examples in which the postposition naiṃ marks the experiencer role. Experiencer constructions are common in the IA languages (cf. Section 2.4.4). In Hindi and Marwari, the experiencer is marked with the same postposition used for O and IO. Conversely, in Harauti, the experiencer is marked with the same postposition as an ergative A. The identical marking of the experiencer and an ergative A cannot possibly conflict or lead to ambiguity in any of the examples because in an experiencer construction, there is no transitive subject. Ex. (273) is a sentence constructed with the verb lāg ‘to attach’, a typical experiencer verb. Note that the stimulus role ḍokarī is in the unmarked nominative case. (273) ḍokarī mhaṃ=naiṃ asī lāg-ī jasyāṃ sāṃcyāīṃ old woman[f] I=obj such attach-pst.f.sg such just ūṃ=kai tāīṃ khajāno mala+g-yo+ch-o she.obl=gen that treasure[m] find+go-pst.m.sg+aux-pst.m.sg ‘The woman seemed to us as if that treasure of hers had just been found.’ (Prem 1984: 94) The recipient function of IO with verbs like ‘to bring to’ or ‘to say to,’ however, is generally expressed with other postpositions. For instance, in ex. (274), the ablative postposition sūṃ, and in ex. (275), kai ‘for’ is used.⁸ (274) tīn-cyār jaṇāṃ=naiṃ klīnar=sūṃ some people=erg cleaner=to ‘Some people said to the cleaner.’

bāt kah+dī thing[f] say+aux.pst.f.sg

(275) potā-potyāṃ=kai beī āmbā grandchild[m]obl.pl=for this.pl mango[f]pl lā-ī+ch-ī bring-pst.f.pl+aux-pst.f.pl ‘I had brought those mangoes for my grandchildren.’ (Prem 1984: 92)

8 In Hindi, the IO of verbs meaning ‘to say’ often occur with the ablative postposition se, but the objective ko is also possible, in particular with the verb kahnā. In the other constructions as well, one finds a variety in Hindi on ko; for instance, in a construction such as ex. (275) in Hindi, the postposition ke lie can be used instead of ko, and in ex. (276), the locative postposition par can be used.

226   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

Another example of a ditransitive construction is with the prototypical verb ‘to give’. Ex. (276) is an idiomatic expression meaning ‘to give an order’, and naiṃ is used as the marker of A. The IO takes a different morpheme, pai, a locative postposition with the meaning ‘on’. (276) ek mard=naiṃ ḍalevar=pai hukam calā+dyo, one man=erg driver=on order[m] go+give.pst.m.sg ḍalevar sāb! driver sir ‘A man ordered the driver: driver sir!’ (Prem 1984: 92) In the following example from Grierson (1903 IX, II: 211), the IO mhāiṃ is even unmarked. (277) thā=ne mhāiṃ ek uraṇo you=erg I one young goat[m] ‘You have never given me a young goat.’

bhī also

nhī di-yo not give-pst.m.sg

In sum, naiṃ is also the postposition of the experiencer, whereas in typical ditransitive constructions such as with the verbs ‘to bring’, ‘to say’ and ‘to give’, the IO is predominantly marked with a different postposition.⁹ O is the third possible argument for which the multifunctional postposition is used, but the occurrence of naiṃ is dependent on the features that determine DOM. When O is human, it almost always takes naiṃ. When it is inanimate, it is only marked when there is some kind of definiteness associated with it (cf. Masica 1991: 365). naiṃ is only used once in a clause, so O is not marked with the postposition when A is present in the sentence (cf. Allen 1960). In ex. (278), there is no overt subject, the main verb pūchajyo being an imperative. The inanimate but definite O moṭar of ruk- ‘to stop’ takes naiṃ. Thus, in this sentence, naiṃ is used to indicate an argument in the sentence, but not to indicate A. Ex. (279) is a similar example with an animate O.

9 If the conditions are right, i.e., if there is no argument marked with naiṃ in the sentence, it is possible to find a naiṃ-marked IO, for instance, the following example from Grierson (1903, IX, II: 203): koi ūṃ=ne kāīṃ nhai de-to someone he.obl=obj something not give-iprf.m.sg ‘No one used to give anything to him.’

Differential marking   

   227

(278) āva-tī moṭar=naiṃ rukā-’r pūcha+j-yo ke ek thelo driving-f.sg bus[f]=naiṃ stop-cvb ask+go-imp.2sg that one bag to nhaṃ mal-yo then not be found-pst.m.pl ‘After stopping the driving bus, ask once if there hasn’t been found a bag.’ (Prem 1984: 92) (279) dekh-o īṃ ḍokarī=naiṃ! see-imp.2sg this old woman[f]=naiṃ ‘Look at this old woman!’ (Prem 1984: 92) Ex. (280) is in the present tense. A is the interrogative pronoun ‘who’. The O marked by naiṃ is inanimate but definite and determined by a genitive phrase. (280) khābā=kī cīj=naiṃ kuṇ choḍ-ai+ch-ai? eat=gen thing=naiṃ who.nom.m.sg lose-prs+aux.prs.3sg ‘Who loses a thing to eat?’ (Prem 1984: 92) From the above examples it is clear that compared to the other Central IndoAryan languages, the multifunctionality of the postposition naiṃ is raised to extreme levels in Harauti. Because the postposition shows up as a marker of A, experiencer, both typically animate roles, and animate/definite O, it seems safe to say that naiṃ is associated with a high level of animacy and definiteness (possibly extended to humanness/specificity as in Hindi, see Section 2.2). This is in line with the idea, which is cross-linguistically well-established, that differential object marking either hinges on the animacy or on the definiteness of O (Malchukov 2008; Klein and de Swart 2011, Chapter 1). On the other hand, it is cross-linguistically unusual that the same postposition used in DOM is also able to mark an ergative A. The finding that the postposition naiṃ in Harauti is to a certain extent multifunctional does not necessarily contradict the principles of DOM. In Harauti, an A in combination with a perfective construction and an experiencer argument are ranked highest on the scale of animacy/definiteness, because the agent and the experiencer are semantic roles which are typically either animate or definite. The A and the experiencer are always marked. Animacy and definiteness are, however, not the only factors that determine marking in Harauti, because these parameters cannot explain why in a perfective construction, the ergative A is marked, and the animate O is not. Even inanimate A’s are marked, cf. ex. (281):

228   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

(281) moṭar=naiṃ pāṃ-pāṃ=kī āvāj kar-ī ar bus=naiṃ paw-paw=gen sound[f] make-pst.f.sg and ek jhaṭako de’r ṭhaharag-ī one shake[m] give.cvb stop-pst.f.sg ‘The bus made the sound of paw-paw and after giving a shake it stopped.’ (Prem 1984: 93) Consequently, the marking with naiṃ cannot only be due to the animacy/definiteness of the marked argument. It is therefore reasonable to assume that other features such as discourse salience and topicality are also involved in the marking pattern of Harauti. Although these latter kinds of properties are only rarely mentioned in the literature on DOM, it seems plausible that the level of salience of an argument is inherently related to its level of animacy/definiteness. Topicality determines as well the salience of an argument. The topicalized argument is the argument about which something is being said (cf. Dik 1989: 266), and predominantly concurs with the A-argument. Therefore, a topicalized argument is necessarily also a salient argument in the clause. Topicality constitutes a third factor, besides animacy and definiteness, that can control differential marking (cf. Bossong 2006). Definiteness and animacy are two criteria, topicality being another one, that contribute to a high level of salience (cf. Croft 1988: 165). Animate and definite arguments tend to be more salient in discourse than inanimate and indefinite arguments (cf. Hopper and Thompson 1980; Heine and König 2010: 94). In Harauti, it is true that O, for instance, is only marked when it is definite and animate, i.e., when it is a discourse-prominent argument. On this view, the main semantic purpose of the naiṃ-marking is to characterize the argument as the main discursive argument of the sentence, and, as such, to highlight it visà-vis the other arguments. If the argument is only animate or only definite, the marking with naiṃ is not certain. This explains why the IO of typical ditransitive verbs such as ‘to give’ or ‘to tell’ does not generally take naiṃ, given that the IO in Harauti is not the most prominent argument in a sentence in which this role is assumed by A. Accordingly, the IO is not marked by the postposition for discourse prominence, but by another “adjunctive” kind of postposition. Still, in the rather exceptional situations where the IO has a great discursive importance, it may be marked with naiṃ. In ex. (282) for instance, the animate IO parār ‘another’ takes naiṃ. Although this is unusual, it is the emphasized argument of the sentence: of all people, the buffalos are sold to an utter stranger. The prominence of the IO is moreover stressed by its position at the beginning of the sentence:

Differential marking   

   229

(282) parār=naiṃ syāḷā=meṃ mhūṃ bhaiṃsy-āṃ bec’r pācho other=naiṃ cold season=in I buffalo-nom.pl sell.cvb back jā+r-yo+ch-o go+prog-pst.m.pl+aux-pst.m.pl ‘It was to a stranger that I had first sold my buffalos in the cold season, and then I was going back.’ (Prem 1984: 93) The opposite example also shows up; in ex. (283), mhaiṃ, while being A of a perfective verb, does not take the naiṃ postposition. It appears that neither the syntactic obligatoriness of marking A nor the animacy of A triggers a marking. Because the emphasis is on the action, and in particular on the hands performing the action, mhaiṃ remains unmarked. Note that there is no other argument that qualifies to take naiṃ in ex. (283). The O poṭalī ‘luggage’ could technically be marked with naiṃ if it were definite, but its non-specific nature renders marking improbable. (283) adha-khulī phāṭak=ko kuṃdo ḍāvā hath=sūṃ pakaṛ’ r mhaiṃ half-open door=gen part[m] left hand=abl take.cvb I jīvaṇā hath=sūṃ poṭalī bhītar phāṃk +dī right hand=abl luggage[f] inside throw +give.pst.f.sg ‘While taking a part of the half open door with my left hand, I threw my luggage inside with my right hand.’ (Prem 1984: 91) In sum, the distribution of the postposition naiṃ in Harauti poses a problem, because naiṃ cannot be considered as a structural case marker in this language. Though the postposition occurs predominantly marking the A-argument of a perfective construction, it can also mark an O, IO and experiencer. Its occurrence seems to be determined by semantic criteria of definiteness, animacy and, to a certain extent, topicality. Though naiṃ in Harauti still has the function of distinguishing the A and O-arguments, by occurring only once in a sentence, this seems to be only a secondary function – its primary function being the semantic indexing of the arguments.¹⁰

10 Note that in certain Bhili languages (Rajasthani tribal languages), naiṃ can occur more than once in a clause, marking every animate/definite/topical argument (Max Phillips, p.c.). In these languages, naiṃ has completely lost its distinguishing function of case marker.

230   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

6.2.3 Object marking in Marwari and Gujarati In contrast to the multifunctionality of the postposition naiṃ in Harauti, the pattern of DOM in Marwari is of a more “traditional” kind. Definiteness and animacy determine the differential object marking in Marwari (cf. Masica 1991: 365). O is obligatorily naiṃ-marked when it is animate and definite, e.g., the proper name Śaraṇ in ex. (284). (284) mhaiṃ śaraṇ=naiṃ dekh-ī I Sharan.f.sg=obj see-pst.f.sg ‘I saw Sharan.’ (Hamsa 1984: 172) When the O is inanimate but definite, it is optionally naiṃ-marked. In ex. (285), the O is construed with naiṃ, and the postposition excludes any possibility of interpreting this O as indefinite. (285) mhaiṃ khāmosī=rī sīṃv=naiṃ pār I silence=gen limit[m]sg=obj pass kar+g-yo+h-o do+go-pst.m.sg+aux-pst.m.sg ‘I passed the limit of silence.’ (Hamsa 1984: 172) The O is never marked when it is inanimate and/or indefinite. On the other hand, the IO in Marwari is marked with naiṃ on a regular basis; as in Hindi (see Section 2.2, 1.1.3.2). (286) bābū mha=naiṃ baiṭh+jāv-ṇai=ro isāro kar-yo boss I=obj sit+go-inf=gen sign[m] make-pst.m.sg ‘The boss made me a sign to sit down.’ (Hamsa 1984: 170) It has been argued above for Harauti that its multifunctional postposition naiṃ functions primarily on a semantic basis of marking highly animate, definite or topical arguments. The postposition naiṃ “indexes” the argument it marks for these semantic features. On the other hand, the agreement pattern in Marwari seems to function as a distinguishing mechanism. The agreement pattern is different from Hindi, where there is no agreement when O is marked (cf. Chapter 2). In Marwari, there is always agreement with O (cf. ex. (284)). Thus, the occurrence of naiṃ as a marker of a noun has no influence on the agreement of the verb; naiṃ in Marwari does not function as an indicator of a relationship between the noun and the verb, like typical case markers do (cf. Blake 1994: 1) and like ko does in

Differential marking   

   231

Hindi. In fact, naiṃ in Marwari only indicates the definiteness or animacy of O/ IO. Therefore, like in Harauti, it is primarily a semantic marker. The fact that naiṃ can mark O as well as IO also points to the conclusion that it is not a distinguishing “accusative” case marker of which the only function is to distinguish the O of the A-argument.¹¹ It is well known that Rajasthani and Gujarati share a common ancestry through the ancestral “Old Western Rajasthani” (cf. Tessitori 1914). It is therefore interesting to take a look at the Gujarati DOM. In his study of verb agreement and object marking in Gujarati, Mistry (1998) proposes an approach in which he considers two Gujarati postpositions as homophonous. For agreement, Mistry (1998) observes that the verb in Gujarati agrees with the unmarked and marked O; this is similar to Marwari and different from Hindi. In addition, he argues that this agreement pattern forms a problem for any theoretical approach which suggests that verb agreement is restricted to the nominative (unmarked) case. With regard to Hindi, this approach has been advocated by Mohanan (1994: 105) who argued that there is a constraint in Hindi which says that the “verb agrees with the highest ARG [argument] associated with NOM [nominative] case”. The following examples from Hindi illustrate this constraint: (287) maiṃ laṛkī=ko dekh-tī+h-ūṃ I girl[f]=obj see-prs.f+aux.prs-1sg ‘I see the girl.’ (288) tum=ne saikil bec-ī+h-ai you=erg cycle[f] sell-pst.f+aux.prs-3sg ‘You’ve sold cycles.’ In both these examples, it is the nominative which controls agreement, although maiṃ is the subject in ex. (287) and saikil is O in ex. (288). If there is no nominative argument at all, the verb takes the “default” form, i.e., 3rd person m.sg. Mohanan’s argument draws on Saxena (1981) who also considered agreement in Hindi as a purely formal matter, i.e., as being exclusively restricted to unmarked arguments. Saxena was however criticized by Comrie (1984). Comrie argued, convincingly, that one also needed to look at the grammatical relations to evaluate the agreement pattern in Hindi. He based this argument on the agreement in Indo-Aryan languages, in particular on Gujarati and certain dialects of Marathi.

11 This is also reflected in my labeling of this postposition as “objective” instead of using the more common terms “accusative” or “dative”.

232   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

Indeed, Gujarati (and Marwari) displays a different verb agreement, because the verb agrees with the marked O (cf. Mistry 1998: 429). To solve this contradiction between verb agreement in Hindi, which is apparently well explained by Mohanan’s constraint, and the “irregular” agreement in Gujarati, Mistry argues that the Gujarati postpositional marker of the O, ne, is not a case marker, but a “specificity” marker that functions on semantic grounds. As in Marwari, this marker of O has no bearing on the agreement pattern; that is, it is not able to restrict or block agreement (Mistry 1998: 433–437). Compare the following example from Mistry (1998: 435) in which the perfective verb baraḍyā agrees in gender and number with the masculine plural O mag=ne:¹² (289) kiśor-e mag=ne baraḍ-yā Kishor-erg mung beans[m]=obj grind-pst.m.pl ‘Kishor ground mung beans.’ Thus far, Mistry’s approach is essentially the same as the one supported here for Marwari: naiṃ in Marwari is considered to be a marker of animacy/definiteness instead of a structural accusative case marker. However, Mistry notes that some Gujarati verbs take objects obligatorily marked with ne (NE in his article), and they agree by default (i.e., they do not agree with any argument in the constructions, but take the neuter singular form). Examples of these verbs include maḷ- ‘to meet’, vaḍh- ‘to rebuke’, karaḍ- ‘to bite’, coṭ- ‘to cling’, bheṭ- ‘to embrace’, cum- ‘to kiss’, nam- ‘to bow’, and paraṇ- ‘to marry’ (Mistry 1998: 429). The examples that Mistry (1998: 428) offers, are all constructions of obligation (cf. ex. (290)), and in the only example in which he uses a perfective verb, the verb turns out to be exceptional in that it does not take an ergative-marked A and rather seems to be intransitive¹³ (cf. ex. (291)).

12 Note that Gujarati has retained three grammatical genders, i.e. masculine, feminine and neuter, and that the ergative is expressed by the inflectional oblique case -e. 13 Note that the verb law ‘to bring’ in Gujarati also does not take an ergative marked A in the perfective, similar to Hindi lānā ‘to bring’ (cf. Mistry 1998: 247, Chapter 2). As in Hindi, it is difficult to consider law as an intransitive verb, or as an experiencer verb. However, it is interesting that there seem to be more verbs in Gujarati than in Hindi that pattern intransitive on the syntactic level although they are transitive on the semantic level. Moreover, the use of ne as the marker of the experiencer in a construction of obligation appears to be restricted to Northern Gujarati. In Southern Gujarati, the ergative suffix -e is used instead (cf. Mistry 1976: 267).

Differential marking   

   233

(290) kiśor=ne kāgaḷ=ne aḍ-v-uṃ+ha-t-uṃ Kishor=obj letter[m]=obj touch-des-n.sg+aux-pst-n.sg ‘Kishor wished to touch the letter.’ (291) kiśor kāgaḷ=ne aḍ-y-o Kishor letter[m]=obj touch-pst-m.sg ‘Kishor touched the letter.’ Mistry argues that in constructions with these particular verbs (of which aḍ, ‘to touch’, is an example in (290) and (291)), NE functions as a case marker, i.e., as marker of O. This “NE” is homophonous with the aforementioned ne postposition. According to Mistry, NE is different from ne because the latter one serves as a specificity marker and does not prevent agreement. In other words, Mistry distinguishes the case marker NE from the “specificity” marker ne, on the basis of the argument that NE can prevent agreement, whereas ne cannot. A number of objections can be raised against Mistry’s analysis. First, the above-mentioned verbs do not take an O as Mistry assumes (and as their translations do in English). On the contrary, they are verbs that take the semantic role of recipients.¹⁴ The argument marked by ne in these constructions is considered to be an IO, not an O. The obligatoriness of NE indicates this, as IOs and experiencer arguments (i.e., non-O’s) are always marked in Marwari and Gujarati. Moreover, the use of cognate verbs in Hindi points in the same direction. For instance, the Hindi verb milnā ‘to meet’ is not transitive in the ordinary meaning of the term, and in expressions such as ex. (292) (Montaut 2004: 195), the agent-experiencer ham takes the postposition ko; obviously, the verb does not agree with this marked argument, but with the patient-stimulus. (292) hamār-ī cāzī ham=ko mil+ga-ī+h-ai we.gen-f Chazi[f] we=obj get+go-pst.f.sg+aux-prs.3sg ‘We have found (gotten back) our Chazi.’ The proposed homophony between the case marker NE and the specificity marker ne is in fact reducible to another instance of the multifunctionality of the object marker in the IA languages: it marks O under certain semantic conditions, the IO according to an extension of DOM and experiencer arguments (cf. Kittilä 2006).

14 More literal, though perhaps grammatically incorrect, English translations of the aforementioned verbs would therefore be ‘to join with’, ‘to rebuke to’, ‘to bite in’, ‘to cling to’, ‘to embrace with’, ‘to kiss with’, ‘to bow to’, and ‘to marry with’, respectively.

234   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

The verb in Gujarati and Marwari always agrees with O, whether it is marked or not. However, agreement with an IO or an experiencer, marked with the same postposition, is out of the question.¹⁵ In sum, whereas Marwari naiṃ and Gujarati ne fulfill the “indexing” role of case markers, being primarily semantic markers, the agreement in these languages has the role of “distinguishing” the O- and A-arguments by consistently marking O. It is the verb agreement in Marwari and Gujarati that fulfils the argument-distinguishing and relational function that is attributed to ko in Hindi (cf. Magier 1990: 213, but see Spencer 2005). From the point of view of iconicity, it is interesting to observe that ko is also formally very distinct from ne/naiṃ. Although ko is also a postposition that indicates a definite/animate O, it does not allow agreement. On the other hand, compared to the Rajasthani languages and Gujarati, the ergative postposition ne in Hindi is reduced in multifunctionality, because the use of ne restricted to the specific syntactic functions of marking A and does not extend to any other argument.

6.2.4 The marking of subjects and experiencers in Gujarati and Punjabi The postposition ne shows up for different functions in both Gujarati and Punjabi. Another alignment feature that these two languages have in common is that SAP pronouns show different marking from third person pronouns and nouns. In contrast with Marwari, Gujarati does mark A with a specific marker in perfective constructions. This marker is -e, an oblique form, which is also used to mark the locative. The marker -e can also be added to an attributive adjective that modifies a nominal form marked by -e, which shows that it is a true inflectional form, not a postposition (cf. Cardona 1965: 62, 70). In Gujarati, ne is the objective postposition, which is added only to a (pro)nominal form. The conjugation of the pronouns is given in Table 6.3. First and second person singular pronouns take a separate ergative form when they are used as A, but they do not have the typical -e ending of the nominals; for their plurals, the ergative has merged with the nominative, giving one form that ends in -e for both A and S.

15 Experiencer verbs in Hindi and Marwari generally agree with the stimulus role, not with the experiencer, which is marked, respectively, with ko or naiṃ. Agreement between the experiencer verb and the experiencer is possible outside the IA languages, as shown by Bickel (2003) in a study of the Tibeto-Burman language Bilhari. The IA languages included in Bickel’s study, Maithili and Nepali, do not display experiencer agreement and therefore follow the general IA pattern (cf. Chapter 3–4, Section 2.4.3).

Differential marking   

sg

1

2

3

nom erg obj

huṃ meṃ ma=ne

tuṃ teṃ ta=ne

e e(h)ṇe e(h)=ne

pl

   235

1

2

3

apṇe apṇe apṇ=ne

ta(h)me e ta(h)me e(h)mṇe ta(h)m=ne e(h)m=ne

Table 6.3 Personal pronouns in Gujarati (cf. Cardona 1965: 92–93)¹⁶

In Punjabi, ne is the postposition that marks the A of a verb in the perfective. Whereas in Gujarati, the first and second person plural forms do not have a separate form for A and S, in Punjabi none of the SAP pronouns have a different marking for A.¹⁷

sg

1

2

3

nom erg obj

mai mai mai=nū

tū tū tai=nū

é é=ne é=nū

pl

1

2

3

asī asī sā=nū

tusī tusī tuā=nū

é énā=ne énā=nū

Table 6.4 Personal pronouns in Punjabi (cf. Bhatia 1993: 229, the diacritics are simplified)

First and second person pronouns are unmarked for A and do not take the ne postposition. Verb agreement, however, is with O, not with the unmarked A. Compare the following examples from Bhatia (1993: 86). (293) maiṃ kamm kītā I work[m] do.pst.m.sg ‘I worked.’, lit.: ‘I did the work.’ (294) kuṛī=ne kamm kītā girl[f]=erg work[m] do.pst.m.sg ‘The girl worked.’, lit.: ‘The girl did the work.’

16 Certain forms, such as the exclusive and formal plural and the remote third person pronoun, are not included in this and the following tables for reasons of space. These forms are all declined in a similar way. 17 Punjabi has the same alignment pattern as Marathi, except for the use of pronominal suffixes (cf. Chapter 6). The Marathi ergative marker ne becomes nī if the argument is plural (cf. Ashwini and Deo 2006: 379).

236   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

Note that variation in the ergative marking exists. Bhatia (1993: xxxi), for instance, observes that the different marking for first/second versus third person occurs only in the Punjabi spoken around Powadhi, Ambala. According to Bhatia, the Punjabi spoken around Majhi and Amritsar always marks A with ne, including SAP pronouns functioning as A. Other variants of Punjabi follow yet another strategy by not marking A at all. Case marking in Punjabi seems to be a classic example of a “split conditioned by the semantic nature of NPs” (cf. Dixon 1994: 83, Chapter 2). Unlike Marwari, there is a clear difference in Punjabi between first/second pronominal arguments with accusative case marking and third person pronouns and nouns with ergative marking. However, it is important to note that with respect to agreement, all arguments (pronominal and nominal arguments alike) pattern in the same way. There is ergative agreement with S/ O in a perfective verb construction. Hence, the difference in alignment between pronouns and nouns is more a historical development than a fundamental difference of pronouns “preferring” a different alignment pattern than nouns (cf. Filiminova 2005, Section 6.2.1). Pronominal case marking in Gujarati is highly irregular. All singular pronouns and the third person plural pronoun display a distinction between ergative and nominative case. Only the first and second person plural have nominative case for both A and S. The opposition between the first/second person plural and the third person plural is consonant with the idea that nouns and third person pronouns pattern more as ergative than first/second pronouns. The question still remains as to why this split is absent in the singular paradigm. Typologically, splits based on number are diverse, and according to Dixon (1994) the split can be in either direction because (i) number is a category that can be expressed by nouns as well as pronouns;¹⁸ (ii) number alone cannot determine whether an argument is more likely to function as A than as O. Whether singular or plural pronouns pattern as ergatives is thus merely a matter of preference in a particular language. However, in splits, “there are likely to be more distinctions in the singular than in the plural” for argument marking (Dixon 1994: 92), and this is where Gujarati differs, since we find an opposition in first/second versus third in the plural, but not in the singular. Arguably, historical developments in the morphological paradigm have led to this pattern in Gujarati.

18 According to Dixon (1994: 92–94), number contrasts with person, which is more associated with pronouns (because only pronouns distinguish between first, second, and third person). However, number also contrasts with gender, which is more associated with nouns, because nouns are typically distinguished for being masculine, feminine, and neuter (in contrast to first/ second pronouns, which, in many languages, have only one form for all genders).

Differential marking   

   237

For other alignment features, Punjabi is in general closer to Hindi than to the Rajasthani languages. The Punjabi postposition for O and IO is nū(ṃ). Only a definite or animate O is marked, and agreement in Punjabi is with the subject, except in perfective transitive verb constructions, where there is an unmarked O. The experiencer in a construction of obligation in Punjabi always takes the objective form, as muṇḍe=nūṃ in the following example from Bhatia (1993: 37). (295) muṇḍe=nūṃ katāb paṛ-nī boy=obj book[f] read-inf.f ‘The boy will have to read a book.’

pav-egī compel-fut.f.3sg

It has been reported that in Hindi, these constructions also occur with the postposition ne, in particular in the Urdu spoken around Lahore and Delhi (cf. Butt and King 1991, 2004: 6; Bashir 1999). Butt and King (2004: 6) argue that a subject marked with ne “is interpreted as wanting to perform the action”, whereas if it is marked with ko (the usual construction), it “must perform the action”. They give the following examples to illustrate this. (296) nadya=ne zu jā-nā h-ai N=erg zoo go-inf be.prs-3sg ‘Nadya wants to go to the zoo.’ (297) nadya=ko zu jā-nā h-ai N=obj zoo go-inf be.prs-3sg ‘Nadya must go to the zoo.’ In standard Hindi/Urdu, this particular use of ne is unusual. It is possible that it is an extension of the ergative use of ne, which occurred under the influence of Punjabi, where ko is non-existent. However, as pointed out by Masica (1990: 335), when it marks the experiencer of a construction of obligation, ne is used in Punjabi to express only “weak compulsion”. Moreover, ne never occurs with first/ second pronouns; compare the following Punjabi examples taken from Masica (1990: 335): (298) muṇḍe=ne jā-ṇā ai boy=erg go-inf be.prs.3sg ‘The boy has to go.’ (vs.: the boy should/ought to go)

238   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

(299) maiṃ jā-ṇā ai I go-inf be.prs.3sg ‘I have to go.’ In a construction expressing “strong compulsion”, the objective postposition nūṃ marks the experiencer. Although Masica’s intention is to argue against the borrowing of ne for constructions of obligation from Punjabi to Hindi, his examples actually strengthen Butt’s view that in Hindi and Punjabi, objective postpositions are used for strong obligations and that the ergative postposition denotes a lesser degree of compulsion.¹⁹ In Marathi, the postposition of the ergative, ne (ne is the singular form, nī the plural form), assumes a number of additional functions that go beyond marking the ergative. Ne is not only the marker of the nominal A of a perfective construction but also the instrumental marker of inanimate agents in constructions with intransitive verbs (cf. ex. (300) from Wali 2005: 45). Moreover, ne is also used – and much more frequently than in Punjabi and Hindi – in combination with a construction of obligation, which can be expressed by means of a subjunctive in Marathi (cf. ex. (301) from Wali 2005: 46). This latter construction can either be transitive or intransitive. However, the subjunctive verb never agrees with the nemarked argument (Pandharipande 2003: 711). If the agent of such a construction is in the nominative case, then the meaning is optative rather than obligative (cf. Wali 2004; Montaut 2009b). (300) varya=ne arsa phuṭ-l-a wind=ins mirror be broken-pst-3m.sg ‘The mirror was broken due to the wind.’ (301) lili=ne dhav-av-e Lili=erg run-sbjv-3n.sg ‘Lili should run.’ However, just as in Hindi and Punjabi, an infinitive construction combined with an objective-marked argument can also express an obligation in Marathi, as in the following example from Pandharipande (1990: 163):

19 In Gujarati, the objective is used to mark experiencers of modal constructions with ‘want’ and ‘must’ verbs. It may be replaced by a “pronominal adjective” (a genitive form of the pronoun) in constructions of obligation without a modal auxiliary (Cardona 1965: 95).

Differential marking   

   239

(302) tyā=lā śaḷe=lā zāyca āhe he=obj school=loc go.inf be.prs.3sg ‘He has to go to school.’ Again, the pattern with the ergative postposition and the subjunctive expresses a less strong compulsion than the infinitival construction with an objective-marked experiencer argument. Finally, the pattern found in Hindi, Punjabi, and Marathi in which the ergative postposition marks the experiencer of a construction of obligation is far from exceptional in Indo-Aryan. For instance, it also occurs in Nepali and the Pahari languages Garhwali and Kumaoni (cf. Section 4.1.2, Montaut 2009b: 311).

6.2.5 Differential marking: summary The extension of ne in Hindi to modal constructions of obligation and permission once more confirms the multifunctionality of the postposition ne in the IA languages. The main function of ne in the IA languages may be best described as ‘marking a core argument’. Whether this core argument functions as A or O is subject to language-specific variation, which occurs to a considerable extent. If we take into account that most of the speakers of IA languages are multilingual, speaking more than one IA language, historical changes due to language contact are more than likely. Yet, in the central Indo-Aryan languages discussed in Section 6.2 – namely, Hindi, Marwari, Harauti, Gujarati, and Punjabi– there is one recurring trend with regard to postpositional marking. The postposition with the form ne/naiṃ marks an argument high on the scale of definiteness/animacy, or in other words, an argument that is highly “discourse prominent”. For Hindi and Harauti, this means that ne marks A. In Hindi, ne contrasts with the objective postposition ko, which marks the other core arguments (i.e., a definite/animate O, IO, and the experiencer argument). In Marwari, ne does not mark ergative A. In this language, the formal distinction between ergative and nominative has largely disappeared. Gujarati is similar, but still has an oblique marking of A in certain paradigms. In Punjabi, the same merge of the ergative and nominative form has taken place in the pronominal paradigm, but ne is the ergative marker of third person pronouns and nouns. As in Hindi, Punjabi has an extra postposition, nūṃ, which marks O, IO, and the experiencer. The use of this postposition seems to result in its argument not controlling verb agreement. The postposition ne does occur in Marwari and Gujarati as a semantic marker of O without influencing verb agreement. It also occurs as a marker of IO and

240   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

the experiencer. Eventually, in Harauti, ne can mark any prominent argument, although there are certain restrictions on its occurrence. Whereas A marked with ne in Harauti does not control agreement, an O marked with ne can control agreement if the clause is perfective. Except in Hindi, Punjabi and Marathi (Section 5.3), then, it looks as though verb agreement is not influenced in any way by case marking. In all of the languages, there are the following two general principles: (1) the A of a transitive perfective verb never controls agreement and (2) agreement is controlled by O. The exception is that in Hindi, Punjabi and Marathi, a marked O cannot control agreement. Hindi, with its strict use of ne for A and ko for O, and with the restriction on agreement with any overtly marked argument, seems to be exceptional among the aforementioned languages. As will become clear in Section  6.3 below, this conclusion is confirmed when we look at the alignment types found in the dialects of Hindi, which pattern much less consistently than the alignment patterns in Hindi itself.

6.3 Central Indo-Aryan and Hindi: variation on a micro-scale 6.3.1 Hindi and Braj: O-marking and agreement This degree of standardization in Hindi is best illustrated with a comparison between Hindi and a variant of Hindi, such as Braj. Braj is a language spoken around the city of Agra in the state Uttar Pradesh, where Hindi is the main language. Braj used to be a language with a flourishing literary tradition in the 14th16th centuries but is now merely a spoken “dialect” of Hindi. The alignment in Braj is, contrary to what one might expect, not the same as in Hindi. Some tendencies seem to be more closely related to Rajasthani; others are typical of Braj only. In Braj, ergative case is expressed with the postposition naiṃ (cf. Varma 1935: 96). In its distribution, the use of naiṃ is similar to that of ne in Hindi. In contrast to the imperfective, A in the perfective construction takes the ergative suffix naiṃ/ne. S remains in the nominative case. There are two cases with a layer I form in Braj; the unmarked nominative case and the oblique. The pronouns take an oblique form before the postposition naiṃ. However, as in Hindi, some pronominal forms display a different oblique before naiṃ than before other postpositions (e.g., taiṃ=naiṃ; haman=naiṃ). The first person singular maiṃ remains in the nominative before the postposition naiṃ (cf. Masica 1991: 252). The conjugation of the pronouns in Braj is shown in Table 6.5.

Central Indo-Aryan and Hindi: variation on a micro-scale   

nom.sg 1 2 3

nom.pl

maiṃ, meṃ, hauṃ, hoṃ, hūṃ ham tū, tūṃ tum bau, bu, bo; bā (f) be, bai, we

   241

obl.sg

obl.pl

mo (maiṃ=naiṃ) to (taiṃ=naiṃ) bā, wā, gwā

ham (haman=naiṃ) tum un, bin, win, gwanu

Table 6.5 Pronominal paradigm Braj

In modern Braj, a second form of the first person singular is still found: hauṃ. Hauṃ is only used for S of an intransitive verb or for the subject of an imperfective verb. It never occurs in combination with the postposition naiṃ. In older Braj, there was a clear distinction between the two forms of the first person pronoun maiṃ and hauṃ. The latter was used strictly for a nominative subject, whereas maiṃ was used as the ergative subject without a postposition, as is exemplified in ex. (303), from a 17th century Braj text (Snell 1991: 9). (303) tāte ā-i śaraṇa then come-cvb refuge[f] ‘So I came and took refuge.’

maiṃ I.obl

gah-ī grasp-pst.f.sg

The two ways of forming a first person in Braj (mai- and hu-) recalls the situation in Marwari (and Gujarati), where there is also a varying use of an ai-pronoun and an u-pronoun, in transitive and intransitive sentences (cf. Khokhlova 1992). In Marwari, the pronominal forms (m)hūṃ and maiṃ are used for the same argument, regardless of whether the verb is transitive or intransitive. Marwari (a Rajasthani language) is different from Braj in that there is no postposition for A. As Braj is now spoken in an area where there is a strong Hindi influence in the media and education, the language is more influenced by Hindi than earlier forms of the language were. Despite the fact that the ergative postposition naiṃ is used consistently in Braj, the language is positioned somewhere between Marwari and Hindi with respect to pronominal case marking. For instance, the existence of two morphologically different forms of the first person pronoun is unlike Hindi, but similar to Marwari. In modern Braj, maiṃ can be followed by an ergative postposition, and hauṃ is used in all other instances (Verma 1935). In contrast to Marwari, where both forms are used without functional differences, the occurrence of maiṃ and hauṃ in Braj is determined by grammatical relations: maiṃ is associated with an ergative A, hauṃ is preferred for S and A is used in an imperfective construction. Furthermore, the use of maiṃ and hauṃ is partly subject to which dialectal variant of Braj is used. Varma (1935: 70) states the following: “Dans l’ensemble du pays où les formes en h- sont employées, on trouve aussi maẽ, mais là où maẽ est normal, les formes en h- manquent absolument.” It

242   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

is clear, then, that maiṃ is the functionally unmarked form in Braj, whereas the use of hauṃ is limited to S and to the subject of the non-perfective verb forms. Additionally, Liperovsky (2007: 148) notes that nouns in the oblique plural can function as A without the naiṃ postposition, something that does not occur in Hindi. Compare, e.g., the following example: (304) coranu sabu mālu-asbābu nikāri+lī-yau thief.obl.pl all luggage[m] go out+take-pst.m.sg ‘The thieves took out the whole luggage.’ Nevertheless, in Marwari, there is a tendency to differentiate between A and S in the masculine plural: S never takes the oblique case, while A may take oblique or nominative case in free variation (cf. Khokhlova 1992). The plural paradigm of nouns functioning as subject is exceptional in both Braj and Marwari. In Braj, the postposition kau or kūṃ is used exclusively for a marked O. However, the conditions licensing the use of this postposition are not as rigid as in Hindi. In Hindi, all pronouns must take a ko-postposition, because of their animacy and definiteness. Yet, in Braj, pronouns can appear without a postposition,²⁰ as exemplified by tū in ex. (305) (Liperovsky 2007: 151).²¹ (305) tū mere mālik=neṃ yādi you I.gen master=erg remembrance ‘My master has recalled thee.’

kī-yau+h-ai do-pst.m.sg+aux.prs

20 The question of whether the use of a postposition with pronouns in Braj is related to a semantic difference is a contentious issue and is the subject of current research. From the examples in Liperovsky (2007: 150–151), it is clear that A is either lower in person than the unmarked pronominal O or is in third person. Furthermore, in cases in which there is agreement with a marked O in Braj O is always animate in the examples given in Liperovsky (2007). However, to draw definite conclusions about the role of referential hierarchies in the alignment of Braj, more material on Braj is needed. 21 I asked a native speaker of Braj to assess this example as well as the following ones cited by Liperovsky (2007). My informant altered all examples in order to obtain an alignment pattern that better conformed to the alignment of Hindi. For instance, he changed to in example (305) to to=kū, maiṃ in ex. (306) to mo=kū. He was in doubt about the agreement in ex. (306) and he hesitated to change mārī to the expected m.sg. form in Hindi māro. On the basis of this brief inquiry, it is of course impossible to give a definitive judgment of Liperovsky’s examples (which are from a collection of folk tales) or to assume that among speakers who know Braj and Hindi there is a tendency to prefer the Hindi pattern of alignment. I leave this question to further research.

Central Indo-Aryan and Hindi: variation on a micro-scale   

   243

The agreement of transitive verbs in the perfective is either with an unmarked or marked O. In Hindi, O-agreement occurs only if O is nominative. Agreement in perfective constructions in Hindi is always in gender and number. This occurrence is related to the fact that the perfective verb was a participle historically, which, because of its deverbal nature, can agree only in gender and number, regardless whether it is used as a finite verb or as an adjective. The present perfect construction consists of a participle and a conjugated verb. One might expect, then, that the conjugated verb would agree in person with O. This agreement is impossible, not because there is a restriction on agreement in person, but because first and second person O’s are always marked with ko, and formal marking of O rules out agreement in Hindi. Agreement with a pronominal O is thus automatically prevented in Hindi. However, in Braj, the use of ko is not as restricted. We find occurrences where a pronominal O does not take the postposition and agreement in person occurs, as for instance in the following ex. (306) from Liperovsky (2007: 150), where the copula h-ūṃ is first person singular, agreeing with the first person maiṃ, an unmarked O. (306) maiṃ rājā=neṃ sāt tār-e=bhītar mūṃ-di I.f king=erg seven lock[m]-pl=in confine-ptcp.prs.f.sg rākh-ī+h-ūṃ keep-pst.f.sg+aux-prs.1sg ‘The king has been confining me under seven locks.’ In general, agreement is freer in Braj because the verb can also agree with a marked O. In ex. (307) the verb mār-ī displays a feminine ending, agreeing with the marked O vā=kū ‘she’ (Liperovsky 2007: 149). (307) yā bāt=kū sun vā=kai khasam=ne vā=kū bauhut this thing=obj hear.cvb she=gen husband=erg she=obj much mār-ī+ī beat-pst.f.sg+aux.pst.f.sg ‘On having heard this, her husband had beaten her severely.’ In conclusion, Braj is somewhere between Hindi and Marwari with respect to its agreement patterning. Marwari never differentiates agreement between a marked or unmarked O, and there is always agreement between the perfective verb and O, as in the ex. (307) from Braj. However, in Braj, this kind of agreement is exceptional. More frequently, the same agreement as in Hindi occurs: the marking of O does not appear in combination with O-agreement. Still, the postpositional marking and agreement in Braj is less strict than in Hindi, in the sense that in

244   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

Braj, sometimes there is agreement with a marked O; such agreement is prohibited in Hindi. Furthermore, unlike in Hindi, there is no obligatory rule for the postpositional marking of plural nouns in functioning as A; nor is there one for pronouns in the function of O. Agreement in Braj is a new challenge to the constraint in Mohanan (1994: 105), which says that in Hindi, the verb agrees with the nominative argument, irrespective of its grammatical role. This constraint is clearly violated in more distant IA languages, and it turns out to be too strong for Braj, a language assumed to be very closely related to Hindi, because agreement between a marked O and the verb is possible – and perhaps required (cf. Section 6.2.3).

6.3.2 Bundeli and Bagheli Another variety of Hindi is the language Bundeli, spoken in the region of Bundelkhand, a historically important area in Central India that extends over the states of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Bundeli is predominantly a spoken language and is not known to have much literature. It is in competition with Hindi, while also bordering the area where Braj is spoken. Its features are mainly related to Hindi and Braj, and it is considered a Western dialect of Hindi. Its alignment is similar to these two languages. There is an ergative postposition neṃ, which is used as the marker for A with a verb in the perfective (cf. Jaiswal 1962: 99). O is marked only when animate and definite, in which case its marker is the postposition khoṃ or its variant khaṃ. This is also the postposition of the IO, except with beneficiaries, of which Jaiswal (1962: 102) says that the layer III postposition ke lāneṃ is also often used. The verb always agrees with the subject, except in the perfective, where it agrees with O if the latter is in the nominative case, e.g. ex. (308) from Jaiswal (1962: 146). (308) tum=neṃ ek ām you=erg one mango[m] ‘You ate a mango.’

khā-o eat-pst.m.sg

Jaiswal (1962) describes Standard Bundeli (if it is at all possible to speak of a standard variety of this language). In the introduction to his work, some varieties of Bundeli are discussed. Kundri (Kunḍrī) is one particular dialect of Bundeli. Kundri is spoken in the area around Banda and Hamirpur in the state Uttar

Central Indo-Aryan and Hindi: variation on a micro-scale   

   245

Pradesh.²² This region is close to the Eastern Hindi area. Awadhi is a well-known representative of Eastern Hindi (cf. Section 3.2.2), but another variety is Bagheli. Kundri is spoken close to where Bagheli is spoken. Kundri is a mix of both the Eastern Hindi Bagheli and the Western Hindi Bundeli, as can also be seen from the alignment of the language. Consider for instance the following examples. (309) mumtāj kah-is abai maiṃ mītiṃg=mā Mumtaj say-pst.3sg now I meeting=loc jā-t+h-auṃ go-ptcp.prs+aux.prs-1sg ‘Mumtaj said, “Now I’m going to a meeting”.’ (310) chah sāl pahile gāṃv=kā mumtāj grām+sabhā=ke jamīn six year early village=gen Mumtaj village+council=gen land aür tālāb=kā ghervā=ke bāunḍrī and pond=gen mortgage=gen boundary ban-vā+dih-is+ha-vai make-caus+give-pst.3sg+aux.prs-3sg ‘Six years ago Mumtaj of the village mortgaged the land and the pond of the village council.’ (311)

ham kaünau māripīṭ nahīṃ we nobody beating not ‘We didn’t give anyone a trashing.’

kī-n do.pst-1pl

22 To give an illustration of the complex situation of the varieties of Hindi, consider the following: the language Kundri is described by Jaiswal as a variant of Bundeli, “a kind of mixed Bundeli” (Jaiswal 1962: 11). He argues that there are two types of Kundri, “[t]he Kunḍrī of Banda is somewhat different from the Kunḍrī of Hamirpur and is based on Bagheli, but possesses many characteristic features of Bundeli, whereas Hamirpuri Kunḍrī is based on Bundeli with some Bagheli elements.” This division is taken over by Masica (1999: 433), for whom Kundri-2 is a dialect of Bundeli, spoken in Hamirpur, and Kundri-1 “a subdialect of the jūṛar dial. of Bagheli”, spoken in the Banda district. Both classifications are based on Grierson’s LSI. There are about 11,000 to 15,000 speakers of Kundri. The examples are from the website http://www.nirantar.net/khabar_slides.htm. The language is called Bundeli, but from a comparison of the language features and the area in which the language is spoken (Chitrakoot and Banda districts), it is clear that it is not the standard Bundeli and is most probably Kundri.

246   

   Central Indo-Aryan: Rajasthani

In these examples it is clear that Kundri does not follow the alignment pattern of the Standard Bundeli discussed by Jaiswal (1962). First, there is no ergative postposition or any other marker for A of a perfective verb. Second, the perfective verb does not agree with O, but with the subject. As for alignment, Kundri is certainly closer to the Eastern Hindi varieties than to Bundeli. Additionally, note the similarities in conjugation with Awadhi. The sound -i- is important for the ending of the verb in the past tense, and we also find it in the t2 conjugation in Awadhi (cf. Chapter 3). In contrast to Kundri, in Awadhi, the main verb takes an additional -i, and the form of the copula is slightly different from the Kundri copula. Compare Kundri dihis havai ‘he gave’ and Awadhi dekhisi hai ‘he saw’. The Awadhi first plural form ends in -en ( e.g. dekhen) whereas in Kundri, the form ends in -in, (e.g. kīn) without sandhi resulting in ki-in. Finally, the Kundri lexicon has words typical for Eastern Hindi.

6.3.3 Varieties of Hindi: conclusion In comparing both Bagheli-influenced Kundri with Bundeli, and Braj with Hindi above, an attempt was made to present and discuss the range of variation that can be found in alignment types across Hindi dialects. A number of syntactic similarities to the other Central IA languages have been observed. For instance, there is never agreement with an ergative-marked A, and the agreement with O in a perfective construction varies. In Braj, the verb may or may not agree with O. In Kundri, Bagheli, and Awadhi, the verb always agrees with the subject, and ergative marking of A is in general absent. Hindi is the only IA language in which there is considerably less variation, which is perhaps due to its high degree of standardization and its use in primary schools and media.

6.4 Central Indo-Aryan: Conclusion The area of the Hindi belt, which is a fertile stretch of land because of the presence of two great rivers, is a densely populated region that has often played a key role in the course of Indian history. It is where the Moghul emperors established their empire and introduced Arabic and Persian and their literary traditions and where the Rajput princes held court. It is also the region where the local languages Braj and Awadhi were instrumental in establishing a tradition of devotional literature in the “colloquial” languages at the time of the Moghuls. These are perhaps some of the reasons for the immense variation in languages one finds there. Even though at first sight the Central Indo-Aryan languages display a number of simi-

Central Indo-Aryan: Conclusion   

   247

larities in alignment (for example, they all have the form ne), a closer investigation shows that the alignment is different in every language. Central IA languages display a preference for gender and number agreement, which is clearly based on the participial origin of the finite verb form. Apparently related with the gender/number agreement is the fact that this agreement is often with O. This agreement seems to be much stronger in the languages toward the west of the area (Rajasthani and Gujarati). Hindi and its dialects do not display consistent agreement with a marked O. The purpose of postpositions in Central IA seems more of an “indication” of the semantic properties of their arguments (as illustrated by the DOM pattern, which the O-postposition follows) than of a syntactic, “distinguishing” function. In many languages, ne is multifunctional, Hindi, again, being the exception. The postposition ko in Hindi and the postposition nūṃ in Punjabi are different from the multifunctional naiṃ in Gujarati in that the argument they mark can no longer control verb agreement. Finally, standardized Hindi may be said, in general, to constitute an exception among the Central IA languages. Its clear “rules” of agreement and case marking are not adequate to account for the variation one finds in Rajasthani and the Hindi dialects.

7 Conclusion 7.1 The definition of ergativity: summary Dixon (1979; Comrie 1978) defined an ergative construction as a construction in which O is treated the same way as S and different from A. With respect to morphological ergativity, this “treatment” refers to verb agreement and case marking. Syntactic ergativity, in which S and O are syntactically treated the same way in coordination and conjunction patterns, does not occur in the Indo-Aryan languages discussed in this study. On the contrary, ellipsis of every core argument is possible and is determined not only by syntactic constraints but also by semantic and discourse-related factors (cf. Section 2.4.3). The pattern of morphological ergativity defined by Comrie and Dixon is attested in Indo-Aryan, but before a construction can be called ergative, several conditions must be fulfilled. Of the Indo-Aryan languages discussed in this study, Hindi, Kashmiri, Poguli, Sindhi, Siraiki, Marathi, Harauti, Gujarati, Punjabi, Braj, and Bundeli display a “perfectly ergative” construction with ergative case marking of A and perfective verb agreement with S and O. This observation is not tantamount to classifying these languages as ergative, because they also display other (and more) constructions that clearly do not conform to the definition of ergativity. In the above-mentioned languages, ergative constructions occur only under specific circumstances. These circumstances are determined by the tense/aspect of the verb and the place of the core arguments in the referential hierarchies. The present study has revealed that these two factors directly or indirectly influence the alignment patterns of constructions in Indo-Aryan. The following table provides an overview of the constructions in IA that are entirely ergative. The conditions under which a particular type of alignment appears are not strict but must be interpreted for each language separately. That is, the category of “perfective” may differ slightly across the languages (for instance, compare the tense system in Nepali, Section 4.1.3, with the tense system in Kashmiri, Section 5.1.2.1). This type of difference also applies to the condition of “referentiality”, which includes different aspects in different languages. Hence, although I use the general term “referentiality” (ref-) in Tables 7.1 through 7.6, “referentiality” may refer to different features of animacy, definiteness, person, and topicality. Moreover, the term “referentiality” does not necessarily assume a relation between the referential features of A and those of O. If there is such a relation, the alignment displays a pattern in which the marking of A determines the marking of O and vice versa.

The definition of ergativity: summary   

   249

The constructions in Table 7.1 are extracted from an inventory of 200 Indo-Aryan constructions drawn from 20 languages (cf. appendix 1). For each language, two intransitive and eight transitive constructions have been included, which differ with respect to one of the following three conditions: tense/aspect of the verb, the referentiality of O, and the referentiality of A. The case marking and the verb agreement in each of the constructions were subsequently determined for the transitive constructions; the intransitive constructions are only relevant for comparison between the form of A, O and S, and are not included in the following analyses.

language

tense/aspect

ref-O

ref-A

case marking

verb agreement

Hindi-Urdu Hindi-Urdu Kashmiri Kashmiri Poguli Poguli Sindhi Siraiki Marathi Harauti Harauti Harauti Harauti Gujarati Gujarati Punjabi Braj Braj Bundeli Bundeli

perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective

low low high low high low low low low high high low low low low low low low low low

high low low low low low low low low high low high low high low low high low high low

S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A

S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O S, O

Table 7.1 Ergative constructions in Indo-Aryan

The Rajasthani language Harauti is the Indo-Aryan language with the highest number of ergative constructions (all four perfective constructions); that is, Harauti is the Indo-Aryan language with the lowest number of conditions that must be fulfilled for a construction to qualify as ergative. All ergative constructions in Harauti require that the verb be perfective; this requirement is the sole condition. The place of the arguments in the referential hierarchies does not directly interfere with the case marking or the verb agreement because Harauti restricts the occurrence of the postposition naiṃ, which can mark any core

250   

   Conclusion

argument. In perfective transitive constructions, naiṃ already marks A; thus, a “second” naiṃ-marking in the sentence, the marking of O, is straightforwardly impossible. Furthermore, the verb in perfective constructions in Harauti always agrees with O. As a result, O has the same nominative case marking as S, and the verb agrees with S and O. Hindi displays the same alignment under the same conditions as Braj and Bundeli. In contrast with Harauti, a high-ranked O is marked and prevents ergative agreement from occurring. Hence, O is treated entirely differently from S in Hindi, Braj and Bundeli. In Braj, constructions with a high-ranked O may pattern ergatively in instances in which O is unmarked. In contrast with Hindi, an animate and even pronominal O in Braj does not always take an objective marking. However, these constructions are rather exceptional and seem to be gradually disappearing from the language, perhaps under the influence of Hindi (Section 6.3.1). Thus, these constructions are not included in the table. Gujarati patterns in the same way as Hindi and its Western dialects in this table. However, in Gujarati, the first and second plural pronouns do not display a distinctive ergative case; this characteristic distinguishes Gujarati from the more regular pronominal paradigm of Hindi. Kashmiri displays the same pattern as the closely related language Poguli. All arguments that are low on the referential hierarchy (i.e., non-pronominal arguments) cannot control pronominal suffixes, and the verb in the perfective constructions in this table consistently agrees with the nominative O. The pronominal suffixes in Kashmiri that can refer to an ergative inanimate A are optional; this construction is not included in the table. However, in constructions in which the A-argument is high on the referential hierarchy, pronominal suffixes are much more common and sometimes obligatory. In these instances, the ergative O-agreement is accompanied by an additional A-agreement. Sindhi, Siraiki, Marathi, and Punjabi only occasionally display ergative constructions because all three conditions, the tense/aspect of the verb and the places on the referential hierarchies of the A-argument and the O-argument influence the case marking of the arguments and the verb agreement. However, there is a clear tendency in these languages that the pronominal arguments pattern differently than the nominal arguments. In summary, “perfectly ergative” constructions are rather limited in number in Indo-Aryan. Twenty of the 160 transitive constructions included in the inventory display a “perfectly ergative” construction. This low number is due to the many so-called “splits” in alignment in Indo-Aryan languages, which I will discuss in the next section.

Splits   

   251

7.2 Splits The term “split” is rather unfortunate when applied to Indo-Aryan languages because it presupposes that an “abnormal” pattern is split from a normal pattern. It is generally assumed that Indo-Aryan is split ergative, in the sense that it displays ergative constructions as exceptions to a predominantly accusative pattern. However, the dominance of the accusative construction in Indo-Aryan is not confirmed by the data contained in Table 7.2. There are indeed more “perfectly accusative” constructions than ergative constructions (i.e., there are 31 accusative

language

tense/aspect

ref-O

ref-A

case marking

verb agreement

Hindi-Urdu Hindi-Urdu Asamiya Asamiya Bangla Bangla Bangla Bangla Bhojpuri Bhojpuri Bhojpuri Magahi Magahi Awadhi Awadhi Nepali Marathi Marathi Marathi Marwari Marwari Harauti Harauti Gujarati Gujarati Punjabi Punjabi Braj Braj Bundeli Bundeli

imperfective imperfective perfective imperfective perfective perfective imperfective imperfective perfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective perfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective

high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

high low high high high low high low high high low high low high low low high high low high low high low high low high low high low high low

S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O

S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A

Table 7.2 Accusative constructions in Indo-Aryan

252   

   Conclusion

constructions and 20 ergative constructions, but overall, 31 is still rather low compared to the total sum of 160 examined transitive constructions). Nevertheless, the range of languages displaying an accusative pattern is wider than that displaying an ergative pattern. One finds accusative constructions in the languages Hindi, Asamiya, Bangla, Bhojpuri, Magahi, Awadhi, Nepali, Marathi, Marwari, Harauti, Gujarati, Punjabi, Braj, and Bundeli. Whereas the ergative construction is clearly limited to Central and Western Indo-Aryan, accusative constructions are found across the entire region in which the Indo-Aryan languages are spoken. The single accusative construction in Nepali must be put between brackets, since A-arguments may optionally take an ergative marking. The reasons for this marking cannot be directly linked to any referential hierarchy (cf. Section 4.2). The ergative and accusative constructions are syntactically stable patterns. They are able to distinguish A-arguments from O-arguments in an equal measure, and in an economical and unambiguous way, by morphosyntactic mechanisms such as case marking and verb agreement. However, some constructions in IndoAryan are neither ergative nor accusative. This observation indicates that alignment in Indo-Aryan is not a purely syntactic issue. While the arguments are “distinguished” from each other by case marking and verb agreement, case marking and verb agreement are also mechanisms that have “indexing” functions.

7.2.1 The influence of referential hierarchies 7.2.1.1 Referentiality of O The objective marking of O in Indo-Aryan languages is primarily semantically determined. As a form of case marking, the function of the objective is certainly more directed toward indexing referential features of O than toward distinguishing O from A. The marking of O is influenced neither by the marking of A nor by the need to mark O differently from A. In most Indo-Aryan languages, the concept of a “hierarchy” is applicable only in the sense that one can compare the place of a marked O with the place of an unmarked O on the hierarchy, and then draw conclusions about the correlation between markedness and the referential features. Only Kashmiri and Poguli show a correlation between the marking of the A- and O-arguments within one construction. In both of these Western Indo-Aryan languages, the features of A and O are ranked against each other on the referential hierarchies, and their respective ranking (i.e., A < O or O < A) determine their marking. The influence of the referential hierarchies leads to alignment patterns that differ from the accusative and ergative alignment. In addition to these patterns, Comrie (1978) distinguished the neutral type of alignment, in which all arguments

Splits   

   253

are coded in the same way (A=S=O); the tripartite alignment pattern, in which all arguments are coded differently (A≠S≠O); and the last type, in which A is coded in the same way as O and differently from S, which is extremely uncommon. In Indo-Aryan, if O is high in animacy/definiteness, the expected case marking pattern is tripartite (A is ergative) or accusative (A is nominative) because O will be marked with the objective marker and will thus differ from A and S. Indeed, a number of constructions in which O is high in animacy/definiteness display this type of tripartite case marking (22/80), and accusative case marking is even more frequent (52/80). A few constructions in Table 7.3 combine a highly referential O with an ergative case marking pattern. It is not surprising that these constructions occur only in Kashmiri and Poguli, in which the O in perfective constructions cannot be marked, irrespective of its place on the referential hierarchies. Harauti displays the same pattern due to the aforementioned restriction on two naiṃ markings in a single clause.

language

tense/aspect

ref-O

ref-A

case marking

verb agreement

Kashmiri Kashmiri Poguli Poguli Harauti Harauti

perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective

high high high high high high

high low high low high low

S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A

A, S, O S, O A, S, O S, O S, O S, O

Table 7.3 Ergative case marking in constructions with a high referentiality of O

Conversely, if the referentiality of O is low, the preferred case marking patterns are ergative (28/80) (if A is ergative), and neutral (52/80) (if A is nominative). Remarkably, the present investigation has found that the referentiality of O has no particular influence on the agreement pattern. In general, accusative agreement is the most common type of agreement among the IA constructions (88/160). In constructions with a high-ranked O, 39/80 constructions display accusative agreement, and 21/80 display tripartite agreement. In constructions with a low-ranked O, 49/80 constructions display accusative agreement, and 12/80 display tripartite agreement. This difference is caused by the languages in which a high-ranked O controls the occurrence of a pronominal suffix. The dissociation of verb agreement and the referential properties of O is consistent with Bickel’s findings (2008) that although features from referential hierarchies obviously influence the case marking, particularly the marking of O, alignment in general is not influenced by these hierarchies. That is, there is no

254   

   Conclusion

observable tendency toward ergative or accusative agreement associated with a high- or low-ranked O. The exceptional languages are Hindi, Punjabi, and Marathi, in which the marking of O does not co-occur with O-agreement. However, in the other languages with ergative agreement and differential object marking (DOM), viz. Marwari, Harauti, and Gujarati, the marking of O has no influence on the agreement pattern. Remarkably, there is a clear morphological difference between the markers of O in these languages, and this difference parallels the distinction between O-agreement and no O-agreement. As shown in the following table, the case marker of a high-ranked O in Hindi and Punjabi has a distinctive form, in contrast with the O-marker in the Rajasthani languages (Marwari and Harauti) and in Gujarati. Marathi may be considered an exception, because the origin and relation of the lā-postposition seems closer to the Nepali objective marker lāī than to the Hindi marker ko (see Pandharipande 1990: 173). The Sindhi objective marker khe is reminiscent of the Hindi form, and like Hindi, Sindhi has no gender/number agreement with a marked O. However, personal agreement is possible in Sindhi in the form of a pronominal suffix referring to the marked O.

Hindi-Urdu Punjabi Marwari Harauti Gujarati Marathi Sindhi

ko nūṃ naiṃ naiṃ ne lā khe

Table 7.4 Objective postpositions in Central and Western Indo-Aryan

7.2.1.2 Referentiality of A In the typological literature, it has been argued that the differential marking of A is related to the person hierarchy. Animacy and definiteness have a much smaller role in determining the marking of A. In Indo-Aryan, animacy and definiteness do not influence the marking of A at all. The person hierarchy ranks the pronoun with respect to the nouns, yet the cut-off point for differential marking often lies between the first/second person and the third person. Research has suggested that there is a cross-linguistic pattern according to which a pronominal A tends to pattern accusatively and a nominal A ergatively. However, Bickel (2008) argues that this correlation is merely incidental and that the motivation behind the variation differs for each particular language.

Splits   

   255

The overview of the Indo-Aryan languages provided in Appendix 1 shows that an A that is high on the referential hierarchy displays an accusative case marking more often than an ergative or tripartite marking (different from O and from S). However, the difference is negligible (28/80 vs. 24/80). Furthermore, if we closely examine the forms of the pronouns that do not display any difference between A and S in languages in which nouns differ formally when used as A or S, then we observe that most of these pronominal forms were originally oblique forms that functioned as ergative markers. For instance, the first person singular pronouns in Asamiya (maï), Marwari and Punjabi (maiṃ), and Marathi (mī) are all old oblique forms. It is understandable that these forms are not additionally marked with an ergative postposition because they are already considered to be case marked. With respect to the factor of the referentiality of A, Gujarati is an interesting case in point, given that in that language only first and second person plural pronouns do not display a different marking for A and S. However, the forms of the first and second pronoun are apṇe and tahme, respectively; both pronouns end with -e, which is also the ergative ending of nouns in general in Gujarati. In summary, the different case marking of pronouns and nouns is caused not by a difference in the referentiality of A but rather by the tendency of pronouns to phonologically change and the greater tendency of case forms to merge more easily with each other into one form compared with nouns (cf. Filiminova 2005). In Marwari, the development of the merging of ergative and nominative marking has even spread to the nominal paradigm insofar that there is no significant difference in use between the nominative and oblique forms as markers of A (except in the third person plural, Section 6.2.1). Considering that the apparent accusativity of pronouns is due to historical developments in the case paradigm and not to specific referential properties of A, it may be expected that verb agreement is not influenced by the different marking of nouns and pronouns. The inventory of alignment patterns in Appendix 1 shows that this expectation is correct. In Punjabi and Marathi perfective verb constructions, the verb agreement remains the same throughout the nominal and pronominal paradigms; however, pronouns do not have an overt ergative marking, whereas nouns do. Nevertheless, there is a slight variation in the verb agreement patterns that is caused by the referentiality of A, but this variation is due to another factor, viz., the presence of pronominal suffixes. Pronominal suffixes occur only referring to pronominal arguments, which are high on the person hierarchy. However, pronominal suffixes do not “prefer” a certain type of alignment. Their occurrence is rather determined by the discourse prominence of the argument to which they refer in a relationship of coreference (i.e., anaphorically). In some languages,

256   

   Conclusion

such as Siraiki and Sindhi, the coreferential antecedent of a pronominal suffix need not be a core argument. There is a second type of pronominal suffixes in Kashmiri. A pronominal suffix of this second type refers to a particular argument and conveys a certain level of definiteness to the argument to which it refers. Whereas agreement suffixes have a distinguishing function and cross-reference the core arguments of a construction, these pronominal suffixes indicate the discourse-prominence of the argument to which they refer, even when that argument is not overtly expressed.

7.2.2 Tense/Aspect/Mood splits The Indo-Aryan languages are typical examples of languages in which the socalled Tense/Aspect/Mood split occurs. Ergative alignment is associated with perfective constructions, and accusative alignment is associated with imperfectives. Except for Asamiya and, to a certain extent Nepali, this split appears in every IA language that possesses an ergative pattern. However, following Anderson (1992), I contend that the tense/aspect split in Indo-Aryan is not functionally motivated by a semantic similarity between the ergative and perfective constructions, but that the split is rather the result of a specific historical development, viz., the simplification of the verb paradigm in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan. In the Eastern languages, the pattern of gender/number agreement with O was lost when the perfective verb changed to a non-participial form displaying personal agreement with A. However, in Asamiya and the Bihari languages, traces of the older participial agreement pattern can still be found, particularly in the transitive marking of the third person of a past tense verb. If we assume that the tense/aspect split is a consequence of a development in the tense paradigm of verbs, then we may expect that the split is primarily related to features concerning the verb, particularly, verb agreement. The verb agreement is often different from the case marking pattern in a single language. Verb agreement appears to be primarily associated with a particular tense/aspect and lacks the semantic distinctions that are often conveyed by case marking. For instance, in the few imperfective constructions in Asamiya, Shina, and Nepali that have ergative case marking, the verb agreement is consistently accusative; this pattern is expected for imperfective constructions.

Splits   

   257

language

tense/aspect

ref-O

ref-A

case marking

verb agreement

Asamiya Nepali Shina Shina

imperfective imperfective imperfective imperfective

low low low low

low high high low

S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A S=O≠A

A, S A, S A, S A, S

Table 7.5 Imperfective constructions with ergative case marking

It is reasonable to assume that the ergative case marking in imperfective constructions is the result of a relatively recent development. Asamiya, Nepali, and Shina are all spoken at the borders of the IA language area. It is possible, and even likely, that the spread of ergative case marking from the perfective to the imperfective constructions has occurred under the influence of neighboring, nonIndo-Aryan languages; however, based on this study, it is not clear whether ergative case marking was absent in the imperfective constructions in older stages of Asamiya. With respect to Shina, this influence on the basis of language contact is almost certain because this language displays a type of the ergative marking in imperfective constructions that is quite different from the ergative marker in perfective constructions, and this feature is most likely borrowed from Tibetan languages spoken in the area. In Table 7.5, Nepali has only one imperfective construction with an ergative-marked A. Ergative case marking in Nepali is related to a high degree of topicality of the argument and the perfective aspect conveyed in the construction, whereas in Asamiya, the marking of a pronominal A does not differ from the marking of nominative A. Conversely, ergative verb agreement often occurs in combination with accusative case marking in perfective constructions. Ten out of eighteen perfective constructions with accusative case marking display the possibility of O-agreement, and many of these constructions are from the Eastern, “accusative” languages (cf. Table 7.6). In these languages, gender and number have been lost as grammatical categories, and person agreement seems to have replaced the “adjectival” agreement of Western and Central Indo-Aryan. The phenomenon of pronominal suffixes in Western Indo-Aryan and the person agreement in Eastern Indo-Aryan have often been considered to be related. For instance, Chatterji (1926: 974) refers to the person marking on the verb as “pronominal affixation”. He argues that the addition of pronominal suffixes to verb forms has led to the development of person agreement on the verb. Person agreement in Eastern Indo-Aryan is equally well the result of the main verb form merging with the copula. The simple present and past in Nepali are in that regard illustrative because they clearly show that the verb form, although no longer periphrastic, consists of a combination of the main verb and a copular form.

258   

   Conclusion

If there is a similarity between pronominal suffixes and agreement, it is between the Western pronominal suffixes and the additional suffixes in Eastern IndoAryan, particularly the Bihari languages, which refer to a marked object and are called “secondary agreement”. Similar to the pronominal suffixes, which are often optional, O-agreement is not obligatory in the Eastern languages and is partially determined by the high referentiality of O. Bickel, Bisang and Yadava (1999) argue that pronominal suffixes provided the basis of the personal agreement system in Maithili, an Eastern Indo-Aryan language. With respect to specific uses, the similarities between the Western pronominal suffixes and the “secondary agreement” of the Eastern languages are evident. For instance, in Magahi, the “Speech Addressee”, which is an unexpressed argument that is not part of the transitive or intransitive construction, can be referred to with a suffix attached to the verb. This use is highly reminiscent of the use of the objective pronominal suffixes in Kashmiri and Siraiki because these suffixes can also refer to an unexpressed argument that, although not overtly expressed in the construction, is involved in the speech act. However, irrespective of these similarities between Western and Eastern pronominal suffixes, it is revealing that O-agreement in Eastern Indo-Aryan often occurs only in perfective constructions. This pattern may constitute evidence of a relationship between the original participial form of the verb and the possibility that this verb agrees with O.

language

tense/aspect

ref-O

ref-A

case marking

verb agreement

Asamiya Awadhi Awadhi Bangla Bangla Bhojpuri Bhojpuri Magahi Magahi Maithili Maithili Marathi Marwari Marwari Punjabi Siraiki

perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective perfective

high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

high high low low high high low high low high high low high low high high

S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O S=A≠O

A,S A,S,O A,S,O A,S A,S A,S A,S,O A,S,O A,S,O A,S,O A,S,O A,S S,O S,O S A,S,O

Table 7.6 Perfective constructions with accusative case marking

Splits   

   259

7.2.3 Classifying the Indo-Aryan languages More than 100 years ago, Grierson (1903) classified the Indo-Aryan languages according to an inner-outer division. The “outer” languages are the languages spoken at the eastern and western borders of the Indo-Aryan region. The inner languages are the languages spoken in the “Hindi belt”. Grierson’s classification was based on the theory of dialectology and isoglosses (which was popular at the time). This theory assumes that the group of outer languages has developed further from the proto-language, whereas the inner languages are the most “conservative” languages. The features he selected for this classification were phonological properties and the occurrence of person agreement. Grierson’s “inner-outer” model was refuted by Chatterji (1926: 169; Masica 1991: 450). Alternatively, Chatterji suggested a line of separation between Eastern and Western Indo-Aryan and subdivided the Central Indo-Aryan languages on the eastern or western side of this line. Whereas Grierson relied on phonological criteria, Chatterji primarily based his division on the presence or absence of a conjugated past tense. Chatterji argued that Grierson’s argument, according to which the inner languages had gender/number agreement and the outer languages had person agreement, severely underestimated the differences between the Western and Eastern Indo-Aryan verbs and their respective agreement patterns. Chatterji conjectured that the Western verbs were essentially similar to the Central IndoAryan verbs and that person agreement in Western Indo-Aryan was optional. He noted that Eastern languages have a transitive past tense verb that is active and conjugated, whereas the Western languages retain the “nominal” system of Old Indo-Aryan. Thus, Chatterji concluded that Eastern languages have progressively changed, whereas the Western languages still retain more features of older stages of Indo-Aryan. Today, Grierson’s idea of an outer and inner circle of language “types” has been refuted. However, the alternative view, according to which there is a straight line between the Eastern and Western languages, is also an oversimplification with respect to the attested language patterns. Alignment in Indo-Aryan is much more varied than these accounts suggest. For instance, it would be implausible to consider the alignment of Nepali and the Bihari languages as strictly “Eastern” or “Western”. Montaut (2009) suggests a division into three systems: the “Bangla” system, the “Hindi-Urdu” system, and the “Sindhi” system. These three systems are parallel to the geographical distribution of the languages. According to Montaut, the “Bangla” system illustrates the end of a diachronic circle that progresses from an accusative to an ergative and back to an accusative construction. Therefore, Bangla seems to follow the alignment of languages such as French or Persian. Because person markers have been attached to a Bangla verb, the con-

260   

   Conclusion

struction has lost all of its ergative features. However, although this pattern might be observable in Bangla, not all of the other Eastern languages are strictly accusative. For instance, I refer to the Asamiya alignment discussed in Chapter 3. The “Hindi-Urdu” system is the most “ergative” system and represents a straight evolution from the OIA pattern, which is considered “le noyau dur de l’héritage sanscrit” (Montaut 2009: 10). In that sense, Montaut concurs with Grierson by arguing that Hindi is the language that has the most conservative features, although she posits this argument on different grounds. Montaut refers to the participial construction that Hindi inherited from OIA rather than focusing on phonological features and person agreement. The “Sindhi” system is similar to the “Hindi-Urdu” system, but pronominal suffixes occur only in the Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages; this difference is probably due to contact with one or more non-Indo-Aryan languages. However, crucially, and as Montaut (2009) shows, each language displays a range of variation; some constructions tend to be closer to one system, and some are closer to another system. Nepali, Bihari, and even the Hindi varieties are languages that fall somewhere in between the different systems. Nevertheless, Montaut’s division is very convenient and much more fine-grained than the inner-outer or the West-East theory. It is therefore better suited to describe the variation of alignment patterns attested in Indo-Aryan. Finally, another classification has been provided by Klaiman (1987: 96), who ranks the IA languages on a scale ranging from very ergative to least ergative. Klaiman ranks Kashmiri and Pashto (Indo-Iranian) among the “most” ergative languages, mainly because Kashmiri lacks DOM in the perfective constructions. Marwari is slightly less ergative. Gujarati and Mewari, Hindi, Bundeli, Panjabi, Marathi, Baluchi (Indo-Iranian), Lahnda, and Sindhi are still less ergative. Nepali and Burushashki (which is a language isolate) are more accusative, and Shina, Ladakhi, Balti, Asamiya, and nonstandard Bangla are the least ergative of all. Although Klaiman’s criteria parallel the criteria used in this study, I believe that it makes little sense to claim that one language is “more ergative” than another language, because there are different alignment features that are independently motivated. Not all features indicate “ergativity”; for instance, the presence of pronominal suffixes is almost orthogonal to whether or not a language is “ergative”.

7.2.4 Case marking versus verb agreement As illustrated in Sections 7.2.1–7.2.2, in many Indo-Aryan languages, case marking and verb agreement present different alignment patterns. It was argued that agreement is associated with the tense/aspect split, whereas case marking is more

Core arguments and grammatical relations   

   261

closely associated with the referential hierarchies of the arguments. Pronominal suffixes confirm their middle position by showing a greater association with the semantic properties of case marking than with the properties of agreement, such as indexing definiteness/animacy on an argument. Although one may speak of a “mismatch” between case marking and verb agreement (cf. Woolford 2006), there is no historical or functional reason to assume that case marking and verb agreement must show the same type of alignment. On the contrary, case marking and verb agreement are complementary in the Indo-Aryan languages, and they do not conflict. Typically, agreement fulfils the function of “distinguishing” the arguments, whereas case marking is primarily a mechanism for “indexing” the arguments (cf. Section 1.1.2). However, in the languages in which case marking does not indicate the definiteness or animacy of a core argument, agreement may indicate these features (e.g., the suffix -n/-kh in Kashmiri). Moreover, we found that the case marking patterns may change or eventually disappear in languages with consistent agreement patterns, such as Harauti, Marwari, and Nepali.

7.3 Core arguments and grammatical relations The term “subject” can be used with respect to Indo-Aryan as a term that is similar to its traditional definition of the grouping of A and S. In most imperfective constructions in Indo-Aryan, there is a clear morphological and syntactic basis for treating A and S the same way. In perfective constructions, the morphosyntactic properties of case marking and agreement show a different treatment of A and S, but on the level of the syntactic properties of coordination and conjunction, they act the same – to the extent that these syntactic properties are the criteria that distinguish grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. In Section  2.4.3, I argued that certain measures that are commonly believed to identify subjects are not effective with respect to Indo-Aryan. For instance, a reflexive pronoun can refer to every argument in most Indo-Aryan languages. Word order is also a doubtful criterion; although every language has a specific dominant order in texts, specific discourse motivations of word order have a much more important role in spoken language. In patterns of coordination, the tendency to group A and S together is stronger than for other arguments. However, this tendency is not an absolute “rule”. Montaut (2001: 338) accurately summarizes the subject properties of Hindi as follows: “La catégorie de sujet n’est donc pas obligatoire en hindi/ourdou, et pour cette raison on peut considérer qu’elle n’est pas pertinente dans la langue, ne concernant que certaines constructions, bien qu’un nombre non négligeable d’énoncés (…) puissent s’analyser comme ayant sujet, c’est-à-dire un terme auquel s’attachent l’ensemble des propriétés subjectales”.

262   

   Conclusion

A similar conclusion can be drawn with respect to the Indo-Aryan languages in general. Therefore, “A” and “S” are certainly the more convenient terms to describe the grammatical relations on the basis of their morphosyntactic coding properties. Nevertheless, I concur with Montaut that the term “subject” can aptly be used to describe a number of constructions in Indo-Aryan, particularly constructions with imperfective active verbs. The ergative marking is similar throughout the Indo-Aryan languages that I have analyzed. There exist the forms ending in -e, the oblique marking, and the forms based on the postposition ne or le. Table 7.7 provides an overview of the forms of the ergative markers in the languages discussed in this study.

Hindi-Urdu Kashmiri (Poguli) Sindhi Siraiki Marathi Harauti Gujarati Punjabi Braj Bundeli Nepali Asamiya

=ne -an/-y -e -e =ne/=nī =naiṃ -e =ne =nai =ne =le -e

Table 7.7 Ergative case markers in Indo-Aryan

The distinction between O and IO is a more complicated matter. Indo-Aryan does not possess secundative nor indirective alignment; in Indo-Aryan, only a particular type of O and IO are treated in the same way. Kittilä (2006) explains this type of marking as extended differential object marking (EDOM) by considering it as a pattern in which the marking of O and IO is determined by animacy/definiteness. However, because an IO is typically animate/definite, Kittilä claims that the marking has become generalized for every IO. Thus, I have chosen to retain the term “IO” to emphasize the similarity in marking with an O despite the differing semantic roles of O and IO. The semantic role of the IO is traditionally the recipient/beneficiary of an action. Asamiya makes a distinction in the marking of the semantic roles of recipient and beneficiary: recipients are marked with the objective suffix -k, and beneficiaries are marked with lai. In Hindi (ko vs. ke lie), Bundeli (ko vs. ke lāneṃ) and the other languages, this distinction is also present, but the use of the objective marker is often predominant. It is hardly a coincidence that Asamiya -k and lai are two forms that are also attested in the other

The motivation of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan   

   263

Indo-Aryan languages. Forms with -k are generally used to mark the objective case (for instance -k in Asamiya, ko in Hindi, and, perhaps, the related form nūṃ in Punjabi). Asamiya’s lai is related to lāī in Nepali (and perhaps to le in Nepali), ne in Hindi and Punjabi, and naiṃ in Marwari and Harauti. Whereas ko is clearly an objective that marks a definite/animate O, lai and ne are multifunctional morphemes. In most languages, lai/ne has one dominant function (i.e., serving as an ergative marker in Hindi and Punjabi, and an objective marker in Marwari and Gujarati). However, ne in Harauti can mark the argument in the ergative and the objective cases, whereas Nepali has lāī for the objective and le for the ergative case. Other languages, such as Sindhi, Kashmiri, and Gujarati use the oblique form to mark the ergative case.

7.4 The motivation of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan Considering the extensive variation in case marking and verb agreement, and in alignment in general, that emerges from the present study, it does not make much sense to attribute the existence of the ergative pattern to some cognitive motivation, according to which the ergative construction primarily resembles an intransitive construction on conceptual grounds. It seems likely that a convergence of various different factors has led to this pattern in the Indo-Aryan languages and that cognitive or discursive motivations, although they may have been a factor, are not the main reason for the existence of the ergative pattern. It must be borne in mind that the tense/aspect split in alignment is historically motivated. This historical dimension places an important constraint on any direct motivation of ergativity, particularly on the assumed similarity between the conceptualizations of perfective and ergative constructions. There is no semantic similarity establishing a direct link between the two constructions or between a perfective construction and ergative case marking. If such a semantic similarity did exist, then the Asamiya ergative case marking with imperfective verbs and the Marwari accusative case marking with perfective verbs would be incomprehensible, because both languages would break the link of perfectivity with ergativity. In the typological literature, it is customary to consider ergative constructions as exemplary transitive constructions with two arguments that are maximally distinct from each other (cf., e.g., Næss 2007). However, this interpretation conflicts with the cognitive motivation that the ergative construction is similar to the intransitive construction in that both share the same theme-relation (i.e., the S is the theme-argument of the intransitive verb and the O is the theme-argument of an “ergative” verb). In contrast with this cognitive motivation, I think that the present study has demonstrated that the ergative argument is not syntactically

264   

   Conclusion

“outside” the construction. Although one could argue that this finding applies to Hindi to a certain extent, the observed agreement with ergative-marked arguments in Asamiya, Shina, Nepali, and the Northwestern Languages (at least to some degree) definitively shows that the ergative A is, as a rule, a core argument that is firmly entrenched in the transitive construction. The idea that there is a resemblance between the ergative and intransitive constructions in the Indo-Aryan languages seems to be derived primarily from the historical development of the perfective constructions in these languages. As explained in Chapter  2, a participial form, i.e., a deverbal form that had undergone a valency-reducing operation, became the general way to express a perfect aspect/past tense in Indo-Aryan. Valency-changing mechanisms are very common in the Indo-Aryan languages, even in modern Indo-Aryan. The morphology of Indo-Aryan verbs is built upon valency-increasing mechanisms: divalent verbs are often morphologically causative, in the sense that they derive from modified monovalent verbs. Therefore, Indo-Aryan languages belong to the “transitivizing” class of languages, which “treat intransitives as basic and transitives as derived” (Nichols et al. 2004:149; Haspelmath 1993)²³. Because the OIA ta-participle was passive-like, it was initially used only in intransitive constructions. However, when the participial periphrasis became the regular form of the finite verb, the participle occurred in both transitive and intransitive constructions. In fact, the idea that the ergative construction is based on a theme-relation is simply another variant of the passive-as-ergative idea. In contemporary Indo-Aryan, there is no “reduced” transitivity of ergative constructions. On the contrary, an ergative construction contains an agentive agent, an affected patient, and a verb expressing the completion of an action. These three criteria arguably indicate a high level of transitivity. Actually, perfective constructions seem to “remediate” their participial origin by structurally emphasizing the

23 Note that Haspelmath (1993: 98) argues that the causative (divalent) form of verbs in Hindi is the basic form. For example, in the pair phirnā ‘to be turned’ and phernā ‘to turn’, phernā is the basic verb and phirnā the derived verb, according to Haspelmath. He maintains that causative verbs may have either a high vowel (ī, ū) or a mid-vowel (o, e), whereas the monovalent verb can have only a high vowel (i, u). However, this account is inaccurate. The greater variation of vowels in causative verbs in Hindi is caused by a phonological modification of the vowel of monovalent verbs that occurs in the formation of the causative. For example, the vowel of a monovalent verb can be substituted by the stem vowel in guṇa form (i.e., prefixing a short a to a simple vowel sound) or vṛddhi form (i.e., prefixing a long ā to a simple vowel sound) (Kellogg 1938: 28, 255). Contrary to Haspelmath’s claim, the number of possible stem vowels is unrelated to the distinction between the basic and derived verbs. In Hindi, phirnā, which is the form of the monovalent verb, is undoubtedly the basic verb form, not the derived form.

The motivation of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan   

   265

transitivity of the construction. This tendency is apparent in the different conjugations of transitive and intransitive verbs in Awadhi, Maithili, and Magahi and in the possibility of O-agreement in these languages. With these mechanisms, these languages emphasize the difference between an intransitive and a transitive construction. In addition to the Eastern Indo-Aryan languages, Kashmiri, Shina and Sindhi also have different conjugations for transitive and intransitive verbs. Furthermore, Kittilä (2011: 365), following Hopper and Thompson (1980: 271), suggests that there is a difference in transitivity in perfective and imperfective constructions. Considering the historical developments that led to the TAM split in Indo-Aryan, there is no particular need to assume this difference. However, from a synchronic point of view, the Indo-Aryan languages show differing alignment patterns that always follow the line between perfective and imperfective and never the line between past and non-past (e.g., a present perfect construction is typically ergative, whereas a past imperfect construction is not ergative). In that respect, if the hypothesis regarding the extension of the marker le in Nepali, as suggested in Section 4.2, proves to be correct, then the indication of A in imperfective constructions in Nepali is another way of indicating the high level of transitivity of the construction. Both the telicity of the action and topicality of A, which are features indicated by the presence of the postposition le, are assumed to be typical of highly transitive constructions. Indo-Aryan languages also emphasize the indication of “de-transitivity”. There are constructions in Indo-Aryan that display a type of “reduced” transitivity. These constructions contain experiencer verbs that express psychological states (e.g., Hindi yād ānā ‘to remember’, Bangla bhaloi lag, ‘to like’). The experiencer and the unergative constructions can be considered opposites. Unergative constructions are construed with intransitive verbs that show the transitive pattern of argument coding (i.e., in perfective constructions, the sole argument is coded as an A). Conversely, experiencer constructions are construed with transitive verbs that show a type of intransitive coding of the arguments with the experiencer in an oblique case and the stimulus argument coded as an intransitive S. The diverging alignment of the two constructions is caused by the verb semantics assuming a higher priority than the syntax. Both constructions display a type of “semantic alignment”. However, the experiencer and unergative construction are completely different from the ergative alignment, and the non-nominative marking of an experiencer is entirely different in origin from the ergative marking of an A. There is ample evidence suggesting that the ergative agreement goes straight back to the reanalysis of the participial construction. However, the ergative case is a later development; this case appeared only after different inflectional case endings had merged. The ergative case is one of many cases in the paradigm of

266   

   Conclusion

Indo-Aryan. The ergative case is a purely syntactic case with distinctive properties that do not greatly differ from the accusative case in, for example, Latin and Greek, in the sense that both the ergative and the accusative indicate that there is a second, non-nominative core argument in the clause and that the construction is transitive. The ergative is a factor that determines alignment, as all syntactic cases do, but the presence of an ergative case does not imply ergative alignment. The ergative case in Indo-Aryan differs from O-agreement and O-marking. This case functions independently from agreement. However, because the ergative case is successful in distinguishing the transitive A from the second core argument O, this case marker has a well-defined function and may be said to have become a proper member of the case paradigm in many Indo-Aryan languages.

7.5 Final observations In the literature, ergativity has been considered as a determining factor in the Indo-Aryan languages, setting them apart from Indo-European in general. Because the ergative pattern is highly uncommon among the Indo-European languages and because it occurs only under certain conditions in the Indo-Aryan languages, it has been argued that the ergative pattern is a pattern “at odds” with Indo-Aryan and is likely to disappear (e.g., it has apparently disappeared in Bangla). However, the cross-linguistic comparison of Indo-Aryan languages presented in this study has shown that this view does not do justice to our findings. The ergative construction is less widespread in Indo-Aryan than may be expected and is not likely to disappear in the languages in which it occurs. There is a strong tendency in the Indo-Aryan languages toward one particular type of agreement, either with O or with A. In a number of languages, this “primary” agreement is complemented with pronominal suffixes or a “secondary” type of agreement. The ergative case, in turn, is a morphological case marking that does not provide information about verb agreement. The agreement with O, ergative agreement, seems to be the result of a historical development in the tense/aspect paradigm. Therefore, there is no direct motivation that “explains” the ergative agreement pattern; on the contrary, the motivation for this pattern is rather “indirect” in the sense that the transition in the tense paradigm of a participial form becoming the finite verb was “accompanied” by the emergence of an ergative agreement pattern. Nevertheless, because of this historical development, the indication of the transitivity of the construction is crucial in the Indo-Aryan languages. Ergative case marking is functionally motivated: it is an appropriate device to distinguish the core arguments from each other and thus, to indicate that a

Final observations   

   267

construction is transitive. Although the ergative case marking fulfils this twofold function of indicating A and indicating the transitivity of the verb, there is space for the marking of O to have a different function. The marking of O was previously considered as the marking of the accusative case, but in my opinion, O-marking functions on an entirely different level and rather indicates semantic factors related to the referential hierarchies, such as animacy, definiteness, and topicality. Therefore, the analysis of the marking of O supports the hypothesis that coding transitivity is crucial in Indo-Aryan, considering that the semantic features associated with O-marking all indicate a high level of affectedness and individuation of the O-argument. Further research regarding these issues remains to be conducted. This study was designed to be a comparative study of ergativity in the main Indo-Aryan languages, but the variation in alignment in Indo-Aryan is expected to be even greater than the variation that has emerged from the present study. Many smaller Indo-Aryan languages, which have not yet been fully described and analyzed, display entirely different patterns. Although we are fortunate that various scholars have embarked on the study of several of these endangered languages in recent years, we have only begun to scratch the surface.

8 Appendix 8.1 Appendix 1

Language

Verb form

Ref O

Ref A/S

Case marking

Agreement

1

Hindi

perfective

itr

itr

2

Hindi

imperfective

itr

itr

3

Hindi

perfective

high

high

S≠A≠O

S

4

Hindi

perfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

S

5

Hindi

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

6

Hindi

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

7

Hindi

perfective

low

high

S=O≠A

S,O

8

Hindi

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

S,O

9

Hindi

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

10

Hindi

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

11

Asamiya

perfective

itr

itr

12

Asamiya

imperfective

itr

itr

13

Asamiya

perfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

14

Asamiya

perfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

A,S,O

15

Asamiya

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

16

Asamiya

imperfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

A,S

17

Asamiya

perfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

18

Asamiya

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

A,S,O

19

Asamiya

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

20

Asamiya

imperfective

low

low

S=O≠A

A,S

21

Bangla

perfective

itr

itr

22

Bangla

imperfective

itr

itr

23

Bangla

perfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

24

Bangla

perfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

25

Bangla

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

26

Bangla

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

27

Bangla

perfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

28

Bangla

perfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

Appendix 1   

Language

Verb form

Ref O

Ref A/S

Case marking

   269

Agreement

29

Bangla

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

30

Bangla

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

31

Bhojpuri

perfective

itr

itr

32

Bhojpuri

imperfective

itr

itr

33

Bhojpuri

perfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

34

Bhojpuri

perfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S,O

35

Bhojpuri

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

36

Bhojpuri

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

37

Bhojpuri

perfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

38

Bhojpuri

perfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

39

Bhojpuri

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

40

Bhojpuri

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

41

Maithili

perfective

itr

itr

42

Maithili

imperfective

itr

itr

43

Maithili

perfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S,O

44

Maithili

perfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S,O

45

Maithili

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S,O

46

Maithili

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S,O

47

Maithili

perfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

48

Maithili

perfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

49

Maithili

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

50

Maithili

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

51

Magahi

perfective

itr

itr

52

Magahi

imperfective

itr

itr

53

Magahi

perfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S,O

54

Magahi

perfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S,O

55

Magahi

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

56

Magahi

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

57

Magahi

perfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

58

Magahi

perfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

59

Magahi

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

60

Magahi

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

61

Awadhi

perfective

itr

itr

270   

   Appendix

Language

Verb form

Ref O

Ref A/S

Case marking

Agreement

62

Awadhi

imperfective

itr

itr

63

Awadhi

perfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S,O

64

Awadhi

perfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S,O

65

Awadhi

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

66 67

Awadhi

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

Awadhi

perfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S,O

68

Awadhi

perfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S,O

69

Awadhi

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

70

Awadhi

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

71

Nepali

perfective

itr

itr

72

Nepali

imperfective

itr

itr

73

Nepali

perfective

high

high

S≠A≠O

A,S

74

Nepali

perfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

A,S

75

Nepali

imperfective

high

high

S≠A≠O

A,S

76

Nepali

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

77

Nepali

perfective

low

high

S=O≠A

A,S

78

Nepali

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

A,S

79

Nepali

imperfective

low

high

S=O≠A

A,S

80

Nepali

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

81

Kashmiri

perfective

itr

itr

82

Kashmiri

imperfective

itr

itr

83

Kashmiri

perfective

high

high

S=O≠A

A,S,O

84

Kashmiri

perfective

high

low

S=O≠A

S,O

85

Kashmiri

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O/S=A=O A,S,O

86

Kashmiri

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S,O

87

Kashmiri

perfective

low

high

S=O≠A

A,S,O

88

Kashmiri

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

S,O

89

Kashmiri

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S,O

90

Kashmiri

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

91

Poguli

perfective

itr

itr

92

Poguli

imperfective

itr

itr

93

Poguli

perfective

high

high

S=O≠A

A,S,O

94

Poguli

perfective

high

low

S=O≠A

S,O

Appendix 1   

Language

Verb form

Ref O

   271

Ref A/S

Case marking

Agreement

95

Poguli

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S,O

96

Poguli

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S,O

97

Poguli

perfective

low

high

S=O≠A

A,S,O

98

Poguli

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

S,O

99

Poguli

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S,O

100

Poguli

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S,O

101

Sindhi

perfective

itr

itr

102

Sindhi

imperfective

itr

itr

103

Sindhi

perfective

high

high

S≠A≠O

S

104

Sindhi

perfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

S

105

Sindhi

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S,O

106

Sindhi

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S,O

107

Sindhi

perfective

low

high

S=O≠A

A,S,O

108

Sindhi

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

S,O

109

Sindhi

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

110

Sindhi

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

111

Siraiki

perfective

itr

itr

112

Siraiki

imperfective

itr

itr

113

Siraiki

perfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S,O

114

Siraiki

perfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

S,O

115

Siraiki

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S,O

116

Siraiki

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S,O

117

Siraiki

perfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S,O

118

Siraiki

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

S,O

119

Siraiki

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

120

Siraiki

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

121

Marathi

perfective

itr

itr

122

Marathi

imperfective

itr

itr

123

Marathi

perfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

124

Marathi

perfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

S

125

Marathi

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

126

Marathi

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

127

Marathi

perfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S,O

272   

   Appendix

Language

Verb form

Ref O

Ref A/S

Case marking

Agreement

128

Marathi

perfective

low

129

Marathi

imperfective

low

low

S=O≠A

S,O

high

S=A=O

A,S

130

Marathi

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

131

Shina

perfective

itr

itr

132 133

Shina

imperfective

itr

itr

Shina

perfective

high

high

S≠A≠O

A,S

134

Shina

perfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

A,S

135

Shina

imperfective

high

high

S≠A≠O

A,S

136

Shina

imperfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

A,S

137

Shina

perfective

low

high

S=O≠A

A,S

138

Shina

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

A,S

139

Shina

imperfective

low

high

S=O≠A

A,S

140

Shina

imperfective

low

low

S=O≠A

A,S

141

Marwari

perfective

itr

itr

142

Marwari

imperfective

itr

itr

143

Marwari

perfective

high

high

S=A≠O

S,O

144

Marwari

perfective

high

low

S=A≠O

S,O

145

Marwari

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

146

Marwari

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

147

Marwari

perfective

low

high

S=A=O

S,O

148

Marwari

perfective

low

low

S=A=O

S,O

149

Marwari

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

150

Marwari

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

151

Harauti

perfective

itr

itr

152

Harauti

imperfective

itr

itr

153

Harauti

perfective

high

high

S=O≠A

S,O

154

Harauti

perfective

high

low

S=O≠A

S,O

155

Harauti

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

156

Harauti

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

157

Harauti

perfective

low

high

S=O≠A

S,O

158

Harauti

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

S,O

159

Harauti

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

160

Harauti

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

Appendix 1   

Language

Verb form

Ref O

Ref A/S

161

Gujarati

perfective

itr

itr

162

Gujarati

imperfective

itr

itr

163

Gujarati

perfective

high

164

Gujarati

perfective

high

165

Gujarati

imperfective

166

Gujarati

imperfective

167

Gujarati

perfective

168

Gujarati

perfective

169

Gujarati

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

170

Gujarati

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

171

Punjabi

perfective

itr

itr

172

Punjabi

imperfective

itr

itr

173

Punjabi

perfective

high

high

S=A≠O

S

174

Punjabi

perfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

S

175

Punjabi

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

176

Punjabi

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

177

Punjabi

perfective

low

high

S=A=O

S,O

178

Punjabi

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

S,O

179

Punjabi

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

180

Punjabi

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

181

Braj

perfective

itr

itr

182

Braj

imperfective

itr

itr

183

Braj

perfective

high

high

S≠A≠O

S,O

184

Braj

perfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

S,O

185

Braj

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

186

Braj

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

187

Braj

perfective

low

high

S=O≠A

S,O

188

Braj

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

S,O

189

Braj

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

190

Braj

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

191

Bundeli

perfective

itr

itr

192

Bundeli

imperfective

itr

itr

193

Bundeli

perfective

high

high

S≠A≠O

S

   273

Case marking

Agreement

high

S≠A≠O

S,O

low

S≠A≠O

S,O

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

low

high

S=O≠A

S,O

low

low

S=O≠A

S,O

274   

   Appendix

Language

Verb form

Ref O

Ref A/S

Case marking

Agreement

194

Bundeli

perfective

high

low

S≠A≠O

S

195

Bundeli

imperfective

high

high

S=A≠O

A,S

196

Bundeli

imperfective

high

low

S=A≠O

A,S

197

Bundeli

perfective

low

high

S=O≠A

S,O

198

Bundeli

perfective

low

low

S=O≠A

S,O

199

Bundeli

imperfective

low

high

S=A=O

A,S

200

Bundeli

imperfective

low

low

S=A=O

A,S

8.2 Appendix 2 The following examples are illustrations of each abstract construction from Appendix 1. The numbering of the sentences parallels the constructions in Appendix 1, i.e., example (1) is an illustration of an intransitive construction in Hindi in a perfective form, etc.. The examples taken from the running text are indicated with their reference number to the text; the source of not previously mentioned examples is explicitly mentioned. For the constructions with the value of Ref-O or Ref-A as “high”, the preferred examples were constructions with a first or second person. However, in instances when there is no difference in coding between pronouns and animate arguments, a third person pronoun or an animate argument is sometimes used instead. Similarly, A’s with a low referentiality value are often animate arguments, since inanimate A-arguments are not very common. Preference is given to a finite verb form; sometimes, however, an infinite construction is included. When no example is provided, I refer to examples with an identical construction in the same language. Both the table in Appendix 1 and the following sentences should only be consulted in combination with the information found in the running text. (1)

maiṃ so ga-yā+h-ūṃ (26) I.m sleep go-pst.m.sg+aux.prs-1sg ‘I have gone to sleep.’

(2)

maiṃ so jā-ūṃ-g-ī (22) I.f sleep go-1sg-fut-f ‘I will go to sleep.’

Appendix 2   

(3)

maiṃ=ne us=ko dekh-ā I.f=erg she.obl=obj see-pst.m.sg ‘I saw her.’

(4)

rām=ne mujh-e pahle Ram=erg I-obl.obj before ‘Ram had seen me before.’

(5)

maiṃ us=ko dekh-tā+h-ūṃ I.m she.obl=obj see-prs.m.sg+aux.prs-1sg ‘I see her.’

(6)

rām mujh-e dekh+rahā+h-ai Ram I-obl.obj see+prog+aux-3sg ‘Ram is watching me.’

(7)

maiṃ=ne us-e tumhār-ī gand-ī kamiz-eṃ I=erg he.obl-obj your-f dirty-f shirt[f]-nom.pl de+dīṃ (1) give+give.pst.f.pl ‘I gave him your dirty shirts back.’

(8)

rām=ne wah ghar banā-yā (31) Ram=erg that house[m] make-pst.m.sg ‘Ram constructed that house.’

(9)

tum kitāb rām=ko kyoṃ you.m book[f] ram=obj why ‘Why are you giving Ram the book?’

(10)

rām kitāb paṛh-tā+th-ā (59) Ram book[f] read-prs+aux.pst-m.sg ‘Ram was reading a book.’

(11)

tekhet awase’ sesa-lai na-r-’l (112) she of course end=to not-wait-pst.3 ‘She, of course, did not wait for the end [to come].’

dekh-ā+th-ā see-pst.m.sg+aux.pst-m.sg

de-tā+h-o? (23) give-prs+aux.prs-2pl

   275

276   

   Appendix

(12)

āmi jagannāth mandira-t somā-m (87) we Jagannath temple-loc go-fut.1 ‘All of us will go into the Jagannath temple.’

(13)

maī tā-k kaṛā najara-t rākh-il-oṃ+heṃten I he-obj strict watch-loc keep-pst-1+sbjv ‘I would have kept him in strict watch.’ (Baruah 1980: 922)

(14)

māhīmāk-e tejīmalā-k biyā-lai pathā-l-e (114) stepmother-erg Tejimala-obj marriage-to send-pst-3tr ‘The stepmother sent Tejimala to the marriage.’

(15)

mai to-k bajāb pār-im I you-obj save can-fut.1 ‘I could save you.’ (Baruah 1980: 1060)

(16)

mor la’rā-i mo-k sahāy+kar-ib my boy-erg I-obj help+do-fut.3 ‘My son will help me.’ (Kakoti 2011: 7)

(17)

kāli āpuni cakā meja-bor ān-il-e ne? (72) yesterday you.h chair table-pl bring-pst-2h Q ‘Did you bring chairs and tables yesterday?’

(18)

kitāb-khan rām-e likh-ich-e (3.1.1) book-def Ram-erg write-prf-3tr ‘Ram has written the book.’

(19)

taï etiyā inginiyāriḥ na-paṛ-a you now engineering not-do-prs.2 ‘Don’t you do engineering now?’

(20)

kakāyer-e okālati na-kar-e na? elder brother=erg law not-do-prs.3 no Doesn’t your elder brother practice law? (Baruah 1980: 156)

(21)

biṛālanī gel cat go.pst.3 ‘The cat went.’ (Radice 1994: 221)

ne? (97) q

Appendix 2   

   277

(22)

tara ki ashbe? they Q come.fut.3 ‘Are they coming?’ (Nasrin and van der Wurff 2009: 47)

(23)

tini ama-ke jete dilen na he I-obj go give.pst.3 not ‘He didn’t allow me to go.’ (Nasrin and van der Wurff 2009: 165)

(24)

ora amader-ke cear-er=songe doṛi=diye beṃdhe+fele-ch-il-o. they we.obl-obj chair-gen=with rope=with bind+throw-prf-pst-3 ‘They had bound us with a rope to a chair.’ (Nasrin and van der Wurff 2009: 153)

(25)

ami ona-ke cin-i I she-obj know-prs.1 ‘I know her.’ (Nasrin and van der Wurff 2009: 50)

(26)

amader kaki amader-ke khub bhalobash-en we.obl aunt we.obl-obj much love-prs.3 ‘Our aunt loves us a lot.’ (Nasrin and van der Wurff 2009: 44)

(27)

ami-o saṛi pore-ch-i I-emph saree wear-prf-1 ‘I have put a sari on.’ (Nasrin and van der Wurff 2009: 199)

(28)

pāk bāhinī rājaśāhī śahar-er puro kantrol niye+nil Pak army Rajshahi town-gen full control take+take.pst.3 ‘The Pak military took full control of Rajshahi town.’ (Radice 1994: 251)

(29)

apni ki onek praktis koren? you how much practice do.prs.3 ‘How much do you practice?’ (Nasrin and van der Wurff 2009: 73)

(30)

sangbadrikra amar obostha bojh-e na journalist my situation understand-prs.3 not ‘The journalists don’t understand my situation.’ (Nasrin and van der Wurff 2009: 70)

278   

   Appendix

(31)

laṛikā ā+gail boy come+go.pst.3 ‘The boy has arrived.’ (Verma 2003: 528)

(32)

tu sutat+bāṛa you sleep.prs+aux.prs.2 ‘You are sleeping.’ (Verma 2003: 532)

(33)

tu i phul=ke gulāb bujha-la you this flower=obj rose think-pst.2 ‘You thought this flower (definite object) a rose.’ (Verma 2003: 534)

(34)

u hamrā=(ke) dekhue he we.obl=obj see.pst.3 ‘He saw us.’ (Tiwari 1960: 170)

(35)

ham torā laṛki=ke ṭhik=se dekh-ab I your daughter=obj well=with see-fut.1 ‘I will look after your daughter well.’ (Verma 2003: 533)

(36)

karikhahavā mohi mārat+bā black-faced I.obl (poetry) beat.prs+aux.prs.3 ‘The black-faced one beats me.’ (Grierson 1885: 136)

(37)

u admī dekh-al-as-i he man see-pst-tr-3 ‘He saw men.’ (Tiwari 1960: 161)

(38)

u phul mahak-al-an he flower smell-pst-3 ‘He smelled the flowers.’ (Verma 2003: 534)

(39)

ham ām-o khāeb I mango-incl eat.fut.1 ‘I will eat mangoes too.’ (Verma 2003: 528)

(40)

isar sajāi de-su god punishment give-sbjv.3 ‘Let god give punishment.’ (Tiwari 1960: 185)

Appendix 2   

(41)

ram ge-l+ch-aith (137) Ram go-pst.itr+aux.prs-3h ‘Ram has gone.’

(42)

ram jait+ch-aith Ram go.prs+aux.prs-3h ‘Ram goes.’ (Yadav 2003: 487)

(43)

ham to=rā kaniya=keṃ dekh-au-l-iaunh (140) I you=obj bride=obj show-caus-pst-1.2nh.3h ‘I showed you the bride.’

(44)

majisṭar sāheb ham=rā dekh-al-ainh Magistrate sir I=obj see-pst-3h.1 ‘His Honor, the Magistrate, saw me.’ (Southern Maithili) (Grierson 1885: 36)

(45)

ham to=rā choṛi+deb I you=obj go+give.fut.1.2h ‘I will let you go.’ (Northern Maithili) (Grierson 1885: 37)

(46)

ohinā ham=rā sabha=keṃ bhaṛkabaiachi. they I=obj all=obj quarrel.prs.3.1 ‘They make us quarrel.’ (Northern Maithili) (Grierson 1885: 34)

(47)

toṃ ok=ra kitab de-l-hak (136) you he=obj book give-pst-2mh.3nh ‘You gave him a book.’

(48)

ram khai-ne+ch-aith Ram eat-pst.tr+aux.prs-3h ‘Ram has eaten.’ (Yadav 2003: 487)

(49)

ham akhbar paiṛh+rahal+chi I newspaper read+prog+aux.prs.1 ‘I am reading a newspaper.’ (Yadav 2003: 483)

(50)

hari-ji bhajan gab-ait+ch-aith hari-h song sing-prs+aux.prs-3h ‘Hari is singing a song.’ (Bickel et al. 1999: 496)

   279

280   

   Appendix

(51)

ham sut-l-i+he (130) I sleep-ptcp-1+aux.prs ‘I have slept.’

(52)

ham ghar-e jā+hi I house-loc go+aux.prs ‘I am going home.’ (Verma S. 2003: 508)

(53)

ham okrā dekh-al-iai (141) I he.nh.obj see-pst-1.3nh ‘I saw him.’

(54)

bhagavān ham=rā daliddhar kai-lk-an god I=obj beggar make-pst-3h ‘The Giver has made me a beggar.’ (Gaya) (Grierson 1885: 81)

(55)

ham-hūṃ apanā laṛikā=ke skūl=me bheje+lā+cāha+hī I-emph my boy=obj school=to send+bring+want+aux.prs ‘I also want to send my boy to school.’ (South Patna) (Grierson 1885: 80)

(56)

aur ham=rā to=rā laṛāva+hath and we=obj you=obj quarrel.caus+aux.prs.3 ‘[They] make you and us quarrel.’ (Gaya) (Grierson 1885: 82)

(57)

ham okar intajār kai-l-iai I his waiting make-pst-1.3nh ‘I waited for him.’ (Verma 1991: 140)

(58)

jādugarwā rājā=ke nokar banā+de-lk-ai magician king=obj servant make+give-pst-3 ‘The magician made the servant to a king.’ (Verma 1991: 139)

(59)

toṃ uṭhamāṃ jāe na paib you there go not can.fut.2 ‘You cannot go there.’ (Grierson 1885: 77)

(60)

rām-jī sab=ke hisāb kara+hathin Ram-h all=obj cognizance do+aux.prs.3h ‘Ram takes cognizance of all.’ (Gaya) (Grierson 1885: 81)

Appendix 2   

   281

(61)

jale ui lauṭa-īṃ (144) when she.pl return-pst.f.pl ‘When she returned.’

(62)

gopal=ke cāriu larikā jia-ti+haiṃ Gopal=gen four boy live-prs+aux.prs.3pl ‘Gopal’s four sons are living.’ (Saksena [1937] 1971: 220)

(63)

ū hamai mār-isi he I.obl beat-pst.tr.3sg ‘He beat me.’ (Saksena [1937] 1971: 162)

(64)

ui=ke baraijā kāṭi+khāini he=obj wasp.pl sting+eat.pst.tr.3pl ‘The wasps stung him.’ (Saksena [1937] 1971: 442)

(65)

tui=kā mai tīni pāni=se na dhoi+deuṃ you=obj I three water=with not wash+give.fut.1sg ‘I will not wash you away with three waters.’ (Saksena [1937] 1971: 432)

(66)

id. 65

(67)

kā ī=ma ke gulgul-ā tum q this=from some sweet-pl you.f ‘Have you taken some sweets from this?’

(68)

bahū tale tīni gulgul-ā nikāri lih-isi (144) daughter-in-law then three sweet-pl take out.inf take-pst.tr.3sg ‘The daughter-in-law took out three sweets.’

(69)

mai miṭhāī khā-ti+hoihauṃ I sweets eat-prs+aux.fut.1sg ‘I shall be eating sweetmeats.’ (Saksena [1937] 1971: 265)

(70)

sāheb log tau pāṃc-pāṃc chaāhā dāuṃ ṭipan sahib people then five-five six time tiffin uḍāwa-ti+haiṃ indulge-prs+aux.prs.3pl ‘While the sahebs indulge in tiffin meals five or six times.’ (Saksena [1937] 1971: 154)

lih-e+hau? (143) take-pst.tr+aux.prs.2pl

282   

   Appendix

(71)

poi=ko man=mā pani kehī ciso pas-na ga-yo (153) husband=gen mind=loc too little chill enter-inf go-pst.3sg ‘A little chill entered the husband’s mind too.’

(72)

tinī-harū āṃkhā band gar-era bas-dai-nan (187) he-pl eye close do-cvb sit-prs-neg.3pl ‘They don’t sit with their eyes closed [anymore].’

(73)

mai=le Prembahādur=lāi dekh-eṃ I=erg Prembahadur=obj see-pst.1sg ‘I saw Prembahadur.’ (Bickel 2011: 404)

(74)

baigun=ko kāṃḍā=le tyas=lāī ghoc-yo (148) aubergine=gen thorn[f]=erg she=obj prick-pst.3sg ‘A thorn of the aubergine-plant pricked her.’

(75)

kina hāmī=lāī kasai(=le) samjh-os? (164) why we=obj someone=erg remember-sbjv.3sg ‘Why would anyone remember us?’

(76)

svara-harū(=le) mānauṃ us=lāī bolā-i-rah-ekā+ch-an (169) voice-pl=erg as if he=obj call-lnk-prog-prf.ptcp.pl+prs-3pl ‘[it was] as if voices were calling him.’

(77)

lathi=le maiṃ=le sisi phuṭa-eṃ (152) stick=ins I=erg bottle break-pst.1sg ‘I broke the bottle with the stick.’

(78)

rājā=le mukh bharī pāṇī hāl-e (147) king=erg mouth full water put-pst.3sg.h ‘The king put his mouth full [with] water.’

(79)

tarsā-eko ra na-tarsā-eko hajūr(=le) terrify-prf.ptcp or neg-terrify-prf.ptcp you.h=erg pā-i-bakse-lā! (167) get-lnk-royal.h-fut.3sg ‘Terrified or not terrified, you will find out.’

thāhā knowledge

Appendix 2   

(80)

tapāīṃ=ko hajām(=le) mero ghāu kina you.h=gen barber=erg my wound why kāṭ-i-diṃ-dai-na (161) stitch-lnk-give-prs-neg.3sg ‘Why doesn’t your barber stitch my wound?

(81)

su gav vany he.nom go.pst.m.sg now ‘He just went to the market.’

(82)

toh’ gatsh-iv dili you.nom. go-fut.2pl Delhi ‘You will go to Delhi.’ (Koul and Wali 2006: 17)

(83)

tahi on-iv-on su yo:r (230) you.erg bring.pst.m.sg-2pl-3sg he.nom here ‘You brought him here.’

(84)

temi on-u-s she.erg bring.pst-m-1sg ‘She brought me.’

bi (220) I.nom

(85)

tsi ch-u-kh you.nom aux.prs-m-2sg ‘You teach me.’

me I.obj

bāzar (214) market

bi so:za-th tsi I.nom send.fut.1sg-2sg you.nom ‘I will send you there.’

parināv-ān (200) teach-ptcp.prs

to:r (199) there

(86)

su parinā-vi me he.nom teach-fut.3sg I.obj ‘He will teach me.’ (Koul and Wali 2006: 104)

(87)

tahi por-v-ā you.erg read.pst.m.sg-2pl-q ‘Did you read the newspaper?’

akhbār? (73) newspaper[m]

   283

284   

   Appendix

(88)

ḍakṭar-an dyut zavar zi project doctor-erg give.pst.m.sg emphasis[m] that project gatsh-i mukmal sapd-un (216) need-fut.3sg complete make-inf ‘The doctor emphasized that the project should be completed.’

(89)

bi ch-u-s kitāb par-ān (202) I.m.nom aux.prs-m-1sg book[f] read-ptcp.prs ‘I am reading a book.’

(90)

m’on dos ch-u ārām-i=sān kām kar-ān my friend aux.prs-3m.sg rest-abl=with work do.ptcp.prs ‘My friend works leisurely.’ (Koul and Wali 2006: 44)

(91)

āu bi go-s I.nom fear go.pst-1sg ‘I was afraid.’ (Hook 1987: 64)

(92)

yaw laal korah warha dhaw+cha these ruby where from going+aux.prs.3pl ‘Where are these rubies (going) from?’ (Hook: http://www-personal. umich.edu/~pehook/poguli.html - Accessed on 10 May 2012)

(93)

yīs ti āu teri pent-i-s yesterday you.erg I.f.nom there send.pst-f.sg-1sg ‘Yesterday, you sent me there.’ (Hook: http://www-personal.umich. edu/~pehook/poguli.html - Accessed on 10 May 2012)

(94)

teni āu ān-t-us-nan-e he.erg I.nom bring-pst-1pl-3sg-prf ‘He has brought me for them.’ (Hook 1987: 67)

(95)

kinaer ān-ma-n how bring-fut.1sg-3sg ‘How shall we bring her?’ (Hook: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pehook/ poguli.html – Accessed on 10 May 2012)

(96)

sā ti teru peni +lev-i-(t) she.nom you.obj there send+pour-fut.3sg-(2sg) ‘She will send you there.’ (Hook 1987: 66)

Appendix 2   

   285

(97)

āu bi go-s ti tes ciṭhi daī+le I.nom fear go.pst-1sg you.erg he.obj letter give+pour.pst.2sg ‘I was afraid that you might have given him the letter.’ (Hook 1987: 64)

(98)

cīn=sun rāza dweb bāpor-us pyon-c-in China=gen king.erg woman merchant-obj send-pst-3sg ‘The king of China sent the woman to the merchant.’ (Hook: http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~pehook/poguli.html – Accessed on 10 May 2012)

(99)

as yu sweecker bāpor tyurhu pyon-ma-n we it thinking merchant there send-fut.1pl-3sg ‘With this in mind we will send the merchant there.’ (Hook: http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~pehook/poguli.html – Accessed on 10 May 2012)

(100) bāpor lāl cīn=sani rāz-as wātal+chu merchant ruby China=gen king-obj arrive.caus+aux.prs.3sg ‘The merchant delivers the rubies to the king of China.’ (Hook: http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~pehook/poguli.html – Accessed on 10 May 2012) (101) a-y-ūsī come-pst-1sg ‘I came.’ (Khubchandani 2003: 644) (102) tūṃ hal-eṃ you go-prs.2sg ‘You go.’ (Cole 2001) (103) mūṃ huna=khe āndo I.erg he.obl=obj bring.pst.m.sg ‘I brought him.’ (Cole 2001) (104) id. 103 (105) maṃ ḍ’īs-aṃ-ī+tho I look.prs-1sg-2sg+aux.prs.m.sg ‘I look at you.’ (Khubchandani 1962: 77) (106) id. 105

286   

   Appendix

(107) muṃ kītab-a paṛh-y-a/ paṛh-iu-va I.erg book[m]-pl read-pst-m.pl read-pst-1sg ‘I read books.’ (Khubchandani 2003: 647) (108) chokria kuto di-ṭho girl[f]erg dog[m] see-pst.m.sg ‘The girl saw the dog.’ (Cole 2001) (109) tūṃ kitāb-a ḍīndo+hue-ni (243) you. book-[m]-pl give.prs+aux.prs.2sg-3pl ‘You used to give the books to them.’ (110) hu chokīr-a amba khai-nī+tha those boy-pl mango.pl eat-3pl+aux.prs.m.pl ‘Those boys are eating mangoes.’ (Khubchandani 2003: 651) (111)

o gea he go.pst.m.sg ‘He went.’ (Shackle 1976: 144)

(112)

hik aorat bai=de ghar vai-si one woman she=gen house go-fut.3sg ‘One woman will go to another’s house.’ (Shackle 1976: 168)

(113)

sumbal=nū mariā-s sumbal=obj beat.pst-3sg ‘S/he beat Sumbal.’ (Akhtar 1997: 6)

(114) fawad=ne mariā-s fawad=erg beat.pst-3sg ‘Fawad beat him.’ (Akhtar 1997: 6) (115)

o mai-kuṃ pāgal pyā baṇedai he I-obj mad emph make.prs.3sg ‘He is making me mad.’ (Shackle 1976: 146)

(116) fawad mare-ga-s Fawad beat-fut-3sg ‘Fawad will beat him.’ (Akhtar 1997 :8)

Appendix 2   

(117)

   287

kam ki-tā-s work do-pst.m.sg-3sg ‘S/he did the work.’ (Akhtar 1997: 7)

(118) fawad=ne sumbal=nū katāb di-tī Fawad=erg Sumbal=obj book[f] give-pst.f.sg ‘Fawad gave the book to Sumbal.’ (Akhtar 1997: 2) (119) asaṃ amb kha-suṃ we mango eat-fut.1pl ‘We shall eat mangoes.’ (Shackle 1976: 144) (120) muṛ-e kam boy-nom.pl work ‘His boys work.’ (121)

kar-d-e-s (246) do-prs-3pl-3sg

mādzhī badlī dzhālī my transfer[f] happen.pst.f.sg ‘My transfer happened.’ (Pandharipande 1997: 5)

(122) tu ghari jāc-t-e-s (248) you.f home go-prs-f.sg-2sg ‘You are going home.’ (123) mī bāī=lā pāhila I woman=obj see.pst.3sg.n ‘I saw the woman.’ (Pandharipande 1997: 135) (124) presiḍenṭ=ne tyā=lā sekreṭarī tsyā padāwar nem-le president=erg he=obj secretary his position appoint-pst.3sg.n. ‘The president appointed him in the position of secretary.’ (Pandharipande 1997: 323) (125) tumhī ma=lā sāmbhāḷāwe¹ you I.obl=obj take care.opt.3sg.n ‘You may protect me.’ (Pandharipande 1997: 45)

1 Because the mood is optative, there is no agreement with A.

288   

   Appendix

(126) tyātsa na bolṇa ma=lā botsta his not talk[n]inf I.obl=obj hurt.prs.3sg.n ‘His not talking hurts me.’ (Pandharipande 1997: 189) (127) tu kāvitā vāc-l-i-s (247) you.m poem[f] read-pst-f.sg-2sg ‘You read the poem.’ (128) tyā=ne don āmbe khālle he=erg two mango[m]pl eat.pst.3pl.m ‘He ate two mangoes.’ (Pandharipande 1997: 15) (129) tī hindī śikel she Hindi learn.fut.3sg ‘She will learn Hindi.’ (Pandharipande 1997: 2) (130) mohan āmbe khā-to Mohan mango[m]pl eat-prs.3sg.m ‘Mohan eats mangoes.’ (Pandharipande 1997: 12) (131)

ātho mosfar ā-l-o this way traveller.nom come-prf-3m.sg ‘A traveller came from this way.’ (Schmidt and Kohistani 2008: 69)

(132) ye toomo bubā-di boj-tha he his father-to go-inj ‘He should go to his own father.’ (Schmidt and Kohistani 2008: 85) (133) moṃ se-s gooz-a uch-y-ā-s I.erg he-obj home-obl take-caus-prf.m.sg-1 ‘I took him home.’ (Schmidt and Kohistani 2008: 82) (134) ich-i se-ṇo gooz-a bear-erg he-obj.pl home-obl ‘The bear took them home.’

uch-y-ā-o (198) take-caus-prf.m.sg-3

(135) ciyee mo ye-s kudi cak-ū-s? now I.erg he-obj where look-fut-1sg ‘Now where should I look for him?’ (Schmidt and Kohistani 2008: 78)

Appendix 2   

   289

(136) id. 134 (137) ye-s-i so ṭak har-yā-o he-obl-erg that button take away-prf.m.sg-3 ‘He took away the button.’ (Schmidt and Kohistani 2008: 76) (138) iman toolo-ga dodook-i aṭ-eeg-a-an faith toolo-and dodooko-erg bring-prf-3m.pl-aux.prs ‘Toolo and Dodooko have brought the faith.’ (Schmidt and Kohistani 2008: 50) (139) be-s jo th-ooṇ-as kapar-y-o-gi? (197) we-erg what do-1pl-aux.prs potsherd-pl-obj-with ‘What are we to do with potsherds?’ (140) cayāṃiṃ-s cīṃ=cīṃ th-ī-n-i sparrow[f]-erg chirping do-impf-aux.prs-3f.sg ‘The sparrow is chirping.’ (Schmidt and Kohistani 2008: 52) (141)

mhaiṃ bego hī vāṃ=rai=kanaiṃ I fast emph he=gen=close ‘I got to him in a hurry.’

jā-y go-cvb

pūg-yo (257) arrive-pst.m.sg

(142) rojīnā ghare bhī to jāvo+ho daily house.loc too you go.ptcp.prs+aux.prs.m.sg ‘Do you still go daily to the house?’ (Hamsa 1984: 172) (143) mhaiṃ śaraṇ=naiṃ dekh-ī (253) I.m Sharan[f]=obj see-pst.f.sg ‘I saw Sharan.’ (144) mammī ma=naiṃ god=meṃ Mama[f] I=m.obj lap=loc ‘Mammy took me up in her lap.’

uṭhā+li-yo (252) heave+take-pst.m.sg

(145) vai mha=naiṃ cor-nijar=sūṃ dekhai+hā he I.m=obj thief-look=with see.prs+aux.pst.m.sg ‘He was looking at me with the look of a thief.’ (Hamsa 1984: 170)

290   

   Appendix

(146) ek aṇajāṇī-sī cuppī mha=naiṃ gher+lī+hī a unknown-like silence I=obj spread+take+aux.pst.f.sg ‘An unknown silence was spreading over me.’ (Hamsa 1984: 173) (147) vai baṛā het=sūṃ mhārī āḍī he great care=with I.gen problem[f] ‘He solved my problems with great care.’ (148) paṇ pāpā bhī merī bāt konī but pa also I.gen word[f] not ‘But papa also did not listen to my words.’

sirkā-ī (266) solve-pst.f.sg

suṇ-ī (263) hear-pst.f.sg

(149) āp kyūṃ taklīph dekh-o you why trouble see-prs.2sg ‘Why do you take the trouble?’ (Hamsa 1984: 171) (150) pāpā ma=naiṃ pataṃg nīṃ lyā’r+de-tā papa I=obj kite not bring+give-prs.m.sg ‘Papa wouldn’t bring me a kite.’ (Barhat 1984: 39) (151)

paṇ moṭar nhaṃ ḍhab-ī (271) but bus[f] not stop-pst.f.sg ‘But the bus did not stop.’

(152) ghaṃṭā=lār ek moṭar aṭhī=sūṃ ar ek uṭhī=sūṃ hour=by one bus here=from and one there=from chūṭai+chai leave.prs+aux.prs.3sg ‘Each hour, one bus leaves from here, and one from there.’ (Prem 1984: 91) (153) u uṃ=ne dekhi+chai she he.obl=obj see.pst.f+aux.prs.3sg ‘He has seen her.’ (Allen 1960: 10) (154) ḍokri=ne ya-i kari old woman=erg this-f.sg do.pst.f ‘The old woman did this [thing, f.].’ (Allen 1960: 11)

Appendix 2   

(155) u uṃ=ne dekhai+chai he he=obj see.prs+aux.prs.3sg ‘He sees him.’ (Allen 1960: 10) (156) khābā=kī cīj=naiṃ kuṇ choḍai+chai? (280) eat=gen thing=naiṃ who.nom.m.sg lose.prs+aux.prs.3sg ‘Who loses a thing to eat (definite object)?’ (157) mhaiṃ=naiṃ I.f=erg ‘I screamed.’

hāṃk-ā pāṛ-yā (271) scream[m]-pl scream-pst.m.pl

(158) ek mard=naiṃ ḍalevar=pai hukam one man=erg driver=on order[m] ḍalevar sāb! (276) driver sir ‘A man ordered the driver: driver sir!’

calā+dyo, go+give.pst.m.sg

(159) muṃ chora=ne photi duṃgo I boy=obj book[f] give.fut.1sg ‘I will give the boy a book.’ (Allen 1964: 343) (160) choro kam kare+che boy[m] work do+aux.prs.3sg ‘The boy does the work.’ (Allen 1964: 343) (161) te kāl paho’nch-yo he yesterday reach-pst.m.sg ‘He reached yesterday.’ (Ganathe 2005: 88) (162) huṃ niśāle ja-to+nathī I school go-prs+neg.aux ‘I do not go to school.’ (Ganathe 2005: 77) (163) me ehṇe kale jo-yo I.erg he.obj yesterday see-pst.m.sg ‘I saw him yesterday.’ (Cardona 1965: 75)

   291

292   

   Appendix

(164) kiśor-e mag=ne baraḍ-yā (289) Kishor-erg mung beans[m]=obj grind-pst.m.pl ‘Kishor ground the mung beans (definite object).’ (165) te tam=ne bolāve+che he you=obj call+aux.prs.3sg ‘He is calling you.’ (Ganathe 2005: 105) (166) kiśor rāj=ne pajav-śe Kishor Raj=obj harass-fut.3sg ‘Kishor will harass Raj.’ (Mistry 1997: 426) (167) me kam kar-yuṃ+che (255) I.erg work[n] do-pst.n.sg+aux.prs.3sg ‘I have done the work.’ (168) ramesh-e traṇ capḍ-i kharid-i Ramesh-erg three book[f]-pl buy-pst.f.sg ‘Ramesh bought three books.’ (Cardona 2003: 670) (169) huṃ paysa ap-uṃ I money give-prs.1sg ‘I will pay.’ (Cardona 2003: 680) (170) ramesh shuṃ kam kare+che Ramesh what work do+aux.prs.3sg ‘What does Ramesh do?’ (Cardona 2003: 680) (171)

maiṃ baiṭh-iā+hāṃ I sit-pst.m.sg+aux.prs.1sg ‘I sat.’ (Tolstaya 1981: 44)

(172)

maiṃ jāṃ-dā+hāṃ I go-prs+aux.prs.1sg ‘I go.’ (Gill 21)

(173) maiṃ tarī bhaiṃ=nūṃ viāh toṃ pahilāṃ vekhi-a I your sister=obj marriage then before see-pst.m.sg ‘I saw your sister before the marriage.’ (Tolstaya 1981: 67)

Appendix 2   

(174) us=ne maiṃ=nūṃ āpṇā dost baṇā-iā he=erg I=obj his friend make-pst.m.sg ‘He made me his friend.’ (Tolstaya 1981: 50) (175)

uh maiṃ=nūṃ vekh-dā+haiṃ he I=obj see-prs+aux.prs.3sg ‘He sees me.’ (Tolstaya 1981: 68)

(176) rāj rattan=nūṃ apṇā vairī man-dā+hai Raj Rattan=obj his enemy consider-prs+aux.prs.3sg ‘Raj considers Ratan his enemy.’ (Bhatia 1993: 134) (177) maiṃ kamm kītā (293) I work[m] do.pst.m.sg ‘I worked.’, lit.: ‘I did the work.’ (178) kuṛī=ne kamm kītā (294) girl[f]=erg work[m] do.pst.m.sg ‘The girl worked.’, lit.: ‘the girl did the work.’ (179) maiṃ cāh nahīṃ pīṃ-da I tea not take-prs.m.sg ‘I do not take tea.’ (Gill 22) (180) doveṃ tiaṃ roṭi tīar kar+raiaṃ+san both daughter[f]pl food ready do+prog.f.pl+aux.pst.3pl ‘The two daughters were preparing the meal.’ (Shackle 2003: 611) (181) tumhāre caccā gāṃo ga-e your uncle village go-pst.m.pl ‘Your uncle has gone to the village.’ (Varma 1935: 76) (182) tum kahāṃ jāl+hao? you where go+aux.prs.2sg ‘Where are you going?’ (Varma 1935: 75) (183) gaurī=naiṃ syām=kūṃ dekh-yau Gauri=erg Syam=obj see-pst.m.sg ‘Gauri saw Syam.’ (Liperovsky 2007: 145)

   293

294   

   Appendix

(184) tū mere mālik=neṃ yādi kī-yau+hai (305) you I.gen master=erg remembrance did-pst.m.sg+aux.prs ‘My master has recalled thee.’ (185) bao laṛkā=kao naokar=sae calbāut+hae he boy=obj worker=abl carry.caus+aux.prs.3sg ‘He makes the boy carried by the worker.’ (Varma 1935: 101) (186) birāmman binneṃ bulāibe āy-au Brahman they.obj call.inf come-pst.m.sg ‘The Brahman came to call them.’ (Liperovsky 2007: 148) (187) taiṃ=naiṃ sac kah-yo you=erg truth tell-pst.m.sg ‘You told the truth.’ (Varma 1935: 74) (188) coranu sabu mālu-asbābu nikāri+lī-yau (304) thief.obl.pl all luggage[m] go out+take-pst.m.sg ‘The thieves took out the whole luggage. (189) bao laoṃṛā=kao ām det+hae he boy=obj mango give.prs+aux.prs.3sg ‘He gives a mango to the boy.’ (Varma 1935: 94) (190) jo koī kām kar-ae who those work do-sbjv.3sg ‘They who would work…’ (Varma 1935: 92) (191) bo chata=se kūd-o he roof=from jump-pst.m.sg ‘He jumped from the roof.’ (Jaiswal 1962: 59) (192) bo āu-ta+hue he come-prs+aux.sbjv ‘He may be coming.’ (Jaiswal 1962: 141) (193) ū=ne machariyana=kho khā+ḍāl-o he=erg fish=obj eat+throw-pst.m.sg ‘He ate the fish (definite object) up.’ (Jaiswal 1962: 66)

Appendix 2   

   295

(194) dhobī=ne gadhana=kho khūba pīṭ-o washerman=erg donkey=obj very beat-pst.m.sg ‘The washerman beat the donkeys bitterly.’ (Jaiswal 1962: 65) (195) maiṃ ū=kho jo ute baiṭho+hai jāna-ta+hauṃ I he=obj who here sit+aux.3sg know-prs+aux.prs.1sg ‘I know him who is sitting here.’ (Jaiswal 1962: 78) (196) ī=kho sab cīna-ta+haiṃ he=obj all know-prs+aux.prs.3pl ‘Everybody knows him.’ (Jaiswal 1962: 75) (197) tum=neṃ ek ām khā-o (308) you=erg one mango[m] eat-pst.m.sg ‘You ate a mango.’ (198) dukāndārana=ne dukāne banda kara+dai shopkeeper=erg shop[f]pl close do+give.pst.f.pl ‘The shopkeepers have closed the shops.’ (Jaiswal 1962: 65) (199) ham garmī=kī dupariyā=me kām naiṃ kara-ta we summer=gen afternoon=in work not do-prs.m.pl ‘We do not work in the hot summer afternoon.’ (Jaiswal 1962: 71) (200) jamidāra hamesa ḍākuana=kho baṛhāvā zamindar always dacoit=obj encouragement de-ta+h-aiṃ give-prs+aux.prs-3pl ‘Zamindars always give encouragement to the dacoits.’ (Jaiswal 1962: 65)

9 References Abadie, Peggy. 1974. Nepali as an ergative language. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 1. 156–177. Abraham, Werner. 2000. The aspect-case typology correlation: perfectivity triggering (split) ergativity. Burzio’s generalization explained. In Erik Reuland (ed.), Arguments and case: explaining Burzio’s generalization, 129–190. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Acharya, Jayaraj. 1991. A descriptive grammar of Nepali and an analyzed corpus. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural language and linguistic theory 17. 673–711. Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking. Iconicity versus economy. Natural language and linguistic theory 21. 435–483. Akhtar, Raja N. 1997. Affix -s(uu) constructions in Punjabi. Essex Graduate Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 1–18. Allen, William. 1960. Notes on the Rajasthani verb. Indian Linguistics 21. 1–13. Amritavalli, R. and Partha P. Sarma. 2002. A case distinction between unaccusative and unergative subjects in Assamese. Snippets 5. 6–7. Andersen, Paul K. 1990. Review of “Passive and voice” M. Shibatani. Journal of Linguistics 26(1). 189–202. Anderson, Stephen R. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 1–25. New York: Academic press. Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 317–363. Austin & London: University of Texas Press. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andrews, Avery D. 2001. Non-canonical A/S marking in Icelandic. In Alexandra Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 85–111. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bahl, Kali C. 1989. Adhunik rajasthani ka samracanatmak vyakarana [A structural grammar of Modern Rajasthani]. Jodhpur: Rajasthani Sahitya Samsthan. Bailey, T. Grahame. 1908. The languages of the northern Himalayas. London: Royal Asiatic Society. Bailey, T. Grahame. 1924. Grammar of the Shina language. London: Royal Asiatic Society. Barđdal, Johanna. 2011. Lexical vs. structural case: a false dichotomy. Morphology 21. 619–654. Barđdal, Johanna. 2011. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua 121(1). 60–79. Barđdal, Johanna and Thorhallur Eythórsson. 2012. “Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies”: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3): 363–393. Barhat. 1984. Masterjī. R. Saraswat and P. Prem (eds.), Aaj ri Rajasthani kahaniyan [Contemporary Rajasthani stories]. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Barua, Hemachandra. 1859. Asamiya vyakarana [Assamese grammar]. Sibsagar. Baruah, P. N. Dutta 1980. An intensive course in Assamese. Mysore: Central institute of Indian languages.

References   

   297

Bashir, Elena 1999. The Urdu and Hindi postposition ne: its changing role in the grammar. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, 11–36. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Bashir, Elena. 2003. Dardic. In George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 818–894. London: Routledge. Bashir, Elena. 2009. Wakhi. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 825–858. London: Routledge. Bayer, Joseph. 2004. Non-nominative subjects in comparison. In Peri Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects. Vol I, 49–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Beames, John. 1872–1879. A comparative grammar of the Modern Aryan languages of India. London: Trubner & Co. Benveniste, Emile. 1952. La construction passive du parfait transitif. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 48. 52–62. Bhat, D. N. S. 1991. Grammatical relations. The evidence against their necessity and universality. London: Routledge. Bhat, Rajesh. 1987. A descriptive study of Kashmiri. Delhi: Amar Prakashan. Bhatia, Motia. 1985. An intensive course in Punjabi. Mysore: CIIL. Bhatia, Tej K. 1993. Punjabi. A cognitive-descriptive grammar. London: Routledge. Bhattacharyya, B. K. 1997. Janajatiya Sadhu: A collection of tribal folktales of the North-East. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language 79(4). 708–736. Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Peri Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects. Vol I, 77–112. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. On the scope of referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations. In Greville G. Corbett and Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations, 191–210. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Jae J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–445. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bickel, Balthasar, Walter Bisang and Yogendra P. Yadava. 1999. Face vs. empathy: the social foundation of Maithili verb agreement. Linguistics 37(3). 481–518. Bickel, Balthasar and Johanna Nichols. 2009. Case marking and alignment. In Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 304–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bickel, Balthasar and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2008. Referential scales and case alignment: reviewing the typological evidence. In Marc Richards and Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Scales, 1–37. Leipzig: Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. Bickel, Balthasar and Yogendra P. Yadava. 2000. A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110. 343–373. Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bokarev, E. A., (ed.). 1950. Ergativnaja konstrukcija predlozenija. Moskva: Izd-vo inostrannoj literatury. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Kamal K. Choudhary, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel. 2008. Bridging the gap between processing preferences and typological distributions: Initial evidence from the online comprehension of control constructions in Hindi. In Marc Richards and Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Scales, 397–436. Leipzig: Linguistische Arbeitsberichte.

298   

   References

Bossong, Georg. 1983. Animacy and markedness in universal grammar. Glossologia 2–3. 7–20. Bossong, Georg. 1984. Ergativity in Basque. Linguistics 22. 341–392. Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in Neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. Bossong, Georg. 2006. Meaning, form and function in basic roles. In Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie, Angela D. Friederici (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking, 237–262. Berlin: Mouton. Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. McHombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63(4). 741–782. Brown, N. 1848. Grammatical Notices of the Assamese Language. Sibsagor: American Baptist Missionary Press. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. [1978] 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bubenik, Vit. 1989. On the origin and elimination of ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages. Canadian journal of linguistics 34. 377–398. Bubenik, Vit. 1998. A historical syntax of late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhramsa). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Burrow, Thomas. 1965. The Sanskrit language. London: Faber & Faber. Burzio, Liugi. 1986. Italian syntax. A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. Butt, Miriam. 2004. The role of pronominal suffixes in Punjabi. Paper presented at the DGFS workshop Evolution syntaktischer Relationen, University of Mainz, 25–27 February. Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butt, Miriam. 2007. The dative-ergative connection. Invited paper presented at CIEFL, Hyderabad. Butt, Miriam. and Tracy H. King. 2004. The status of case. In Anoop Mahajan and Vineeta Dayal (eds.), Clause structure in South Asian languages, 153–198. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Butt, Miriam. and Tikaram Poudel. 2007. Distribution of the ergative in Nepali. Paper presented at the University of Leipzig. Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bybee, Joan and Osten Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13(1). 51–103. Bynon, Theodora. 1979. The ergative construction in Kurdish. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African studies 42(2). 211–224. Bynon, Theodora. 1989. Pronominal attrition, clitic doubling and typological change. Folia Linguistica Historica 13(1–2). 27–63. Bynon, Theodora. 2005. Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the philological society 103(1). 1–72. Cardona, George. 1965. A Gujarati reference grammar. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Cardona, George. 1970. The Indo-Iranian construction mana (mama) krtam. Language 46(1). 1–12. Cardona, George. 1974. The Indo-Aryan languages. Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed.) 9. 439–450. Cardona, George and Dhanesh Jain, (eds.). 2003. The Indo-Aryan languages. London: Routledge. Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: the flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

References   

   299

Chatterjee, Jayati. 2008. Lexical motivation for passive forms of some Bangla verbs. South Asian language review 8(1). 100–106. Chatterji, Suniti K. 1926. The origin and development of the Bengali language. London: George Allen & Unwin. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Clark, T. W. 1963. Introduction to Nepali. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons. Cole, Jennifer. 2001. Sindhi. In Jane Garry and Carlo Rubino (eds.), Facts about the world’s languages: An encyclopedia of the world’s major languages, past and present, 647–653. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company. Cole, Peter, Wayne Harbert, Gabriella Hermon and S. N. Sridhar. 1980. The acquisition of subjecthood. Language 56(4). 719–743. Cole, Peter and Jerrold M. Sadock. 1977. Grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1973. The ergative, variations on a theme. Lingua 32. 239–253. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–393. Sussex: The Harvester Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1984. Reflections on verb agreement in Hindi and related languages. Linguistics 22. 857–864. Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishing. Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wals.info/chapter/98 (Accessed 4 April 2011). Cooreman, Ann, Barbara Fox and Talmy Givon. 1984. Discourse definition of ergativity. Studies in Language 8(1). 1–34. Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coseriu, Eugenio. 1987. Formen und Funktionen. Studien zur Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Creissels, Dennis. 2008. Direct and indirect explanations of typological regularities: The case of alignment variations. Folia Linguistica 42(1). 1–38. Creissels, Dennis. 2008b. Remarks on split intransitivity and fluid intransitivity. In Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7, 139–168. Paris: Colloque de syntaxe et sémantique. Creissels, Dennis. 2009. Uncommon patterns of core term marking and case terminology. Lingua 119(3). 445–459. Croft, William. 1988. Agreement versus case marking and direct objects. In Michael Barlow and Charles Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, 159–179. Stanford: CSLI. Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cysouw, Michael and Diane Forker. 2009. Reconstruction of morphosyntactic function: nonspatial usage of spatial case marking in Tsezic. Language 85(3). 588–617. Das Gupta, Bidhu B. 1981. Assamese self-taught. Calcutta: Das Gupta Prakashan. Das, Pradeep K. 2006. Grammatical agreement in Hindi-Urdu and its major varieties. München: Lincom. Dasgupta, Probal 2004. Some non-nominative subjects in Bangla. In Peri Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects. Vol I, 129–140. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

300   

   References

Davidse, Kristin. 1992. Transitivity/ergativity. The Janus-headed grammar of actions and events. In Martin Davies and Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics, 105–135. London: Pinter. Davison, Alice. 1990. Comments on the papers by Elena Bashir, Peter Hook, Colin P. Masica, and Arlene Zide. In Manindra K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, 355–364. Stanford: CSLI. Davison, Alice. 1999. Ergativity: functional and formal issues. In Michael Darnell, Edith Moravcsik, Frederick J. Newmeyer, Michael Noonan and Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, 177–210. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Davison, Alice. 2002. Agreement features and projections of TENSE and ASPECT. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), The yearbook of South Asian Languages and linguistics, 12–27. New Delhi: Sage. De Clercq, Eva. 2003. Een kritische studie van Svayambhudeva’s Paümacariu. Gent: University of Ghent dissertation. De Clercq, Eva. 2010. The Apabhraṃśa of Svayambhūdeva’s Paümcariu. Mumbai: Hindi Granth Karyalay. de Swart, Peter. 2006. Case markedness. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov and Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 249–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. de Swart, Peter, Monique Lamers and Sander Lestrade. 2008. Animacy, argument structure and argument encoding. Lingua 118. 131–140. Debrunner, Albert. 1954. Jacob Wackernagel Altindische Grammatik, Vol II. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Degener, Almuth. 2008. Shina-Texte aus Gilgit (Nord-Pakistan) : Sprichwörter und Materialien zum Volksglauben. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57. 626–657. DeLancey, Scott. 1985. Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. Proceedings of the annual Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 65–72. DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In Wallace L. Chafe and Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 201–213. Norwood: Ablex. DeLancey, Scott. 2004. The blue bird of ergativity. In Francesco Queixalós (ed.), Ergativity in Amazonia III, 1–37. Paris: CELIA-CNRS. Deo, Ashwini and Devyani Sharma. 2006. Typological variation in the ergative morphology in Indo-Aryan. Linguistic typology 10. 369–418. Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Dik, Simon C. 1980. Studies in functional grammar. London/New York: Academic Press. Dik, Simon C. 1989. The theory of functional grammar. Part I: The structure of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris. Dirr, Albert. 1912. Rutulskij jazyk [The Rutul language]. Sbornik Materialov dlya Opisaniya y Plemn Kavkaza 42(1). 1–204. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979b. Is Dyirbal ergative? Corrections and comments. Linguistics 17(11–1). 1003–1015. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References   

   301

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1995. Complement clauses and complementation strategies. In Frank R. Palmer (ed.), Grammar and meaning: essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, 175–220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, Robert M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory. Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, Robert M. W. and A. Aikhenvald. 2000. Introduction. In Robert M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 1–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Donohue, Marc and Søren Wichmann (eds). 2008. The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. Drocco, Andrea. 2008. L’ergatività in hindi. Alessandria: Edizione dell’Orso. Dryer, Matthew. S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62(4). 808–845. Dryer, Matthew. S. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Joan Bybee, John Haiman and Sandra Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: dedicated to T. Givón, 115–143. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63. 805–855. Du Bois, John W. 2003. Argument structure: Grammar in use. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf and William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure, 11–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf and William J. Ashby, (eds.). 2003. Preferred Argument Structure. Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Durie, Marc. 1988. Preferred argument structure in an active language: Arguments against the category ‘intransitive subject’. Lingua 74. 1–25. Edelman, Dzhoy J. I. and Leila R. Dodykhudoeva. 2009. The Pamir languages. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 773–786. London: Routledge. Emeneau, Murray B. [1965] 1980. India and linguistic areas. In A. S. Dil (ed.), Language and linguistic area. Essays by Murray B. Emeneau, 126–166. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Estival, Dominique and John Myhill. 1988. Formal and functional aspects of the development from passive to ergative systems. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.). Passive and voice, 441–492. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Evans, Nicholas. 1999. Why argument affixes in polysynthetic languages are not pronouns. Evidence from Bininj Gun-wok. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 52. 255–281. Everaert, Christine. 2004. Basisgrammatica van het Hindi. Gent: Academia Press. Farrell, Patrick. 2005. Grammatical relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Filiminova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: problems and counterevidence. Linguistic typology 9. 77–113. Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–91. Holt: Rinehart and Winston. Foley, William A. and Robert D. J. Van Valin. 1980. Role and reference grammar. In E. Moravcsik and J. R. Wirth (eds.), Current approaches to syntax, 329–352. New York: Academic Press. Foley, William A. and Robert D. J. Van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fortescue, Michael D. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.

302   

   References

Gabelentz, Hans C. v. d. 1861. Ueber das Passivum: Eine sprachvergleichende Abhandlung. Abhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 8. 451–546. Ganathe, N. S. R. 2005. Learn Gujarati in 30 days. Chennai: Balaji Publications. García-Miguel, José M. 2007. Clause structure and transitivity. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 753–781. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Genetti, Carol. 1988. A syntactic correlate of topicality in Newari narrative. In John Haiman and Sandra Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 29–48. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Genetti, Carol. 1999. Variation in agreement in the Nepali finite verb. In Yogendra P. Yadava and William W. Glover (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 542–555. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy. Genetti, Carol. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: GmbH & Co. Gildea, Steve. 2004. Are there universal cognitive motivations for ergativity? In Francesco Queixalós (ed.), Ergatividade na Amazonia II, 1–54. Brasilia: CNRS, IRD and the Laboratório de Línguas Indígenas, UnB. Gill, T. S. (no publication date mentioned). Learn Punjabi. New Delhi: Star Publications. Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–188. New York: Academic Press. Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: an introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Goddard, Cliff. 1982. Case systems and case marking in Australian languages: a new interpretation. Australian journal of linguistics 2. 167–196. Gonda, Jan. 1951. Remarks on the Sanskrit passive. Leiden: Brill. Goswami, Golokchandra. 1982. The structure of Assamese. Gauhati: Department of Publication Gauhati University. Goswami, Golokchandra and Jyotiprakash Tamuli. 2003. Asamiya. In George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 429–522. London: Routledge. Goswami, Upendranath. 1978. An introduction to Assamese. Gauhati: Mani-Manik Prakash. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language Universals. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Current trends in linguistics: Theoretical foundations, 61–112. The Hague/Paris: Mouton & Co. Grierson, George A. 1883. Seven grammars of the dialects and subdialects of the Bihari language. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press. Grierson, George A. 1903–1926. Linguistic survey of India. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent, Government Printing. Grierson, George A. 1911. A manual of the Kashmiri language comprising grammar, phrase-book and vocabularies. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gusain, Lakhan. 2004. Marwari. München: Lincom Europa. Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages : a construction grammar approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hale, Austin. 1973. Clause, sentence and discourse patterns in selected languages of Nepal. Norman: Summer Institute of linguistics of the University of Oklahoma. Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Parts 1 and 2. Journal of Linguistics 3. 37–81, 199–244.

References   

   303

Halliday, M. A. K. [1966] 2003. Grammar, society and the noun. In M. A. K. Halliday and J. Webster (eds.), On language and linguistics, 50–73. London: Continuum international publishing. Hamsa. 1984. Cuppī [Silence]. In Rawat Saraswat and Prem (eds.), Aaj ri Rajasthani kahaniyan [Contemporary Rajasthani stories], 170–174. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Hargreaves, David. 2005. Agency and Intentional Action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan linguistics 5. 1–48. Harris, Alice C. 1990. Alignment typology and diachronic change. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Language typology 1987. Systematic balance in language, 67–91. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Harris, Alice C. 1997. Review Ergativity by R.M.W. Dixon. Language 73(2). 359–374. Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Richard M. and Rama N. Sharma. 1968. A basic Hindi reader. New York: Rochester University. Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in language 14(1). 25–72. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic discovery 3(1). 1–21. Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1). 25–70. Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Terminology of case. In Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer. The Oxford handbook of case, 505–517. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. Heath, Jeffrey. 1979. Is Dyirbal ergative? Linguistics 17(5–6). 401–463. Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. Dyirbal ergativity. Counter-rejoinder. Linguistics 18(5–6). 505–521. Heine, Bernd and Christa Konig. 2010. On the linear order of ditransitive objects. Language Sciences 32(1). 87–131. Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2001. Head-marking versus dependent-marking languages. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Language typology and language universals, 1424–1432. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik. 1997. Tense and aspect in Indo-European languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hjelmslev, Louis. 1972. La catégorie des cas. Munchen: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Hock, Hans H. 1986. P-oriented constructions in Sanskrit. In B. Krishnamurti (ed.), South Asian languages: Structure, convergence and diglossia, 15–26. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Hoernle, August F. R. 1880. A comparative grammar of the Gaudian (Aryo-Indian) languages. Amsterdam: Philo Press. Hook, Peter E. 1978. The Hindi compound verb: What it is and what it does. In K. S. Singh (ed.), Readings in Hindi-Urdu linguistics, 109–124. Delhi: National Publishing House. Hook, Peter E. 1987. Poguli syntax in the light of Kashmiri: A preliminary report. Studies in the linguistic sciences 17(1). 63–71.

304   

   References

Hook, Peter E. 1988. Paradigmaticization: A case study from South Asia. In Shelley Axmaker, Fourteenth Annual meeting. General session and parasession on grammaticalization, 293–303. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Hook, Peter E. 1990. Experiencers in South Asian languages: A gallery. In Manindra K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, 319–334. Stanford: CSLI. Hook, Peter E. 1991. On identifying the conceptual restructuring of passive as ergative in Indo-Aryan. In Madhav M. Deshpande and Saroje Bhate (eds.), Paninian studies. Professor S. D. Joshi felicitation volume, 177–200. University of Michigan: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies. Hook, Peter E. 1996. Kesar of Layul: A Central Asian epic in the Shina of Gultari. In William Hanaway and Wilma Heston (eds.), Studies in Pakistani popular culture, 121–183. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel and Lok Virsa. Hook, Peter E. 2011. Alignment, realignment and paths of syntactic change. A case study from Indo-Aryan. Presentation at the Linguistic Anthropology Seminar, University of Virginia, 7 October. http://artsandsciences.virginia.edu/linganthseminar/archive/2011_Fall.html Hook, Peter E. and Vijay K. Kaul. 1987. Case alternation, transitionality and the adoption of direct objects in Kashmiri. Indian Linguistics 48. 52–69. Hook, Peter E. and Ashok K. Koul. 2002. Under the surface of the South Asian linguistic area: More on the syntax of derived transitives and causatives in Kashmiri. In Omkar N. Koul and Kashi Wali (eds.), Topics in Kashmiri linguistics, 103–112. New Delhi: Creative. Hook, Peter E. and Omkar N. Koul. 1984. Pronominal suffixes and split ergativity in Kashmiri. In Omkar N. Koul (ed.), Aspects of Kashmiri Linguistics, 123–135. New Delhi: Bahri Publications. Hook, Peter E. and Omkar N. Koul. 1984b. On the grammar of derived transitives and causatives in Kashmiri. In Omkar N. Koul and Peter E. Hook (eds.), 62–90. Aspects of Kashmiri linguistics. New Delhi: Bahri Publications. Hook, Peter E. and Omkar N. Koul. 2004. Case as agreement. In Peri Baskararao and K.V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, Vol. I, 213–225. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hook, Peter E. and Omkar N. Koul. 2006. Valency sets in Kashmiri. In Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations. In honor of M. Shibatani, 43–84. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity, grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. Hopper, Paul and Elisabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hutt, Michael. 1997. Modern literary Nepali. An introductory reader. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Hutt, Michael and A. Subedi. 1999. Nepali. London: Teach yourself books. Iggesen, Oliver. 2005. Case-asymmetry. München: Lincom Europa. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Jahani, Carina and Agnes Korn. 2009. Balochi. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 634–693. London: Routledge. Jaiswal, Mahesh P. 1962. A linguistic study of Bundeli. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Jeffers, Robert J. 1976. The position of the Bihari dialects in Indo-Aryan. Indo-Iranian Journal 18. 215–225.

References   

   305

Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2(1). 39–76. Jespersen, Otto. 1909–1949. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Jha, Subhakanta. 1958. The formation of the Maithili language. London: Luzac and Company. Kachru, Yamuna and R. Pandharipande. 1979. On ergativity in selected South Asian languages. South Asian languages analysis 1. 193–209. Kakati, Bani. 1941. Assamese, its formation and development. Guwahati: Lawyer’s Book Stall. Kakoti, S. 2011. Amrityu Amrit [Amrit’s life potion]. In Pradip Acharya (ed.), Winners all, 1–32. Guwahati: Munin Barkotoki Memorial Trust. Karki, Tika B. and Chij K. Shrestha. 1974. Basic course in spoken Nepali. Kathmandu: The Nepal Press. Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press. Keine, Stefan. 2007. Reanalysing Hindi split-ergativity as a morphological phenomenon. In Jochen Trommer and Andreas Opitz (eds.), 1–2-many, 73–127. Leipzig: Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. Kellogg, Samuel H. 1938. A grammar of the Hindi language. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. Khokhlova, Liudmilla V. 1992. Trends in the development of ergativity in New Indo-Aryan. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 18. 71–98. Khokhlova, Liudmilla V. 1995. The development of patient-oriented constructions in Late Western NIA languages. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 21. 15–54. Khokhlova, Liudmilla V. 2001. Ergativity attrition in the history of Western Indo-Aryan languages. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, 158–184. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Khokhlova, Liudmilla V. 2002. Syntactic peculiarities of Rajasthani. Paper presented at the 7th European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies. Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg. Khubchandani, Lachman. 1962. Pronominal suffixes in Sindhi. Indian Linguistics 23. 72–81. Kibrik, Alexander E. 1979. Canonical ergativity and Daghestan languages. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 61–78. New York: Academic Press. Kibrik, Alexander E. 1997. Beyond subject and object: toward a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic typology 1(3). 279–346. Kieffer, Charles M. 2009. Parachi. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 693–721. London: Routledge. Kimball, Geoffrey. 1991. Koasati Grammar. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Kittilä, Seppo. 2002. Remarks on the basic transitive sentence. Language Sciences 24(2). 107–130. Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Optional marking of arguments. Language Sciences 27(5). 483–514. Kittilä, Seppo. 2005b. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic typology 9. 269–297. Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. Object-, animacy- and role-based strategies - A typology of object marking. Studies in Language 30(1). 1–32. Kittilä, Seppo. 2007. A typology of tritransitives: alignment types and motivations. Linguistics 45(3). 453–508.

306   

   References

Kittilä, Seppo. 2007b. On the encoding of transitivity-related features on the indirect object. Functions of Language 14(1). 149–164. Kittilä, Seppo. 2008. Defining prototypical transitivity. Lingua 118(12). 2012–2020. Kittilä, Seppo. 2009. Case and the typology of transitivity. In Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 356–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kittilä, Seppo. 2011. Transitivity typology. In Jae J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of typology, 346–367. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klaiman, Miriam H. 1976. Subjecthood, reflexivization, emphatic pronominalization and clause matedness in Bengali (with some side glances at Hindi). In Manindra K. Verma (ed.), The notion of subject in South Asian languages, 137–151. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Klaiman, Miriam H. 1978. Arguments against a passive origin of the IA ergative. Papers from the annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 14. 204–216. Klaiman, Miriam H. 1980. Bengali dative subjects. Lingua 51. 275–295. Klaiman, Miriam H. 1981. Volitionality and subject in Bengali: a study of semantic parameters in grammatical processes. Bloomington: Indiana University. Klaiman, Miriam H. 1987. Mechanisms of ergativity in South Asia. Lingua 71. 61–102. Klaiman, Miriam H. 1990. The prehistory of noun-incorporation in Hindi. Lingua 81(4). 327–350. Klein, Udo and Peter de Swart. 2011. Case and referential properties. Lingua 121(1). 3–19. Klimov, Georgij A. 1973. Ocerk obscej teorii ergativnosti. Moskva: Nauka. Klimov, Georgij A. 1974. On the character of “active” languages. Linguistics 131. 11–23. Klimov, Georgij A. 1979. On the position of the ergative type in typological classification. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 327–332. New York: Academic Press. Korn, Agnes. 2003. Balochi and the concept of Northwestern Iranian. In Carina Jahani and Agnes Korn (eds.), The Baloch and their neighbours. Ethnic and linguistic contact in Balochistan in historical and modern times, 49–60. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kothari, Deva. 1991. Rajasthani bhasa aur uski boliyam [The Rajasthani language and its dialects]. Udaipur: Sahitya Samsthan. Koul, Omkar N. 1985. An intensive course in Kashmiri. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Koul, Omkar N. 2003. Kashmiri. In George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 895–952. London: Routledge. Koul, Omkar N. 2005. Studies in Kashmiri linguistics. New Delhi: IILS. Koul, Omkar N. 2006. Spoken Kashmiri: A language course. Delhi: IILS. Koul, Omkar N. 2008. Kashmiri Newspaper Reader. Hyattsville: Dunwoody Press. Koul, Omkar N. and Ruth L. Schmidt. 1984. Dardistan revisited: An examination of relationship between Kashmiri and Shina. In Omkar N. Koul and Peter E. Hook (eds.), Aspects of Kashmiri linguistics, 1–26. New Delhi: Bahri Publications. Koul, Omkar N. and Kashi Wali. 2006. Modern Kashmiri grammar. Springfield: Dunwoody Press. Kumakhov, Mukhadin, Karina Vamling and Zara Kumakhova. 1996. Ergative case in the Circassian languages. Lund University Working Papers in Linguistics 45. 93–111. Kuno, S. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol II, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

References   

   307

Lazard, George. 1998. Actancy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lazard, George. 1998b. De la transitivité restreinte à la transitivité généralisée. In André Rousseau (ed.), La transitivité, 55–84. Paris: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. Lazard, George. 2001. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Language Typology and Language Universals, 873–885. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Lazard, George. 2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica 36(3–4). 141–190. Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Universal and typological aspects of agreement. In Hansjakob Seiler and Franz J. Stachowiak (eds.) Apprehension: das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenstünden, Teil II, 201–267. Tübingen: Narr. Lehmann, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Lemmens, Maarten. 1998. Lexical perspectives on transitivity and ergativity: causative constructions in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Levin, Magnus. 2001. Agreement with collective nouns in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Li, Chao. 2007. Split ergativity and split intransitivity in Nepali. Lingua 117. 1462–1482. Li, Charles. N. 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. Li, Charles N. 1977. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Texas: University of Texas Press. Lidz, Jeffrey. 2006. The grammar of accusative case in Kannada. Language 82(1). 10–32. Liperovsky, V. P. 2007. Notes on the marking of actants in Braj (in comparison with Modern Standard Hindi). In Colin Masica (ed.), Old and new perspectives on South Asian languages. Grammar and semantics, 144–152. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Magier, David. 1983. Components of ergativity in Marwari. Papers from the annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 19(1). 244–255. Magier, David. 1985. Case and transitivity in Marwari. In Arlene Zide, David Magier and Eric Schiller (eds.), Proceedings of the conference on participant roles (CLS 1984 meeting), 149–159. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Magier, David. 1990. Dative/Accusative subjects in Marwari. In Manindra K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, 213–220. Stanford: CSLI. Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Massachussets, MIT dissertation. Malchukov, Andrej. 2006. Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Constraining co-variation. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov and Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 329–358. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath and Bernard Comrie. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath and Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions, 1–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Malchukov, Andrej 2008. Animacy and assymetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203–221. Malchukov, Andrej and Helen de Hoop. 2011. Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua 121(1). 35–47. Mallinson, G. and Barry J. Blake. 1981. Language typology. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Manaster-Ramer, Alexis. 1994. The origin of the term ergative. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 47. 211–214. Manto, S. H. 1984. Thanda Gosht [Cold flesh]. New Delhi: Saqi Book Depot.

308   

   References

Masica, Colin. 1976. Defining a linguistic area. South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Masica, Colin. 1986. Definiteness-marking in South Asia. In Badhriraju Krishnamurti (ed.), South Asian languages: Structure, convergence and diglossia, 123–146. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Masica, Colin. 1990. Varied case markings in obligational constructions. In Manindra K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, 335–342. Stanford: CSLI. Masica, Colin. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Master, Alfred. 1964. A grammar of Old Marathi. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Matras, Yaron. 1997. Clause combining, ergativity, and coreferent deletion in Kurmanji. Studies in language 21. 613–653. Matthews, Dave. 1984. A course in Nepali. New Delhi: Heritage Publishers. McGregor, William B. 2009. Typology of ergativity. Language and linguistics compass 3(1). 480–508. McGregor, William B. 2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120(7). 1610–1636. Meakins, Felicity and Carmel O’Shannessy. 2010. Ordering arguments about: Word order and discourse motivations in the development and use of the ergative marker in two Australian mixed languages. Lingua 120(7). 1693–1713. Medhi, Kaliram. 1936. Assamese grammar and origin of the Assamese language. Calcutta: P.C. Ray, Sri Gouranga Press. Merlan, Francesca. 1985. Split intransitivity: functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. In Johanna Nichols and Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause: Approaches to theory from the field, 324–362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mescaninov, I. I. 1967. Ergativnaja konstrukcija v jazykax razlicnyx tipov. Leningrad: Nauka. Michailovsky, Boyd. 1996. L’inférentiel du népalais. In Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), L’énonciation médiatisée, 109–124. Leuven: Peeters. Mishra, Mithilesh K. 1990. Dative/Experiencer subjects in Maithili. In Manindra K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages, 105–117. Stanford: CSLI. Mistry, P. J. 1976. Subject in Gujarati: An examination of verb agreement phenomenon. In Manindra K. Verma (ed.), The notion of subject in South Asian languages, 240–268. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Mistry, P. J. 1997. Objecthood and specificity in Gujarati. In Jane H. Hill, P. J. Mistry and Lyle Campbell. The life of language: Papers in linguistics in honor of William Bright, 425–442. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/Agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67(3). 510–546. Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mithun, Marianne. and Wallace Chafe. 1999. What are S, A, and O? (Ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative languages). Studies in Language 23(3). 569–596. Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Monier-Williams, Monier. 1858. Rudiments of Hindustani Grammar. London: Cheltenham College.

References   

   309

Montaut, Annie. 1991. Voix, aspect, diathèses en hindi modern. Syntaxe, sémantique, énonciation. Leuven: Peeters. Montaut, Annie. 1996. La genèse des systèmes accompli et futur en Indo-Aryan. Journal Asiatique 284(2). 325–360. Montaut, Annie. 1998. L’ergativité en indo-aryen: un procès actif contrôlé par son agent ou une prédication (stative) de localisation. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 27. 139–156. Montaut, Annie. 1999. Le renouvellement des formes verbales en Hindi/Ourdou Moderne. Journal Asiatique 287(2). 587–628. Montaut, Annie. 2001. La notion de sujet en Hindi-Ourdou: Actance, diathèse et localisation. Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris XCVI(1). 311–348. Montaut, Annie. 2004. A grammar of Hindi. München: Lincom. Montaut, Annie. 2004b. Oblique main arguments in Hindi as localizing predications: Questioning the category of subject. In Peri Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects. Vol II., 33–56. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Montaut, Annie. 2006. The evolution of the tense-aspect system in Hindi/Urdu: The status of the ergative alignment. In Miriam Butt and Tracy H. King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference, 365–385. Stanford: CSLI. Montaut, Annie. 2006b. Mirative meanings as extensions of aorist in Hindi/Urdu. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, 71–86. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Montaut, Annie. 2007. Réfléchi, transitif et intransitif en hindi/ourdou. In André Rousseau, Didier Bottineau and Daniel Roulland (eds.), L’Enoncé réfléchi, 229–248. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Montaut, Annie 2009. Ergativité et classification des langues indo-aryennes: évolutions internes ou contacts externes. In Jean-Marie Durand and Antoine Jacquet (eds.), Acte du colloque Centre et périphérie: Approches nouvelles des orientalistes, 347–361. Paris: J. Maisonneuve. Montaut, Annie. 2009b. Ergative and pre-ergative patterns in Indo-Aryan as predications of localization. A diachronic view of past and future systems. In Ali R. Fatihi (ed.), Language Vitality in South Asia, 295–325. Aligarh: Aligarh Muslim University. Montaut, Annie and Christiane Pilot-Raichoor. 1994. Sémantique actancielle et cas morphologiques en hindi et en badaga. Persée 28. 90–112. Moravcsik, Edith and Jessica R. Wirth. 1980. Current approaches to syntax. New York: Academic Press. Morgenstierne, Georg. 1961. Dardic and Kafir Languages. The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol II, facs. 25. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Morland-Hughes, W. R. J. 1947. A grammar of the Nepali language in the Roman and Nagri script. London: Luzac & Co. Næss, Åshild. 2002. Transitivity and accusativity in Pileni. Rongorongo Studies 12(2). 6–76. Næss, Åshild. 2004. What markedness marks: the markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 114. 1186–1212. Næss, Åshild. 2006. Case semantics and the agent-patient opposition. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov and Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 309–327. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nasrin, Mithun B. and Wim A. M. van der Wurff. 2009. Colloquial Bengali. London: Routledge.

310   

   References

Nespital, Helmut. 1981. Das Futursystem im Hindi und Urdu. Ein Beitrag zur semantischen Analyse der Kategorien Tempus, Aspekt und Modus und ihrer Grammeme. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge: MIT Press. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2010. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86(3). 688–695. Nicholl, George F. 1885. A Bengali grammar also an Asamese grammar. London: W.H. Allen & Co. Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1). 56–119. Nichols, Johanna. 1990. Some preconditions and typical traits of the stative-active language type. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Language typology 1987. Systematic balance in language, 95–114. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Nichols, Johanna. 2008. Why are stative-active languages rare in Eurasia? Typological perspective on split subject marking. In Marc Donohue and Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment systems, 121–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nichols, Johanna, David A. Peterson and Jonathan Barnes. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic typology 8. 149–2011. Palmer, Frank R. 1994. Grammatical roles and relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 1997. Marathi. London: Routledge. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 2000. Experiencer (Dative) NPs in Marathi. In Manindra K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, 161–179. Stanford: CSLI. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 2003. Marathi. In George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 698–728. London: Routledge. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari and Yamuna Kachru. 1977. Relational grammar, ergativity, and Hindi-Urdu. Lingua 41. 217–238. Patel, Pritty. 2007. Split ergativity and the nature of agreement. London: University College London dissertation. Payne, John. 1980. The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua 51. 147–186. Peeters, Bert. 2000. Book review M. Lemmens, Lexical perspectives on transitivity and ergativity: causative constructions in English. Studies in Language 24(3). 683–694. Perlmutter, David M. 1983. Studies in relational grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Peterson, John M. 1998. Grammatical relations in Pali and the emergence of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. München: Lincom. Peterson, John M. 1999. The Nepali subordinated verb. In Yogendra P. Yadava and William W. Glover (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 337–370. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy. Peterson, John M. 2002. The Nepali converbs: a holistic approach. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, 93–135. New Delhi: Sage. Plank, Frans (ed.). 1979. Ergativity. Towards a theory a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press. Pokharal, Madhav P. 1998. Nepali vakya vyakaran [Nepali syntax]. Kathmandu: Ekta Books. Polinsky, Maria and Bernard Comrie. 1999. Agreement in Tsez (Nakh-Daghestanian language family). Folia Linguistica 33(1–2). 109–130.

References   

   311

Post, Mark W. 2008. Grammaticalization and the discourse distribution of serial verbs in Assamese. In Wilaiwan Khanittana and Paul Sidwell (eds.), SEALSXIV(2): papers from the 14th meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 63–74. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Pott, August F. 1873. Unterschied eines transitiven und intransitiven Nominativs. Beiträge zur vergleichenden sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen 7. 71–94. Pray, Bruce R. 1976. From passive to ergative in Indo-Aryan. In Manindra K. Verma. The notion of subject in South Asian languages, 195–211. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Prem. 1984. Khajano [Treasure]. In Rawat Saraswat and Prem (eds.), Aaj ri Rajasthani kahaniyan [Contemporary Rajasthani stories], 91–94. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and thematic roles: ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Primus, Beatrice. 2009. Case, grammatical relations, and semantic roles. In Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 261–275. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Primus, Beatrice. 2011. Case-marking typology. In Jae J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 303–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Radice, William. 2007. Teach yourself Bengali. London: Hodder Education. Ray, Sidney H. and Alfred C. Haddon. 1893. A study of the languages of Torres Straits with vocabularies and grammatical notes, Part I. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Third Series II. 463–616. Ray, Tapas. 2003. Oriya. In George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 444–476. London: Routledge. Regamey, Constantin. 1954. A propos de la construction ergative en indo-aryan modern Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung. In G. Redard, Festschrift Albert Debrunner, 363–381. Bern: Francke. Riccardi, Theodore. 2003. Nepali. In George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 538–580. London: Routledge. Robinson, William. 1839. A grammar of the Assamese language. Serampore. Robson, Barbara and Habibullah Tegey. 2009. Pashto. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 721–772. London: Routledge. Rumsey, Alan. 1987. Was Proto-Indo-European an ergative language? Journal of Indo-European Studies 15. 19–37. Saksena, Baburam. [1937] 1971. Evolution of Awadhi. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sapir, Edward. 1917. Review of Uhlenbeck 1916. International Journal of American linguistics 1(1). 82–86. Saxena, Anuradha. 1981. Verb agreement in Hindi. Linguistics 19(5–6). 467–474. Scancarelli, Janine. 1985. Referential strategies in Chamorro narratives: Preferred clause structure and ergativity. Studies in language 9(3). 335–362. Schmidt, Ruth L. 2004. A grammatical comparison of Shina dialects. In Anju Saxena. Himalayan languages past and present, 33–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schmidt, Ruth L. and Razwal Kohistani. 2008. A grammar of the Shina language of Indus Kohistan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1902. Die sprachlichen Verhältnisse von Deutsch-Neuguinea. Zeitschrift für afrikanische, ozeanische und ostasiatische Sprachen 6. 1–99.

312   

   References

Schuchardt, Hugo. 1896. Ueber den passiven Charakter des Transitivs in den kaukasischen Sprachen. Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 133. Seely, Jonathan. 1977. An ergative historiography. Historiographia Linguistica 4(2). 191–206. Shackle, Christopher. 1976. The Siraiki language of central Pakistan: A reference grammar. London: School of Oriental and African studies. Shackle, Christopher. 1984. Towards a morphological classification of Kashmiri monosyllabic nouns. In Omkar N. Koul and Peter E. Hook. Aspects of Kashmiri Linguistics, 46–61. New Delhi: Bahri Publications. Sharma, Mukunda M. 1963. Assamese for all. Or, Assamese self-taught. Jorhat: Asam Sahitya Sabha. Sharma, Ramnivas. 1992. Rajasthani Lokagathavan [Rajasthani folktales]. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Shibatani, Masayoshi, (ed.). 1988. Passive and voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive. A comparative linguistic analysis. Kent: Croom Helm. Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siewierska, Anna. and Dik Bakker. 2009. Case and alternative strategies: word order and agreement marking. In Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 290–303. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 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; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Smith, Richard R. 1974. Awadhi/Kannauji transition phenomena and their correlates: a study in dialect geography. New York: Cornell University dissertation. Snell, Rupert. 1991. The Hindi classical tradition. A Braj Bhasa reader. London: SOAS. Sommer, Anton F. W. 1997. Elementargrammatik des Kaschmiri. Wien: Parkcopydruck. Song, Jae J. 2011. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Speijer, Jakob S. [1886] 1998. Sanskrit syntax. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Case in Hindi. In Miriam Butt and Tracy H. King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference, Bergen, 429–446. Stanford: CSLI. Spencer, Andrew. 2006. Syntactic vs. morphological case. Implications for morphosyntax. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov and Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 3–22. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Srivastava, Dayanand. 1962. Nepali language. Its history and development. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press. Strand, Richard F. 1973. Notes on the Nuristani and Dardic languages. Journal of the African and Oriental Studies 93(3). 297–305. Stronski, Krzysztof. 2009. Approaches to ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Lingua Posnaniensis LI. 77–118. Stronski, Krzysztof. 2010. Non-nominative subjects in Rajasthani and Central Pahari. Lingua Posnaniensis LII(1). 81–97. Stump, Gregory T. and Ramawatar Yadav. 1988. Maithili verb agreement and the control agreement principle. Papers from the annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 24(2). 304–321. Subbarao, K. V. 2000. Syntactic typology and South Asian languages. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, 93–108. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

References   

   313

Tchekhoff, Claude. 1978. Aux fondements de la syntaxe: l’ergatif. Paris: Press Universitaire de France. Tessitori, Liugi P. 1914–1916. Notes on the grammar of Old Western Rajasthani. Indian Antiquary 43–45. 1–106. Thapa, Suryakala. 2001. Tuntuni ko [About a bird]. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Thomsen, Ole N. 1994. Dyirbal ergativity and embedding. A functional-pragmatic approach. Studies in language 18(2). 411–488. Tiwari, Udai N. 1960. The origin and development of Bhojpuri. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. Tournadre, Nicholas. 1996. L’ergativité en Tibétain. Louvain: Editions Peeters. Trask, Robert 1979. On the origins of ergativity. Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 385–404. London: Academic Press. Trask, Robert. 2002. Ergativity and accusativity in Basque. In Kristin Davidse and Beatrice Lamiroy (eds.), The nominative and accusative and their counterparts, 265–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Trombetti, Alfredo. 1903. Delle relazioni delle lingue caucasiche, Part II. Giornale delle Società asiatica italiana 16. 145–175. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1939. Le rapport entre le déterminé, le déterminant et le défini. In Charles Sechehaye and Charles Bally (eds.), Mélanges de linguistique, offerts à Charles Bally, 75–82. Genève : Georg et Cie. Trumpp, Ernest. 1872. Grammar of the Sindhi language. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag. Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2). 385–396. Tuite, Kevin J., Asif Agha and Randolph Graczyk. 1985. Agentivity, transitivity and the question of active typology. Papers from the annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 21(2). 252–270. Turnbull, Archibald. 1982. Nepali grammar and vocabulary. New Delhi: Asian educational services. Uhlenbeck, Christianus C. 1901. Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen. Indogermanische Forschungen 12. 170–171. Uhlenbeck, Christianus C. 1916. Het passieve karakter van het verbum transitivum of van het verbum actionis in taalen van Noord-Amerika. Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen 5(2). 187–216. Ura, Hiroyuki. 2006. A parametric syntax of aspectually conditioned split-ergativity. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam and Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 111–142. Dordrecht: Springer. Vaillant, André. 1936. L’ergatif Indo-Européen. Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris 37. 93–108. Van Valin, Robert D. J. 1990. Semantic parameters of split ergativity. Language 66. 221–260. Van Valin, Robert D. J. and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verbeke, Saartje. 2010. Postpositions and agreement in the Rajasthani languages. Indogermanische Forschungen 115. 35–64. Verbeke Saartje and Ludovic De Cuypere. 2009. The rise of ergativity in Hindi. Assessing the role of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 30(1). 367–389. Varma, Dhirendra. 1935. La langue Braj (Dialecte de Mathura). Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve.

314   

   References

Verma, Manindra K. 1976. The notion of subject and the data from Nepali. In Manindra K. Verma (ed.), The notion of subject in South Asian languages, 270–285. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Verma, Manindra K. and K. P. Mohanan, (eds.). 1990. Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages. Stanford: CSLI. Verma, Manindra K. and T. N. Sharma. 1979. Intermediate Nepali Structure. New Delhi: Manohar. Verma, Sheela. 2003. Magahi. In George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 498–514. London: Routledge. Villar, Francisco. 1984. Ergativity and animate/inanimate gender in Indo-European. Kuhns Zeitschrift 97(2). 167–197. Von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. Specificity. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn and Paul Portner. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Vol 2, 1025–1058. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wali, Kashi. 2004. Nonnominative subjects in Marathi. In Peri Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects. Vol I, 245–274. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Wali, Kashi. 2005. Marathi. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Wali, Kashi. 2006. Marathi. New Delhi: IILS. Wali, Kashi. and Ashok K. Koul. 1994. Kashmiri clitics and ergative case. Indian Linguistics 55. 77–96. Wali, Kashi and Ashok K. Koul. 2002. Kashmiri clitics: The role of case and CASE. In Omkar N. Koul and Kashi Wali (eds.), Topics in Kashmiri linguistics, 17–42. New Delhi: Creative Books. Wali, Kashi and Omkar N. Koul. 1997. Kashmiri: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. London: Routledge. Wallace, William. 1981. Object marking in the history of Nepali: A case of syntactic diffusion. Studies in the linguistic sciences 11(2). 107–128. Wallace, William. 1982. The evolution of ergative syntax in Nepali. Studies in the linguistic sciences 12(2). 147–211. Wallace, William. 1985. Subjects and subjecthood in Nepali: An analysis of Nepali clause structure and its challenges to RG and GB. Illinois: University of Illinois, Urbana. Whitney, William Dwight. 1896. A Sanskrit grammar, including both the classical language, and the older dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel. Wichmann, Søren. 2008. The study of semantic alignment: retrospect and state of the art. In Marc Donohue and Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 3–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980. Case marking and human nature. Australian journal of linguistics 1. 43–81. Willems, Klaas. 1997. Kasus, grammatische Bedeutung und kognitive Linguistik: ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik. Willems, Klaas. 2000. Form, meaning and reference in natural language: A phenomenological account of proper names. Onoma 35. 85–119 Windfuhr, Gernot (ed.). 2009. The Iranian languages. London: Routledge. Windfuhr, Gernot and John R. Perry. 2009. Persian and Tajik. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 416–544. London: Routledge. Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Case-agreement mismatches. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Agreement systems, 299–316. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

References   

   315

Wunderlich, Dieter. 1985. Über die Argumente des Verbs. Linguistische Berichte 97. 183–227. Yadava, Yogendra P. 1999. The complexity of Maithili verb agreement. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), Yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, 139–152. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Yip, Moira, Ray Jackendoff and Joan Maling. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63(2). 217–250. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 441–483. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61(2). 283–305.

Index of subjects A see S, A, O (P) ablative 79, 83, 96, 136, 176–178, 225 absolutive 10, 13, 22, 24, 27, 29–31, 45, 50, 52–54, 58, 79, 194, 196–197 accusative agreement 26, 43, 156, 172, 253–254 accusative alignment 13, 22, 27, 29, 34, 41–43 , 49, 135, 137, 256 accusative case 10, 14, 30, 57, 73–74, 231–232, 266–267 accusative case marking 236, 253, 255, 257, 258, 263 active alignment 12 active language 40, 45, 109, adjectival participle 33, 87, 133, 140, 145 adjunct 28–29, 31 adposition 30, 42 affectedness 37–38, 62–63, 267 agency 21–22, 32, 36, 39, 43, 59, 62–63 agent 1, 12, 18–21, 36–37, 39–44, 46–49, 53, 56–63, 76–80, 83–88, 92–99, 102, 107, 109–110, 114, 148–149, 161, 172, 227, 238, 248, 252, 259–261, 264 Aktivus 56–57, 59 alignment 2, 5–7, 9–16, 22, 25–27, 29, 34–36, 40– 47, 52–55, 63–64, 263 ambitransitive verbs 51, 98 animacy 35–39, 70–74, 93, 137, 145, 148, 209, 227–232, 239, 242, 248, 253–254, 261–262, 267 anti-absolutive 194, 197 aspect 41, 49, 94–96, 126–127, 129, 152, 166, 180, 248–250, 256, 260, 263, 266 attention flow 48–49 autonomy/dependence 52 behaviour-and-control properties 22–23 beneficiary 28, 74, 121–122, 262 borrowing 91, 173, 238, 257 bound pronouns 33–34, 43, 145, 156, 188–190, 204, 210 ‘bound’ ‘free’ split 43

case marking 5–7, 9–14, 16, 22–23, 26–36, 38, 40–44, 49, 51–52, 55, 61, 64, 106, 109, 156, 197, 248–263 – Asamiya 113–114, 141 – Kashmiri 176–180 – Marwari 213, 223 – Nepali 147–148, 153–156 case syncretism 30, 78–80 causative 25, 60, 97–98, 104, 149, 264 causativization 60, 98 clitic 30, 33, 42, 188–189, 205, 210–211 coding properties 13–14, 16, 19, 22, 29, 43, 50, 52, 262 cognate object 108, 118, 148 competing motivations 46–47 conjunction reduction 16, 100, 150 construction, definition 26–27 contentive typology 12 control 36, 107–108, 171 converb 84–85, 91–92, 100, 102, 116–118, 149–151, 174 coordination 16–17, 22, 52, 102, 150, 248, 261 copula 68, 91, 126, 129, 132–133, 139–140, 153–155, 163, 173–174, 180–185, 203, 207, 209, 214–217, 246, 257 coreference 100–101, 255 cross-referencing see verb agreement Dardic 175 dative 27–28, 40, 63, 68, 73–74, 79, 85, 98, 121, 196, 210 definiteness 35–39, 70–74, 93, 119, 142–145, 184, 193, 199, 209, 226–232, 239, 242, 248, 253–256, 261–262, 267 differential object marking 36–40, 70, 74, 119, 162, 218, 227, 230–233, 247, 254, 260 differential subject marking 36, 38–40, 162 direct object 1, 9–10, 14–15, 18–19, 22, 27, 50–51, 57, 79 discourse 34, 40, 44–48, 53, 102, 145, 228, 239, 248, 255–256, 261

Index of subjects   

discriminatory approach see distinguishing function of case distinguishing function of case 31–32, 34, 36–37, 55, 61, 74, 161–162, 229–230, 234, 247, 252, 256, 261 ditransitive construction 24, 28, 180, 226 double object construction 25 ellipsis 21, 55, 100–102, 248 empathy 136–137 ergative agreement see O–agreement ergative alignment 12, 19–20, 30, 34, 41, 43, 49, 59, 63, 135, 252, 256, 265–266 ergative case 1–2, 13, 30, 36, 39, 42–43, 48–53, 56–60, 63, 80–86 , 92, 94, 100, 103, 109, 115, 117, 142–144, 152, 156, 166, 169–173, 177–178, 181, 185–186, 196, 207–208, 213, 218–224, 236, 240, 246, 248, 250, 252, 255, 257, 262–266 ergative case marking (pattern) 6, 26, 43, 143, 156, 185, 208–209, 223, 253, 256–257, 263, 266–267 ergative language 8, 12, 31, 45, 53, 56, 59, 63, 81, 86, 260 ergative marking see ergative case ergativity, definition 12, 22, 31, 45, 56 experiencer 29, 63, 99–104, 106–108, 124–126, 134, 149, 151–152, 171, 174, 225–227, 229, 233–234, 237–240, 265 extended differential object marking 74, 262 face 136–137 fluid S-marking 19 focalization 159, 161–162 focus 35, 41, 85, 159–162, 165–166, 168 gender/number agreement 33, 60, 92, 132, 134, 140, 144–145, 154–156, 169–173, 182, 185, 201, 203, 247, 254, 256, 259 genitive 31, 58, 79, 85–88, 90, 92, 98, 113–114, 122, 124–125, 147, 210, 213 givenness 49 goal 28, 48–49, 52, 123, 201, 210 grammatical relations 13–14, 21–29, 34, 43, 48–50, 59, 62–64, 73, 90, 100, 231, 241, 261–262

   317

grammatical roles 20, 22, 25, 28, 100, 244 grammaticalization 46–47, 55, 88, 91 habitual 94, 164–165, 180, 206 head- and dependent-marking 13, 41–44, 189, 197 hierarchical alignment 179 Hindi belt 67, 212, 246, 259 honorificity 116, 126, 134–138, 148 humanness 32, 35, 39, 46, 71–72, 114, 142, 226 immediacy of involvement 53 imperfective, definition 41, 63, 96 Inaktivus 59 incorporation 93 indefinite-NP deletion 17 indefinite past 181 indexing/flagging 32 indexing function of case 31–32, 34, 37, 74, 234, 252, 261 indirect object 22–25, 27, 85, indirective alignment 24, 27, 74, 262 individuation 37–38, 62, 267 Indo-Aryan language area 66–67 infinitive 92, 118, 123, 148–149, 152, 238 instrumental 24, 30, 56, 63, 76–79, 83–88, 91, 103, 113–114, 147–149, 152, 177, 213, 238 inverse 175, 178, 180, 182, 199 IO, definition 28, 262 ko Hindi 68–74, 90, 96, 100–101, 106–107, 155, 199, 230, 233–234, 237, 239–240, 243, 247, 254, 263 language contact 6–7, 111, 143–144, 170–173, 175, 239, 257 le Nepali 147–152, 156–171, 174, 262–263, 265 lexical compound verb 92–94, 108, 118 lexical–semantic ergativity 50–53 light verbs 54–55, 64, 92–97, 110 locative 28, 31, 79, 90, 103, 113–114, 123, 133, 145, 177, 226, 234

318   

   Index of subjects

macroroles 20–21 marked nominative 115, 119 markedness 32, 36–40, 81–83, 162, 252 markedness reversal 38–39 (Masica’s) layer system 89–90, 113, 177, 213, 240, 244 mixed ergativity 42 morphological ergativity 12, 16, 51–52, 248 ne – Hindi 1, 68–69, 83, 90–91, 103–107, 144, 158, 170, 174, 237–240, 247, 262–263 – Harauti 218, 224–228, 239–240, 249–250, 253, 263 – Marwari 213, 218, 230–232, 234, 239, 263 neutral alignment 74 nominal ergativity 42, 170 nominality (hierarchy) 35, 37, 39 nominalization 51 nominative case 1, 14, 18, 30, 36, 45, 52, 57–61, 73, 79–80, 85, 100, 115, 142–143, 151, 172–173, 178–179, 182–185, 191, 193, 200, 222, 225, 231, 236–244, 250 non-canonical argument 29, 98, 111, 124–125 O see S, A, O (P) O-agreement 43, 56, 86, 134, 137–138, 144–145, 153–155, 170, 186, 217–218, 236, 240, 243–247, 250, 254, 257–258, 265–266 object 6, 9, 11, 13–14, 19, 20, 22–24, 27–29, 43, 45, 49–52, 63, 74, 78, 86, 100, 109, 134–138, 148, 196, 201–205, 258 objective 68, 70, 73–74, 90–91, 96, 98–100, 103, 106–107, 113, 119, 123–125, 135, 149, 155, 174–180, 184–185, 191–192, 197–201, 206, 209–210, 234, 237–239, 250–254, 258, 262–263 obligation 99, 106, 125, 151–152, 174, 204, 232, 237–239 oblique 40, 80, 89, 99, 103, 113–114, 147, 172–173, 178, 196, 204–205, 213–214, 219–223, 234, 239–240, 242, 255, 262–263, 265 optional ergative marking 40

P see S, A, O (P) palatalization 177, 181 passive 1, 47–48, 51, 55–57, 60, 76–88, 96–97, 103, 114, 136, 149, 214–215, 264 Passivus 57, 59 patient 12, 18–21, 24–25, 28, 30, 32, 36–37, 41, 44, 48, 55, 61–63, 76–80, 85, 96–99, 104, 106, 233, 264 patient-oriented construction 41, 85 perfect participle 69, 75–80, 83–84, 87, 91, 95–96, 104, 114, 149, 174, 180–181, 187, 207, 209, 243 perfective (definition) 41, 49, 63, 95–96, 264 perfectivity 96, 166, 169–170, 174, 263 peripheral argument 48, 53 periphrastic construction 76, 87 person agreement 32–33, 91, 128–129, 132, 139, 145, 155–156, 169, 173, 179, 189, 201–205, 209, 215, 243, 257, 259–260 person hierarchy 35, 39, 179, 206, 223, 254–255 pivot 17, 21, 27 possessor 31, 88, 136, 202, 210 postposition (definition) 89–90 preferred argument structure 46–47 primary object 24, 27 pronominal affixes 33, 155–156, 188 pronominal suffixes 6–7, 100, 175–176, 179–180, 182–212, 250, 253–261, 266 protoroles 20–21 proximate past 181 rah 92–93, 95, 158 raising 197 reanalysis 55, 80–82, 155–156, 166, 169, 265 recipient 18, 24–25, 28, 74, 121–122, 225, 233, 262 referential hierarchies 34–41, 49, 137, 178–179, 189, 208–209, 217, 224, 248–255, 261, 266 reflexivization 22, 100–101, 261 relative clause 52 remote past 181 resultative 55, 87–88,

Index of subjects   

S see S, A, O (P) S, A, O (P) 9–10, 15–16, 19–28, 261–262 sample, typological 3–4 secondary agreement 134–138, 145, 258 secondary object 24, 27 secundative alignment 24, 27, 262 semantic alignment 19, 21, 30, 39–40, 44, 265 semantic case 29, 31, 58, 94 semantic roles 14, 18–20, 31, 43, 46, 61, 63 semi-ergative 79, 84 semi-passive 79 Silverstein’s hierarchy 35–36, 39, 47, 135, 137, 179 source 48, 59, 103, 201–202, 210 specificity 71, 199, 227, 232–233 speech act participants 135–137, 178, 206, 217, 234–236 split agreement 215–217 split alignment 10, 34–35, 41, 43, 47, 54, 248 split ergativity 68, 251 split intransitivity 19 split S-marking 19 stage- and individual-level predicates 163–166, 169 stative 19, 44, 104–106, 132–133 stimulus 99–100, 103, 104, 125, 225, 233, 265 structural case see syntactic case subject 8, 10, 13–16, 18–23, 25, 27, 29, 45–46, 50, 52, 57–59, 61, 63, 68, 84–85, 98–100, 102–103, 261–262 syntactic case 29, 31, 94, 109–110, 229, 266 syntactic ergativity 12, 16–18, 51, 248 syntactic relations see grammatical relations

   319

ta-participle 76–78, 81–88, 264 tense 38, 41, 49, 53, 56, 64, 75–76, 82, 94–96, 248–250, 256 tense/aspect/mood split 41–42, 47–49, 63, 248–250, 256, 260, 263, 265–266 theme 18, 28, 51–53, 104, 263–264 topic 46–49, 52, 61, 162 topicality 22–23, 36–37, 39, 56, 61, 101–102, 162, 228–229, 248, 257, 265–267 topicalization 189 transitive conjugation 118, 127–131, 133, 140, 181 transitivity 37, 40, 51, 56, 60–63, 108, 131, 166, 181, 264–267 transitivizing 98, 264 tripartite alignment 10, 42, 44, 209, 253, 255 typological ergativity 50–52 unaccusative 108 unergative 108–110, 117–118, 144, 148, 181, 265 V2 175, 209 verb agreement 5, 7, 10–15, 22, 26–29, 32–34, 36, 40, 42–44, 60, 106, 135, 138, 155, 197, 231–232, 234, 240, 248–266 – Asamiya 126–127 – Nepali 152–153 verb stapling 92 verbal ergativity 42, 170–171, 173 viewpoint 48–49, 103 volitionality 62, 107, 109, 161 word order 11, 22–23, 38, 84, 175, 261

Index of languages Apabhramsha 78–79 Asamiya 6, 66–67, 90, 93, 102, 111–129, 131, 142–145, 147–149, 156, 158, 169–174, 178, 209, 252, 255–257, 260, 262–263, 268, 275–276 Awadhi 67, 112, 139–141, 212, 245–246, 252, 265, 269–270, 281 Bangla 65–67, 111–112, 125, 129–131, 130, 142–143, 155, 169, 172, 252, 259–260, 265–266, 268–269, 276–277 Bhojpuri 67, 111–112, 131, 133, 139–140, 252 269, 278 Bihari 6, 66–67, 112, 131, 139, 145, 212, 256, 258–260 Braj 67, 212, 240–243, 246, 248, 250, 252, 273, 293–294 Bundeli 67, 212, 224, 244–246, 248, 250, 252, 260, 262, 273–274, 294–295 Dolakha Newar 51, 127, 170–171 Dyirbal 16–18, 52 Early Hindi 80, 90 German 14–15, 24, 58, 88, 98 Gujarati 1, 66–67, 212, 216–218, 223, 230–236, 239, 241, 247–250, 252, 254–255, 260, 263, 273, 291–292 Harauti 76, 155, 208, 213, 218, 223–231, 239–240, 248–250, 252–254, 261, 263, 272, 290–291 Hindi 65–83, 88–110, 112, 124, 139, 141, 144, 151–158, 170, 174–175, 180, 199, 208–209, 212, 214, 217–218, 223–227, 230–234, 237–248, 250, 252, 254, 260–265, 268, 274–275 Hindi – Urdu 1–7, 65–68, 259–260 Kabardian 58 Kashmiri 6, 66–67, 92, 102, 172, 175–176, 178–201, 206–210, 248–253, 256–265, 270, 283–284 Koasati 60 Kundri 244–246

Magahi 67, 111–112, 131–133, 137–140, 145, 252, 258, 265, 269, 280 Maithili 66–67, 100, 111–112, 131–140, 145, 258, 265, 269, 279 Marathi 66–67, 92, 176, 196, 206–208, 212, 223, 231, 238–240, 248, 250-255, 260, 271–272, 287–288 Marwari 67, 196, 213–225, 230–234, 236, 239, 241–243, 252–255, 260–263, 272, 289–290 Nepali 6, 66–67, 92, 100, 138, 146–174, 178, 180, 196, 209, 239, 252–265, 270, 282–283 Oriya 66–67, 111–112, 125, 129, 142–143, 172 Pali 87–88 Poguli 175, 199–201, 210, 248–253, 270–271, 284–285 Prakrit 78, 82 Punjabi 1, 66, 92, 106, 204–205, 212, 218, 235, 234–240, 247–255, 263, 273, 292–293 Rajasthani 7, 66–67, 82, 91, 97, 146, 155–156, 208–209, 212–214, 218–219, 223, 231, 234, 237, 240–241, 247, 249, 254, Sanskrit 2, 65–66, 75–78, 84–87, 91 Shina 67, 100, 170, 172–175, 210, 256–257, 260, 264–265, 272, 288–289 Sindhi 66–67, 201–205, 210, 248, 250, 254, 256, 259–260, 263, 265, 271, 285–286 Siraiki 67, 201, 204–206, 210, 248, 250, 256, 258, 271, 286–287 Tibetan 143–144, 170, 173, 257 Tsez 15, 18 Turkish 54 Urdu 65–66, 175, 237 West Greenlandic 24