The Case System of Eastern Indo-Aryan Languages: A Typological Overview [1 ed.] 0367498227, 9780367498221

Citation preview

THE CASE SYSTEM OF EASTERN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGES

This book presents a typological overview of the case system of Eastern Indo-Aryan (EIA) languages. It utilizes a Cognitive Framework to analyse and compare the case markers of seven EIA languages: Angika, Asamiya, Bhojpuri, Bangla, Magahi, Maithili and Odia. The book introduces semantic maps, which have hitherto not been used for Indian languages, to plot the scope of different case markers and facilitate cross-linguistic comparison of these languages. It also offers a detailed questionnaire specially designed for fieldwork and data collection which will be extremely useful to researchers involved in the study of case. A unique look into the linguistic traditions of South Asia, the book will be indispensable to academicians, researchers, and students of language studies, linguistics, literature, cognitive science, psychology, language technologies and South Asian studies. It will also be useful for linguists, typologists, grammarians and those interested in the study of Indian languages. Bornini Lahiri is Assistant Professor at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India. She has a PhD in Linguistics from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. She has previously worked as a resource person with the Scheme for Protection and Preservation of Endangered Languages, hosted by the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysuru. She was a research assistant for Study and Research of Indigenous and Endangered Languages of India, hosted by Jadavpur University, Kolkata. She has also collaborated on projects studying aggression and hate speech, including an ongoing project on studying communal and misogynistic aggression, sponsored by Facebook Research. She has worked extensively on typological and morpho-syntactic properties of several lesser-known, low-resourced, under-researched languages, including Toto, Mahali, Dhimal, Magahi and Angika. Her publications include Bangla-Kurmali-English-Hindi Dictionary (forthcoming), Effect of Bangla on Koda Verbs (2020), Kurmali: A Language of Undivided Bihar (2019), Presence of Minor Languages of West Bengal in Social Media (2018), and A  Typological Study of Local Cases in EIA Languages (2013), among others.

THE CASE SYSTEM OF EASTERN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGES A Typological Overview

Bornini Lahiri

LONDON NEW YORK NEW DELHI

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Bornini Lahiri The right of Bornini Lahiri to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-0-367-49822-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-75633-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-04751-3 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by SPi Global, India

This book is dedicated to two inspiring women in my life. One introduced me to the world of alphabets: my mother, Mrs Subhalakshmi Lahiri. The other introduced me to the world of Linguistics: my Guru, (Padma Shri) Prof. Anvita Abbi. Both of them share an infectious energetic personality which is a source of inspiration and motivation to me.

CONTENTS

viii ix x xii xiii

List of Tables List of Figures Preface Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations 1 Introduction

1

2 Local cases

17

3 Instrumental case

42

4 Objective and benefactive cases

61

5 Genitive case

83

6 Some Island cases

110

7 Conclusion

120

Appendix Bibliography Index

138 146 163

vii

TABLES

1.1 The number of speakers and states where the 7 EIA languages are spoken 2.1 The differences between two locative markers 2.2 Difference in locative marker in two groups 2.3 The semantics of the ablative marker 2.4 Case markers used to mark dynamic locations 3.1 Comparing the use of the instrumental marker in both groups 4.1 The different markers of the objective case 4.2 Use of objective case markers with inanimate objects 4.3 Markers of the benefactive case in EIA languages 5.1 Genitive markers in these languages 5.2 Semantic categories of the genitive marker in EIA ­languages 7.1 Case markers of EIA languages 7.2 Animacy differentiating case marking 7.3 Semantics of location marked by various cases

viii

4 24 30 35 37 60 65 71 81 87 107 121 125 133

FIGURES

1.1 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Discourse Space 13 Two layers of the locative case 40 The use of the local cases in both groups 40 Agent reaching action through instrument 43 Instrument as Partial Patient 47 Connection between the inanimate instrument and the agent47 Connection between the animate instrument (Second agent) and the (First) agent 48 Connection between First agent, Second agent and the (abstract) inanimate instrument 49 The use of instrumental case in Group 1 languages 58 Case relations as part of the same conceptual continuum 59 The use of the instrumental case in Group 2 languages 59 Goal takes the locative marker in absence of the ­instrumental case 71 Goal takes the objective marker in the presence of the instrumental case 71 Classification of the themes 77 Scale showing the hierarchy in use for marking the objective case in EIA languages 81 Reference-point schema 84 Overall schema 85 Reference-point schema for generic sentence 93 Classification to show parts of an inanimate body 95 Schema showing reference point of an event 102 Classification of genitives 106 Scope of instrumental marker in Group 1 languages 130 Comparison of scope of instrumental marker in Group 1 & 2 languages 131 Scope of genitive case marker 132 Location marking by different cases 133

ix

PREFACE

Terms like ‘parents’, ‘sibling’, ‘spouse’ and ‘friend’ define the different human relationship. Each term has particular features which define it. Yet, every relationship is influenced by the individual involved in it. For example, the relationship between two siblings or two spouses can never be the same across the world because, for every relationship, the individuals involved are different. The relationship I share with my brother could be different from the relationship you share with your brother. The same is true for case relations. There are certain universal features of the various case relations that define those cases, yet these case relations get influenced by the specific languages where they occur. In some languages, one case can differentiate between animate and inanimate objects, but the same case may not do so in other languages. Alternatively, one case can share its marker with the other cases in one set of languages, but not in the another set of languages. However, things are not haphazard! They share a uniformity along with their individual features. For example, ablative, instrumental, perlative and comparative cases can share markers, but this set of cases generally do not share markers with accusative or benefactive cases. Most of the time, when the case relations share markers, they also share semantics, though at times they may be studied as homophonous markers or taken as instances of case syncretism. In this book, case markers have been largely described using the Cognitive Framework (CF), which looks at them as part of the same semantic continuum. The CF in linguistics looks at conceptualization as the basis of language, so it is claimed that when two case markers are homophonous, they are not only homophonous by chance but are conceptually connected. The first chapter of this book gives a brief introduction to CF. The CF is used to analyse the case markers of Eastern Indo-Aryan (EIA) languages because I believe that the polysemous nature of these markers can be explained through CF. In EIA languages, case markers are versatile, and they are never restricted to one function. Often I come across research scholars and students of linguistics who struggle to understand the general concept of case and the distribution of x

P reface

cases in a specific language. These things become even more challenging when there is a need to undertake a cross-linguistic study of cases. This book refers to both of these points: 1) the general concept of case and different case relations and their markers are explained; and 2) there is a cross-linguistic study of cases of EIA languages. In the book, one may find it interesting to note that the closely related languages have different features related to case. In some languages, animacy plays an essential role in choosing the case markers, while in the others it does not. Moreover, the semantic range of case markers varies a lot depending on the languages. In the semantic maps, the different senses of some of the markers have been plotted. I hope the book will not only help one understand the notion of case, but also give an overview of the EIA languages, which are mostly under-studied. I believe the present book will motivate the readers to work in a related area and help in the development of the study of cases.

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There is a vast list of names that deserve to be mentioned. I cannot mention them all here, for obvious reasons, but I hope they all know that they have a place in my heart. I begin by showing my gratitude towards (Padma Shri) Prof. Anvita Abbi, who paved the path for me with her guidance. I also want to thank Prof. Ayesha Kidwai, whose academic input in my research work is beyond my expression of gratitude. I am indebted towards the language experts whom I consulted from time to time for the linguistic data. I thank them for letting me trouble them with my queries. I also extend my gratitude to the reviewers of this book. Their valuable inputs have improved the quality of the study. I am thankful to the publishers for giving this study the form of a book. I extend my special thanks towards Ms Irfan Lubna, who kept a check on the deadlines and saved me from falling into the trap of procrastination. I thank my colleagues and my institution for having confidence in me. Dr Dripta Piplai (Mondal) and Dr. Archana Patnaik deserve special thanks for their intellectual motivation, suggestions and granting me the right to disturb them at any hour of the day! I am thankful to all my friends and relatives for their constant emotional support, especially in the difficult times of COVID-19 when the book was written. It is not part of our culture to thank our parents simply because that is not possible, but I want to mention their constant support and encouragement. Mr Dev Dutta Lahiri and Mrs Subhalakshmi Lahiri are at times sweet to me and sometimes hard on me with only one aim: to keep me on the right track. On the same continuum stands my brother, Mr Gunateet Lahiri, though he joined me late, I look up to him for his advice. He makes my worst situations look brighter with his wisdom and wit. Finally, I want to convey my love, respect and gratitude to Dr Ritesh Kumar, who has to help me always, if not by choice then by compulsion, such is our relationship. I can't thank him because that makes him angry. I  can simply say I always needed your help, and I will always need it in whatever I do, be it writing a book or living a life!

xii

ABBREVIATIONS

A Subject of transative verb Abl Ablative Acc Accusative Agt Agentive Ang Angika Anim Animate Asa Asamiya Aux Auxiliary AV Animate verb Ban Bangla Ben Benefactive Bho Bhojpuri Cau Causative Clf Classifiers Comi Comitative Dat Dative EIA Eastern Indo-Aryan Emp Emphasis Erg Ergative Fem Feminine Fut Future Gen Genitive Hon Honorific Hum Human Inan Inanimate Inst Instrumental IV Impingement verb LM Landmark Loc Locative M Masculine Mag Magahi Mai Maithili Neg Negative xiii

A bbreviations

Nom Nominative Obj Objective Obl Oblique Odi Odia P Object of transative verb Pat Patient Perl Perlative Plu Plural Pst Past S Subject of intransative verb Sub Subject TR Trajector

xiv

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction The term case has been defined differently by different linguists at various points of time, yet the term still attracts further research, for various reasons. Firstly, the scope of case relations varies from language to language. Secondly, case markers often create confusion as they are multifunctional. Case markers also function as index markers along with marking case relations. Thirdly, there is hardly one-to-one correspondence between a case marker and a case relation. One case marker can mark more than one case relation, and more than one case marker can realize one case relation. All these make case a complex category. Case is often defined as a relationship between the head and the dependent (Blake, 2001). However, the marking of this relationship depends on various aspects, like the semantics, inherent characteristics or contingent features of the head and the dependent, syntax and pragmatics of the sentence and others. The purpose of this book is to present a typological overview of the case system of Eastern Indo-Aryan (EIA) languages. Cases are versatile in their use, which is well reflected in the EIA languages. In this set of languages, case is never restricted to one function. The complexities of the case of EIA languages have been explored here through the Cognitive Framework (CF). This book aims to bring forth the different features of cases in the context of EIA languages through CF. The study compares the case system of seven EIA languages to understand the characteristics of case specific to these languages, as well as to add to our knowledge of case in general. This research is divided into seven chapters. This introductory chapter describes the present work in brief. There is an overview of the seven languages of the present study, followed by details on the ‘Scope and Objective’ of the present work. The chapter also describes the methodology used for the work. A section on ‘Defining Case’ has been provided to give the readers a basic idea about the notion of case and various theories related to it. The next section deals with Cognitive Framework. Since there is a large pool of studies on case, it is impossible to make the literature review exhaustive, so I discuss only a selected few studies on Indo-Aryan languages in the final section of the first chapter. 1

INTRODUCTION

The second chapter, Local Cases, describes the cases used to mark various locations in the Eastern Indo-Aryan languages. The various case relations which are described in this chapter are the locative case, the ablative case and the perlative case. In some EIA languages, the canonical locative marker distinguishes between animate and inanimate objects. There is a general notion that every language has a dichotomy between in and on, which is reflected through locative case markers. However, in some of the EIA languages this contrast is not marked by the case markers. The locative case markers are only used to show an attachment between two objects, rather than marking a specific location. In this chapter, I also discuss the grammaticalization of a postposition of some of these languages. In Chapter 3, Instrumental Case, various uses of the instrumental case marker in EIA languages are described. It has been observed that an instrumental case can be used with both animate and inanimate instruments. However, some languages have different markers for animate and inanimate instruments. This chapter provides a detailed discussion on polysemous case markers which are used to mark both the ablative and the instrumental cases in some of the EIA languages. Chapter 4, Objective and Benefactive Cases, describes these two cases. It is observed that all these languages mark the objective case only when the object is animate, however in certain conditions, when the object is inanimate, then the objective marker is also used. In contrast, the benefactive case marker is used with both animate and inanimate objects. This is one of the rare instances where a case marker of these languages does not differentiate between animate and inanimate objects. The different semantics of the Genitive Case are described in Chapter 5. The genitive case does not differentiate between animacy features, except in one language. It is also used to mark the agent in all but two of the languages. Almost every language has some unique case features related to case which are not shared by every member of the group. Such types of individual instances are discussed in Chapter 6, Island Cases. In the Conclusion, readers can find interesting facts which are derived from this study. In this chapter, the primary case features of these languages are discussed and presented in a tabular form. This chapter also contains semantic maps which show the similarities and differences of some features of the languages, and it identifies some of the open-ended research questions which can be pursued in future studies.

1.2  Scope and objective This study uses a functional approach. The morphological forms of the cases have been identified and explained in relation to their functions within the larger constructions. The study has been performed mostly via the Cognitive Framework. This framework takes language as a tool in “constructing and communicating meaning” (Fauconnier & Turner, 1999). Study of this tool can lead to an understanding of cognitive processes and 2

INTRODUCTION

our perception of the world. This research aims to study case relations and their meaning in order to understand human perceptions of the world. One of the fundamental points is how the mind perceives various spatial relations and generalizes them for non-spatial relations. Another area of interest of this research is to explore how different language speakers perceive differently the same relation between two objects. For example, in some languages the relation between an object and its source and an object and its path (of travel) are perceived as the same. They are marked by the same marker, while for some other languages they are perceived as two different relations, and hence marked differently. There are various reasons for undertaking this study. Firstly, there are few studies on the case system of EIA languages. This study is an attempt to explore the case system of these languages. Secondly, languages of Bihar are often considered to be varieties of Hindi (Census, 2011, Government of India) and hence are expected to have the same linguistic features as Hindi. However, if we look at the case system (along with other features), we find a different set of features, which this study aims to explore. Thirdly, the case markers in EIA languages distinguish between inherent characteristics and contingent features, which had not been discussed until this study was done. Fourthly, the polysemous network of case markers in EIA languages is very dense; however, it is not much explored. The present study not only explores that but also presents the network through semantic maps. There has been hardly any semantic mapping of features of Indian languages. In this book, the terms case, case marker and case relations have been widely used. The term case can refer to a system. The word case can also be used to refer to the individual inflectional categories of the system, like cases of Bangla (cf. Haspelmath 2009). Case relation denotes the relationship between two nouns or a noun and a verb. In contrast, case marker means the marker which is overtly used to realize a case relation. The case marker can be an affix, a clitic or an adposition. At times, all of these can come together to mark one case relation. In this work, these markers have been identified and studied. There is a detailed discussion on the distribution of the occurrence and the features of the case markers. The nouns which take the case markers are at times referred to as the host in this book. At times both case relations and case markers have been referred to as case in the following chapters.

1.3  About the languages Angika, Asamiya, Bangla, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Magahi and Odia are the seven languages explored in this study (Table 1.1). These languages are part of the Eastern Indo-Aryan group (Grierson, 1903; Chatterji, 1926; Katre, 1968). Grierson (1903) refers to Angika as Chikka-Chiki, the name which is also used by the people of Bihar to refer to Angika. All these languages are descendants of Magadhi Prakrit. 3

INTRODUCTION

Table 1.1  The number of speakers and states where the 7 EIA languages are spoken*

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Languages

Number of speakers (Census 2011)

Mainly spoken in the following states

Angika Asamiya (Asamese) Bangla (Bengali) Bhojpuri Maithili Magahi Odia

725,000 1,48,16,414 9,61,77,835 5,05,79,447 1,33,53,347 1,27,06,825 3,40,59,266

Bihar Assam West Bengal Bihar Bihar Bihar Orissa

* All tables and figures in the book have been created by the author, unless otherwise specified.

Except for Angika, Bhojpuri and Magahi, all of the other languages are scheduled languages of India. Scheduled languages are those 22 languages which are listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India. These languages share certain privileges. The Language Census of India (2011) lists Angika, Bhojpuri and Magahi under the cover term ‘Hindi’, along with 50 other languages. However, Angika and Magahi have quite different linguistic features to those of Hindi. Except for Bangla, all these languages are highly underrepresented in the study of linguistics. There are some linguistic studies (Grierson, 1903; Kakati, 1941; Masica, 1991 & 1976; Pattanayak, 1969 & 1966; Mishra, 1975; Verma, 1985; Mohanty, 1987; Yadav, 1997; Cardona & Jain, 2014; Yadava, 2004; Mahapatra, 2007; Kumar et al., 2011; Lahiri, 2013 & 2012) which describe the various features of these languages in general. An exclusive study of the case system of these languages is hard to find. Case systems of these languages receive marginal mentions in some studies which aim at describing some other aspect of the languages or give an overall description of the linguistic features of the languages. In this work, Eastern Indo-Aryan languages refer only to the above-mentioned seven languages, though there are many other languages which belong to this group; discussion of those languages is beyond the scope of this study. In this book, Angika (Ang), Bhojpuri (Bho), Maithili (Mai) and Magahi (Mag) together are referred to as Group 1 languages, and Asamiya (Asa), Bangla (Ban) and Odia (Odi) as Group 2 languages. These groups have been formed only for the convenience of the discussion.

1.4 Methodology Linguists need data to describe and explain various features of languages. The data is comprised of language samples. The samples are grammatical sentences of the languages. There are various methods through which the 4

INTRODUCTION

linguistic data can be collected for a study; it varies depending on the study. There are various appropriate methods for language learning studies, such as diary study, experiments and comprehension checking, amongst others. In the typological studies, various processes, such as the corpus-based method, the natural discourse method and the questionnaire method, are used to collect data. Data collection through corpus-based processes is a recent method. It involves the collection of data from the already existing corpus. A primary advantage of the corpus-based method is that it can provide the researcher with a large sample of data. This method has become quite popular due to the easy availability of a vast amount of data for some languages. A linguist does not need to visit the field, and without the hassles of the field, he/she can get a fair amount of data. However, one major disadvantage is that the corpus may not always consist of naturalistic data. The sentences in the corpus may not be sentences which are used in day-to-day life or in an informal context in oral use – i.e. they may be stylized. Another disadvantage is that the researcher initially has to transcribe and analyse a huge number of sentences, and only then can he/she select the relevant data (as  per the needs of the researcher). A significant disadvantage for the ­corpus-based method of data collection in India is that at present there is no corpus for most of the Indian languages. Though it has corpora for some of the major languages, this is absent for most of the minor languages. As the present work considers seven languages, it was impossible to get corpora for all these. There are some corpora for Asamiya, Bangla and Odia, but they were not easily accessible during the period of the study. The Natural Discourse method is another well-practised method for collecting data in linguistics. In this method, the linguist needs to stay within the particular speech community and record their natural speech. This type of data is generally considered to be of acceptable quality as it is collected in the natural environment and hence can serve its purpose well. Nevertheless, there are various ethical and legal measures to be taken before data collection commences. Neglecting these measures can lead one into difficulty. Such data collection also needs a more prolonged time period compared to other methods. If one is working on more than one language simultaneously, then time consumption becomes a problem with this method. My present work involves more than one language, so I could not collect data for each of the languages via the natural discourse method. Of all the available methods, I chose the questionnaire method, which seemed to be the best for my needs for the present research. In the questionnaire method, the researcher asks the language expert to perform a set of activities. My questionnaire (see: Appendix: Questionnaire for Noun Cases) consists of two activities. The first activity involved the translation of some of the sentences given to the language experts. The other was asking for short narrations of around 7 minutes. 5

INTRODUCTION

At first, I did a pilot survey based on the questionnaire made up of the ‘Basic Sentences for collecting field data in Indian languages’ (Abbi, 2001). The informants were asked to translate these sentences into their native language. Based on the data collected from this survey, I designed a more specific questionnaire for collecting case marking in these languages. The questionnaire consisted of around 264 sentences in both Hindi and English. Generally, the Hindi sentences were used where the speakers were good in Hindi; otherwise, the English substitute was used. Hindi sentences were preferred to English sentences because Hindi is more semantically and syntactically proximal to other Indo-Aryan languages than English. I was aware that fluent speech is essential for language analysis, so I also asked the language experts to narrate folktales, their daily routines or something about their child or sibling, which helped in the collection of narrations. I collected data from five language experts for each of the languages. These experts were native speakers of one of the seven languages. For the convenience of the study, language varieties were ignored, and the focus was on the so-called standard form of the language. The data was collected from three language experts and subsequently checked by two other language experts. The data was simultaneously transcribed and digitally recorded. The cleaned, transcribed data was analysed for the study. After the description, the data were plotted in the semantic maps for better understanding and cross-linguistic comparison.

1.5  Defining case Every grammatical tradition, be it Western, Arabic or Indian, has contributed immensely to the study of case. Every tradition perceives case differently depending on the use of case in its language(s). In Greek, case was a systematic change in word forms to mark the relationships in the sentences. The change of words from the root to the various other forms was perceived as ‘falling off’ from the root form, so they termed this feature as “ptosi” which means falling. In Latin, the term became “casus” ‘fall(ing)’, a loan translation from Greek. Greek tradition observed nominative form as the noun and its other forms as the cases of the noun. Romans also followed the Greek tradition, but had to modify the case system according to their language, Latin. Greek does not have an ablative case, but Latin has, so Romans included it in their case system. Arabs described case according to word order since the nominative and accusative cases are assigned to the nominals in Arabic according to their position in the sentence (Butt, 2005). In Indian grammatical tradition, Panini’s Karaka theory (600 BCE) is considered to be one of the most explored theories on case. It perceives case as the semantic relation between the verb and the noun, where the verb is the head of the clause which assigns the case to its nouns. Many ancient grammarians (Patañjali, Nāgesa, Bhartrhari) have tried to understand 6

INTRODUCTION

Karaka theory through semantics. There are other modern scholars (Kiparsky & Staal, 1969; Cardona, 1970; Bhatta, 1988-89; and others) who have tried to find a syntactic and semantic explanation for Karaka theory. Panini described six semantic relations between the verb and the noun. He was the first to describe case based on semantics, which later became the basis for many theories explaining the case system. The six cases are Karta, Karma, Karana, Sampradana, Apadana and Adhikarana, which can be loosely translated as Nominative, Accusative, Instrumental, Dative, Ablative and Locative, respectively. Since in genitive case (Sambandh), the relation is not dependent on the verb, it has not been included in the list of Karaka by Panini. Panini also distinguishes between case (Karaka) and case forms (Vibhakti). One case relation can take many case forms. Karaka theory is not only well suited for Sanskrit grammar, but is also largely used in the computational model. Fillmore (1968) is considered to be one of the pioneers of modern linguistics who explained case through semantics. Like Panini, he also described the importance of verbs in assigning case. The verb and the features of the lexical item together decide the case. Semantic roles like Agent, Patient, Instrument, etc., are formed depending on the arguments of the verbs. He perceived case as a universal and innate concept and proposed case to be markers of syntactic relations of the deep structure. He explained case through a two-tiered system. His study focuses on both the syntactic and the semantic features of cases. The terms used by him to explain different case levels were later used to describe the semantics of the cases. Cases were also described as inherent and structural. Some linguists note that both of these can be left unmarked. The unmarked case is called the abstract case (Abraham, 2006). The notion of abstract case is also found in Chomsky (1981 and subsequent works), which is referred to as “Case”. It is used in connection with the inviolable Case Filter, which requires every lexically realized DP to bear case. The presence of abstract case guarantees a case to every DPs, which do not have a lexically marked case but are in the structural case position, to have a case. Wierzbicka (1981) suggests that cases should be taken as a grammatical category, reflecting a meaning. She explained case according to their meanings. For example, she described the accusative case as a marker to show the object as being affected by some action. Similarly, she described the ergative as a marker of a controlling agent. There are a few linguists (Janda, 1993; Nikiforidou, 1991 and others) who have tried to understand case through the CF. The CF assumes that “case always bears a meaning function” (Janda, 1993, p. 15). The CF explained case (Langacker, 1987; Smith, 1987) by focusing on the overall organization of the events. It gave a new approach to the study of case polysemy. Earlier polysemy of case markers was largely neglected and mostly taken as instances of homonymy. Nikiforidou (1991) explained that structured polysemy could give us a better understanding of case meaning. 7

INTRODUCTION

Case markers are versatile in their use. One marker is never restricted to one function. Most of the above-stated approaches, except the Cognitive Framework, do not explain the various functions of case markers. They cannot incorporate all the functions to describe them through one framework. The semantics of different case markers of different case relations can overlap, which blurs the difference between two case relations. Schlesinger (1979) observed in a cross-linguistic study that the same case marker mostly marks the instrumental and the comitative cases. He found that there was no distinct boundary which can divide the two cases: “the instrumental and the comitative are really two extreme points on what is a conceptual continuum” (Schlesinger, 1979, p. 308). The same type of “conceptual continuum”, with two cases on two extremes, can be found in the languages under study. For example, ablative and instrumental in Angika, Bhojpuri, Maithili and Magahi are two cases that are marked by the same marker in these languages, which Chapter 2 shows as a part of the same continuum. Superficially these functions may seem to be unconnected, yet a detailed description can show that they are interconnected through conceptualization. The Cognitive Framework fits well for the description of the cases, as it assumes that the “case meanings are continuous rather than discrete” (Janda, 1993, p. 38). This framework focuses on the meaning of the cases, which is prevalent in cases. The Cognitive Framework mostly explains the meaning of a case in terms of physical location. There is a distinction between the case, the case marker and the grammatical relation, which may look confusing. Case markers are independent words or affixes through which cases are realized. According to Haspelmath (2006) there is no widely accepted cover term for cases and adpositions, but the terms ‘flag’ and ‘relator’ have sometimes been used as terms which are neutral with respect to the case/adposition distinction (Haspelmath 2006). Some linguists (Spencer & Otoguro, 2005) only consider affixes as the case markers, while for others (Blake, 2001; Haspelmath, 2006 and others) case can be realized both by an affix and an adposition. Most definitions of case share commonality, yet it becomes a challenging task to compare cases cross-linguistically, which has often been noted by linguists (Greenberg, 1966; Haspelmath, 2009). This is because case is ­language-specific. Secondly, the scope of each case relation is not fixed. Thus, it becomes difficult, even within a language, to distinguish the various case relations. As Blake rightly notes, “One is the problem of distinguishing the cases; the other is the problem of describing their meaning and function” (2001, p. 19). There are some universally well-accepted notions about case. I have summed up the basic features of case for beginners in this area in the following paragraph. Cases mark the relationship between the noun and the verb (dative case, accusative case) and also between two nouns (locative, genitive). Generally when a case relation is marked overtly, then only the language is said to have that case. For example, in EIA languages, the locative case is marked 8

INTRODUCTION

overtly so it can be said that EIA languages have a locative case. Cases are marked either by an affix (e.g. i) or by a postposition (e.g. ii). At times both are needed to realize one case (e.g. iii). i

lokɔ-ti

katʰi-re

gʰɔrə

t̪ i ɑri

kɔla

man-Clf

wood-Inst

house

make

did

(Odia)

The man built the house with the wood. ii

ləikɑ

sɑ̃ p ə

ke

lɑt̪ ʰ i

se

mərələk

boy

snake

Obj

stick

Inst

killed

(Bhojpuri)

The boy killed the snake with the stick. iii

o

ɑmɑ-ɾ

t̪ ʰ eke

boi

nilo

he/she

I-Gen

Abl

book

took

(Bangla)

He/she took (a/the) book from me.

Case helps in marking the grammatical categories like subject, direct object and indirect object or the semantic roles like agent, patient, theme or location. In ergative–absolutive languages or ergative languages, the agent of a transitive verb (A) is marked by the ergative case or oblique case. A transitive verb takes two arguments; marking the agent of the transitive verb helps in distinguishing the agent from the patient. This approach is also known as the Discriminatory Approach (cf. Comrie, 1989). In accusative languages, the subject of transitive and intransitive verbs is (un)marked similarly, but the object is marked differently. According to the Differential Object Marking (DOM) approach, many languages have the tendency to case mark the objects which are higher on the animacy or definiteness scale, while the objects in lower position on this scale are not case marked (Bossong, 1983–1984; Aissen, 2000 & 2003). DOM in relation to EIA is described in Chapter 4. Case marking also works as the reflector or the index marker of specific semantic properties like animacy, humanness or definiteness. These properties are often marked based on their hierarchical position. A hierarchical scale forms out of the inherent or contingent characteristics of the speechact participants. In the following examples from Hindi, it can be seen that the animate object in example (iv) takes the accusative marking, while in example (v) it is dropped as the object is inanimate. iv

məẽ

ne

ek

ləɾke

ko

d̪ e kʰa

I

Erg

one

boy

Acc

saw

I saw a boy.

9

(Hindi)

INTRODUCTION

v

məẽ I

ne Erg

ek one

gʰəɾ house

d̪ e kʰa saw

(Hindi)

I saw a house.

A case can be studied in various ways. Two approaches can be to study the case from ‘Form to Function’, or to study it from ‘Function to Form’. In the ‘Function to Form’ approach, the various functions (case-relation marking, index marking, etc.) of the case markers are identified, followed by identification of the different forms which perform one of the functions. In the following Bangla examples, it can be seen that three different case markers have been used (Loc, Gen and Inst), but all are pointing towards a common semantics which is the location of water (the location of water is ‘in the glass’). Though the sentences, on the whole, have different meanings, the case markers are only expressing the location of the water. vi

glɑs-e

ɟɔl

ɑcʰe

glass-Loc

water

Aux

There is water in the glass. vii

glɑs-er

ɟɔl

kʰeo

nɑ

glass-Gen

water

drink

Neg

Don’t drink the water of the glass. viii

glɑs

ɟɔl

d̪ i e

bʰɔrɑ

glass

water

Inst

filled

Glass is filled with the water.

In the Form to Function approach, the various forms of the case markers are identified, and the functions that they perform are studied. In the following examples, it can be seen that the same marker is used to realize different case relations (Inst, Abl and Comp). In this study, the Form to Function approach has been widely used. ix

o

gɑri

sə̃

ɟɑit̪

ɑcʰi

(s)he

car

Inst

go

is

(Mai)

(S)he goes in a car. x

o

kʰet̪

sə̃

ɟɑit̪

ɑcʰi

(s)he

field

Abl

go

is

(S)he goes from the field.

10

(Mai)

INTRODUCTION

xi

seu-ɑ

kel-wɑ se

apple-Clf

banana-Clf

Inst

mit̪ ʰ ɑ

həi

sweet

Aux

(Mag)

The apple is sweeter than the banana.

1.6  Cognitive framework The CF in linguistics looks at conceptualization as the basis of language, which is often formed by the images provided to the brain through various incidents or experiences. This approach is based on psychological evidence and a wide range of linguistic examples. From cognitive neuroscience, it is known that “the physical brain does not process visual information in a disembodied, non-imagistic way, but instead maintains the perceptual topology of images presented to it, and then re-represents increasingly abstract spatial and imagistic details of that topology” (Rohrer, 2007, p. 26). A central principle of CF is that the concepts are not built in isolation. The units which express certain concepts are comprehended in a context of presupposed, background knowledge structures. This background knowledge structure is often referred to as the domain. The domain helps semantic units gain their value (meaning). A basic semantic unit is a mental concept (Clausner & Croft, 1999). The concept related to the semantic unit is created through the domain. The term domain is used widely by linguists (Langacker, 1987 and Lakoff, 1987) working in CF. The concept of the domain is said to be influenced by Fillmore’s work on semantic frames (Fillmore, 1975, 1977, 1982, 1985, 2003). “Cognitive Framework”, the term used by Janda (1993) and others (Tyler & Evans, 2001), refers to Cognitive Grammar (CG). Ronald Langacker, the founder of Cognitive Grammar (1987), developed CG as a reaction against Chomsky’s Generative Grammar (GG). CG claims that no linguistic phenomenon is semantically empty. However, that does not mean that meaning is objectively given to lexical items. CG also points out that a formal description cannot capture the meaning of the grammatical categories. Cognitive experiences are encoded in the grammatical categories. These experiences are encoded into linguistic units through conceptualization and categorization. Thus, grammar is viewed as a system of categorized, patterned cognitive experiences which can be expressed through schemas. One form gets various meanings embodied in it. The notion of embodied meaning has been explained as the meanings associated with many individual lexemes [which] are instantiated in memory not in terms of features, nor as abstract propositions, but rather as imagistic, schematic representations. Mark Johnson and George Lakoff together invented the term ‘image schema’ in their 1987 book. IMAGISTIC SCHEMAS are held to be embodied,

11

INTRODUCTION

in the sense that they arise from PERCEPTUAL REANALYSIS of recurring patterns in everyday physical experience. (Tyler & Evans, 2001, p. 725) Other cognitive linguists (see Johnson, 1987; Mandler, 1992, 2004) explained this concept similarly. In recent times, image schemas are used jointly by cognitive scientists and scientists working in machine-learning techniques. Along with cognitive linguistics, developmental psychology and the study of formal knowledge representation also make use of it. Similar experiences are structured similarly to be stored in our cognition. One of the ways of storing these structures is through image schemas: “Image schemas represent abstract generalisations of events usually learned from sensorimotor processes” (Hedblom et al., 2019). “Grammatical items reside on a continuum of meaning from specific to schematic” (Oakley, 2007, pp. 218). The schemas organize the experienced structures and extend them into different (generally abstract) domains. The semantic component of a symbolic structure gets schematized so that it can be extended across a wide range of conceptual domains. Schemas have a central role in CF, which is often realized through conventional imagery. So, it is necessary for most such descriptions to include a pictorial representation of the mental schema. Such pictorial representations, as described by Janda (1993), are the skeletal structure of the overall organization of events without any absolute measure. In the pictorial representations, events are generally represented through circles (just a convention) and the interactions within the event are marked by arrows. A sequence of events in a discourse, conventionalized as a unit, is represented in the following figure from Langacker 2007 (Figure 1.1). In the figure, the ground is shared by the speaker (S) and the hearer (H), and the interaction between them is marked by the arrow (→). Their interaction is directed towards the focus (Focus). The focus is within the Viewing Frame. This Viewing Frame is the space where the conceptualization is manifested. The whole flow of communication occurs within the Current Discourse Space. The Current Discourse Space is located at a particular point in time. The use of linguistics items depends on the Current Discourse Space. As the concept is believed to be represented through schemas, space becomes an essential part of the Cognitive Framework. Spatial image schemas conceptualize abstract domains. CF uses various terms to describe spatial schemas; these terms are spatial concepts which help in the description of the spatial domains. Some of the concepts are Trajector, Landmark, Path, Direction and Motion (Langacker, 1987, 1991). The Trajector (TR) is the object (concrete or abstract) about which something is stated. The location of the TR is relevant in the statement. TR can be static, dynamic, a person, an object or an event. Landmark (LM) marks the location or position of the TR. The LM is the reference entity in the 12

INTRODUCTION

Current Discourse Space

Usage Event

Viewing Frame Focus

S Time

H Ground Context

Shared Knowledge

Figure 1.1  Discourse Space. Source: Langacker, 2007, p. 426.

location. It works as the reference point for TR. The Path is the imagined or actual path between the TR and the LM. This Path may not be travelled by either TR or LM. A distance between two objects can be conceptualized as the Path. Path has three parts: beginning, middle and end. These three parts are together known as the Schematic Path. “As is usual in Cognitive Linguistics, Cognitive Grammar maintains that an expression used with any frequency is generally polysemous, having a number of different but related senses” (Langacker, 2007, p 432). Polysemy refers to different meanings of a term which are interrelated. This interrelation is systematic and generally bound with the related senses. These senses together form networks. These networks have nodes which carry the senses. When these nodes are combined, they form the Polysemy Network. CF has been widely used in the present work to describe case because this framework, unlike other approaches, does not ignore the function of the case as a meaning-bearing unit. Case cannot be described as divorced from semantics. The Cognitive Framework assumes that “case is always ­meaning-bearing and case meaning is not essentially different from lexical meaning in structure” (Janda, 1993, p. 15). However, it is not easy to locate the meaning(s) of cases as “a case category is generally complex, comprising a network of alternative senses connected by relationships of schematicity and semantic extension” (Langacker, 1987, p. 39). Cases form a part of the action chain. One has to consider the whole action chain (the sentence) to explain a case marker which is part of that action chain. Cases cannot be 13

INTRODUCTION

explained in isolation. Sorensen notes that “the sentence is the unit from which the analysis of the case must start” (Sorensen, 1957, p. 31). Meaning of a case can vary among languages, and also within a language. Many scholars (Wierzbicka, 1986; Langacker, 1987 and others) have noted that cases generally have a core meaning. This core meaning helps in crosslinguistic comparisons. However, cases also carry meanings which are language-specific. These language-specific meanings make it challenging to compare meanings of cases across languages. One needs to look at the diachronic development, the synchronic distribution and the contact scenario of a language to thoroughly understand the language-specific meaning of a case.

1.7  Cases in Indo-Aryan languages Cases have been divided into layers depending on how they are realized. In discussing the layers of cases, Blake (2001) described three layers of case marking of Indo-Aryan languages: the inflectional case, the primary postposition and the secondary postposition. He notes that where both an adposition and an affix occur, the finer distinction of the functions can be exhibited through the adposition. This holds for Indo-Aryan (IA) languages as well. In many of the IA languages, case relation is marked by only a postposition in the presence of an affix. Primary postpositions occur independently in a sentence. In contrast, the secondary postpositions need an inflectional case marker to occur. Blake (2001) notes that most of the postpositions, generally in the Indo-Aryan languages, need the oblique case to occur after the host. Masica (1991) also mentions the layers of case markings. He has divided the case markers of the Indo-Aryan languages into three categories, which are similar to Blake’s categorization. However, Masica looks at the diachronic aspect while describing the cases through different layers. According to Masica, Layer I is the inflectional category descended from the old and middle Indo-Aryan languages. Layer I affixes, with some changes in function, get directly attached to the root with some morphophonemic adjustment. This adjustment at times creates complexity in the case morphology. Distinction based on number can be found, as an example of this layer, in the locative case of Punjabi. In EIA languages the affix joins the host, which is followed by the other affixes or postpositions, as can be seen in the following example (e.g. 1.1). But it is not considered Layer I affix by Masica (1991). 1.1

həm-rɑ

səb

me

himmət̪

əic

I-Gen

all

in/LOC

valour

AUX

(Maithili)

We have valour in us.

The case inflections have phonologically reduced over a period of time, and their etymology is a topic of dispute. Masica (1991) notes that Layer I 14

INTRODUCTION

case markers are absent in the EIA languages. However, he specifies that the absence of the Layer I affixes does not mean the absence of the ‘etymologically primary affixes’. To support his point, he gives the example of the agentive marker of Asamiya (-e/-i). It seems to be derived from the fusion of the old instrumental (–ena) with the old Magadhi nominative (–e:). Nevertheless, he calls it a Layer II affix because it gets separated from the root when the classifier, definite marker or plural marker comes between the affix and the root “manuh-e” (man-AGT) becomes “manuh-bilak-e” (manPLU-AGT)) (Masica, 1991, p. 233). Layer II affixes are attached to the base indirectly. They are also uniform irrespective of any variation of the nouns depending on number, gender, etc. Morphophonemic variation can also be located in the Layer II affixes. Generally, this involves a supporting vowel used with consonant stems and dropped with vowel stems, or vice versa. Bangla genitives (-[e]r) exemplifies it as goru-r (cow’s) and bagh-er (tiger’s). Furthermore, Layer II affixes function as true clitics – i.e., they get attached to the phrase rather than a word like the Hindi accusative “ko” (krishna, radha aur meera ko). Layer III case markers come after the Layer II affixes. Layer II behaves like a mediator between Layer III and the root. In most instances, a genitive marker is used for this purpose, as in Hindi me-re sath (I –GEN PP (with me)). Cases have been studied like a system, and cases of a specific language or of a set of languages have also been studied. However, there are very few works on the case system of EIA languages. However, there are some seminal works, such as The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language (1926) by S.K. Chatterji, which is a comprehensive diachronic study of Bangla. Similarly, there is a detailed work on the formation and development of Asamiya by Kakati (1941). Butt and Ahmed (2011) investigated the diachronic development of the cases of Indo-Aryan languages. There are also works on some languages of the Eastern Indo-Aryan group (Cardona & Jain 2003; Mahapatra, 2007; Yadav, 1997; Masica, 1991; Mohanty, 1987; Mishra, 1975). Mostly, the works on EIA languages do not elaborate on the overall case system of EIA languages. Many studies (Masica, 1976; Verma & Mohanan, 1990; Bossong, 1998; Aikhenvald & Dixon, 2001; Haspelmath, 2001; Bhaskararao & Subbarao, 2004; Bickel et al., 2014; and others), in discussing cases of Indo-Aryan languages, focus primarily on the dative case and so-called dative constructions or non-canonical subjects. Non-canonical ­subjects are of interest to scholars because in a non-canonical construction, nominative, agentive or ergative case does not mark the subject. Nominative, agentive or ergative cases are canonically identified as the cases of the subject. When a subject hosts cases other than these, such as accusative, dative, genitive or instrumental, then they are called non-canonical subjects. Such constructions are also defined as Oblique subject marking. This is associated with the semantic role of “experiencer” as opposed to “agent” (cf. Verma & 15

INTRODUCTION

Mohanan, 1990; Bossong, 1983–1984; Aikhenvald and Dixon, 2001; Bhaskararao & Subbarao, 2004; Bickel et al., 2014; Baten & Verbeke, 2015). Masica (1976) talks about the dative construction of the South Asian languages. He comments that in Hindi the unspecified or accidental incidents remain unmarked. The inherent or observable incidents are marked by genitives and the subjective incidents by datives. In Bangla, along with Mundari and Turkish, he specifies that subjective incidents are marked with genitive and accidental incidents with locative construction. He also discusses about a category of compulsion for which English uses have to and Hindi and Bangla use the dative construction. Dative construction is used when the subject is the experiencer. Dative construction in the South Asian context is taken in a broader sense where genitive and accusative markers are also used for such purposes. Abbi (1994) differentiates between experiential and non-experiential constructions. She defines an experiential construction as construction where there is an experiencer noun and an experiencer verb. The construction may have one patient noun as well. There are various types of experiential construction, but most of them take a dative construction in Indian languages. Abbi (1994) divides non-experiential constructions into three sub-parts; benefactive, attributive and out of control. A benefactive verb can be divided into two parts: a State Benefactive and a Process Benefactive verb. A benefactive verb can have possessive constructions. Indian languages either use dative or genitive marking for the possessed object. The noun phrases of the Process Benefactive verbs take either dative or accusative markers. The subjects of the ‘progeny’ take dative constructions, too. Attributive is generally marked by dative or genitive. However, languages like Hindi, Punjabi and Bangla use genitive or locative for such purposes. In benefactive and attributive construction, some action is being done to the subject; sometimes the subject does some action, but the action is not under his/her control. In such instances, the construction is syntactically and semantically passive. e.g.1.1

hum-se

kʰaja

nəhi

gəja

I-Inst

eat

Neg

go

(Hindi)

It could not be eaten by me.

These types of constructions take an oblique case which involves dative, locative, genitive or instrumental case markers. These are called oblique construction. In modern IA languages, oblique subject construction is common. In this group of languages, non-canonical patterns in the experiencer show a different marking for experiencers, depending on the case available in the case paradigm of the individual language (cf. Hook, 1990; Baten & Verbeke, 2015). Abbi (1994) suggests calling them “non-agentive construction” as there is only an affected nominal without the power of an agent in such constructions. 16

Chapter 2 LOCAL CASES

2.1 Introduction “Local cases express notions of location (‘at’), destination (‘to’), source (‘from’) and path (‘through’). The term local in this context refers to ‘place’” (Blake, 2001, p. 151). Local cases are used to mark the position or location of an object, which is always stated in reference to another object. The standard linguistic representation of an object’s place requires three elements: the object (or figure) to be located, the reference object and their relationship (Landau & Jackendoff, 1993). As noted by Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976) and Talmy (1983), if the objects are unequal in size or mobility, the larger and more stable is the reference object. The cases which mark the space or location are also known as spatial cases or spatial markers. The markers which are used to mark the place, the ‘place’ referred by Blake to mark the term local, not only mark the physical space but often also go beyond that. These markers are used to express the notion of the abstract place. The use of markers to explain the objects in reference to the abstract place is generally influenced by the use of the markers in the concrete physical world. Spatial markers have been widely studied in CF (Tyler & Evans, 2003; Ojutkangas, 2006; Aurnague et al., 2007; Ramscar et al., 2010) as these markers are often used to mark both physical and abstract locations. The concept of physical location creates the schemas for abstract location. When one marker is used to mark both the physical and the abstract locations, then various meanings get embedded, which results in a polysemy network, which can be found in the locative markers of EIA languages. According to some authors (Landau & Jackendoff, 1993; Jackendoff, 1996), space also implies a universal distinction between two notions: ­entities and locations. This distinction is assumed to be fundamental to the structure of human language and to reflect the organization of the neural substrate of our brain into two distinct systems: one involved in the identification of objects (the what-system), the other with their localization (the where-system) (Landau & Jackendoff, 1993).

17

LOCAL CASES

Creissels (2009) notes that a spatial case is generally apt to fulfil one of the following functions: • Works as non-verbal predicate specifying the location of an entity. • As a verb satellite specifying the location of an event (verb satellites are immediate constituents of a verb root but are not part of the verb. When verb satellites are present, verbs conflate motion and manner but not path; path is expressed by satellites). • Argument of motion verbs specifying the source, path or destination of the movement. There are other authors (Anderson, 1971a, b; Cook, 1989) who say that all cases can be viewed as locative expressions. This involves cases which do not mark the location in a direct sense but use the abstract sense of location. However, here I am looking only at the local cases, not at all the cases which can mark locations indirectly. By borrowing terms from Langacker (1991), I have tried to explain the extended meaning of these case markers or spatial cases. Langacker uses the terms ‘Trajector’ (TR) and ‘Landmark’ (LM). As described in Chapter 1 (§ 1.6), the TR is the one about which something is said; the LM is the central locus about which something is said. These two terms are helpful to describe the local cases, so I use these extensively to describe the local cases. First, the chapter describes the local cases which are used with physical locations; then, the chapter describes the use of local cases with abstract locations. Languages under observation use various markers to mark different locations. These markers can even become host to locative and ablative cases. These markers are not the case-bearing units. These markers are referred to as deixis in this work as they perform the function of deictic elements (for a detailed discussion on deixis, see Anderson and Keenan, 1985; Levinson, 1996; Engelenhoven, 2010). They are also known as locative nouns. They are of various types which denote time and space. Those marking time will be referred to as temporal deixis, and those marking space will be called spatial deixis. It is beyond the scope of the present chapter to describe deixis in full, but this has been referred to in order to understand spatial cases. The spatial markers or local cases are also called locatives. Locatives consist of two layers: the first layer defines a location and the second a type of movement with respect to that location. The elements defining these layers, called localisers and modalisers, tend to form a unit, which is typically either an adposition or a case marker. This layering is not only semantically but in many languages also morphologically manifested. (Kracht, 2002a, p. 157) Two types of locatives can be seen for these languages. One type states the location of the static TR. The other type defines the location of the moving TR. Unidimensional spatial case systems tend to be organized according to a tripartite distinction between static location, movement from the location 18

LOCAL CASES

and destination of the moving body. Locative, ablative and allative are the terms most commonly used to describe such systems, at least when the case forms in question are used predominantly in spatial functions (Creissels, 2009). The EIA languages can be stated as having unidimensional spatial case systems as they mark three spaces: location, path of movement and source of movement. The local cases for the concerned languages can be separated into two categories: (i) Static, and (ii) Dynamic. Based on these two categories, the case markers are described. When an object is in the static position, its location is marked by the locative marker. Dynamic positions can be explained well by pointing out the position of a moving object: the starting point (source), the path through which it travels (path) and the destination where it reaches (goal). In some languages, the goal becomes part of the static position as when an object reaches its goal it becomes static, while other languages perceive the reaching of the goal by an object as a completion of the path (or the movement) and not just a static position. All three are discussed in detail in the following sections.

2.2 Static The term ‘static’ is used here to describe a static position of an object. The locative case is used in these languages to mark the static position of an object. Locative cases mark the location of an object in relation to another object. The object whose location is stated has to be in a static position. The object in relation may or may not be in the static position, e.g. a man is in the room (here, the room is static) and a man is on the moving bus (bus is not in a static position, but the man is in a static position). In both sentences the position of the ‘man’ is described, so he is in the static position, but the position of the object in relation to which his location is stated may or may not be static – i.e., in one sentence it is static (room), but in the other it is dynamic (moving bus). 2.2.1  Group 1 languages Angika, Bhojpuri, Maithili and Magahi use two locative markers to mark the static position of an object: /me/ or /mẽ/ and /pər/. Both are postpositions which follow the noun (LM) in relation to which the other object’s (TR) position is marked. Broadly, the /me/ marker can be said to be used in the sense of the English postposition in, inside and within, in sentences like the following:

2.1

weh scʰul mẽ (s)he school in/Loc (S)he is in the school.

(Ang)

cʰɑi Aux

19

LOCAL CASES

2.2

burəh log gɑũ me old people village in/Loc Old people live in the village.

2.3

jʰorɑ me t̪ərkɑri bag in/Loc vegetable There is vegetable in the bag.

2.4

ləikə-wɑ ləiki-jɑ ke pɑniː me boy-Clf girl-Clf Obj water in/Loc The boy pushed the girl in (into) the water.

(Bho)

rəhelɑ live

əic Aux

(Mai)

d̪ʰəkel pushed

d̪elkəiː gave

(Mag)

In Maithili /me/ follows the affix /-rɑ/ when /me/ is used with animate. There is no preceding of the affix before the marker /me/ if the object marked is inanimate. Number does not play any role in it. This is a common phenomenon which can be seen in many languages. Nouns referring to humans, or more generally to animate beings, may have special forms for spatial cases. In some languages, such nouns are incompatible with spatial cases. This follows from a general tendency to express spatial relations with human beings as the reference point in an indirect way, through a genitival construction (‘at N’s place’). (Creissels, 2009, p. 612) The following sentences show contrast between inanimate (2.5 & 2.6) and animate (2.7 & 2.8) TRs. The sentences also contrast in terms of plurality. 2.5

oi me t̪ərkɑri it in/Loc vegetable There is vegetable in it.

əic Aux

2.6

oi səb me t̪ərkɑri that all in/Loc vegetable There are vegetables in those.

2.7

həm-rɑ me himmət̪ I-Gen in/Loc valour I have valour in me.

2.8

həm-rɑ səb me I-Gen all in/Loc We have valour in us.

(Mai)

səb all əic Aux

himmət̪ valour

əic Aux

(Mai)

(Mai)

əic aux

(Mai)

In Angika, Bhojpuri and Magahi, when /me/ is used with a singular ­pronominal then it follows the affix /rɑ/ with both animate and inanimate pronominals but not with nominals (animate or inanimate). If the pronominal is plural then this affix is replaced by the plural marker (2.11 & 2.13). 2.9

rɑɟu me himmɑt̪ Raju in/Loc valour Raju has valour in him.

həi Aux

20

(Mag)

LOCAL CASES

2.10

uk-rɑ me it-Gen in/Loc There is vegetable in it.

2.11

u səb me səbɟi that all in/Loc vegetable There are vegetables in those.

2.12

ok-rɑ me seo it-Gen in/Loc apple There is apple in it.

2.1

okʰə-ni me seo it-Plu in/Loc apple There are apples in those.

səbɟi vegetable

(Bho)

bɑ Aux

(Bho)

bɑ Aux

(Mag)

həi Aux

(Mag)

həi Aux

The marker /pər/ is used for the sense of English preposition on. In Magahi /pər/, when used with singular pronominals, follows the affix /-rɑ/ (like /me/ in Angika, Bhojpuri and Magahi). However, the affix is not used with plurals. 2.14a

bəc-wɑ: kursi-ɑ pər child-Clf chair-Clf on/Loc The child sat on the chair.

2.14b

bəc-wɑ: ekɑ-rɑ child-Clf it-Gen The child sat on it.

2.14c

bəc-wən okʰə-ni pər child-Plu it-Plu on/Loc Children sat on those.

2.15

lərkɑ oi per child it on/Loc The child sat on it.

2.16

lərk-ən səb kursiɑ səb pər boy-Plu all chair all on/Loc All the children sat on the chairs.

2.17

bɑccɑ-r bẽcʰə pər child-Plu bench on/Loc Children sat on the bench.

(Mag)

bəiʈʰləi sat

pər on/Loc

bəiʈʰ sat bəiʈʰ sat

geləi gone geləi gone

(Mag)

(Mai)

bəisəlje sat

bəitʰəe sat

(Mag)

bɑrən sat

(Bho)

(Ang)

The variant of /pər/ is /upər/, which is used with pronominals. Whenever / upər/ is used with nominals or pronominals it follows the markers /ke/ (with nominals) or /-rɑ/ (with pronominals) in all the above-stated languages; /ke/ is the genitive marker in these languages and used for such constructions (discussed in more detail in Chapter 5). At times both /rɑ/ and /ke/ can occur in Bhojpuri. In such situations, the /ke/ marker is not obligatory as it can be dropped. 21

LOCAL CASES

2.18

bəc-wɑ: gʰorɑ pər child-Clf horse on/Loc The child sat on the horse.

2.19

bəc-wən okʰə-ni ke child-Plu it-Plu Gen Children sat on them [horses].

2.20

bəbuɑ mɑ̃i pər/ child mother on/Loc The child sat on the mother.

2.21

bəccɑ hun kɑ upər child (s)he Gen on/Loc The child sat on him/her.

/ /

ke Gen

upər on/Loc

upəre on/Loc ke Gen

bəiʈʰ sat

upər on/Loc bəis sat

bəiʈʰ sat

geləi gone

geləi gone

bɑiʈʰə sit

gəil went

(Mag)

(Mag)

(Bho)

(Mai)

gele gone

Though /pər/ and /upər/ can be used as variants, and use of the one in place of the other is not ungrammatical, their semantic range varies slightly, which becomes evident in the fluent speech of native speakers. /upər/ is preferred when the LM is in the higher position (physically) than the TR from the speaker’s point of view: in example 2.18, the horse is in a higher position than the child, so /upər/ will always be preferred. If something is kept on the top of a cupboard and the speaker cannot reach it, then the preferred (and, for some speakers, the only option) marker will be /upər/ to state the position of the object. /upər/ highlights the height of the LM in relation to the TR. In all these languages /pər/ is used for the following sentence because LM is the ground, which is not higher than TR. Here, /upər/, instead of /pər/, does not sound good to native speakers. 2.22

ləik-wən ɟəmiːn pər boy-Plu floor on/Loc Boys sat on the ground.

(Mag)

bəiʈʰləi sat

The locative markers /me/ and /pər/ are also used with body parts to show abstract trajectors like valour, pain, trust, etc., in a particular body part, such as the heart, arm or stomach. Along with the partative use, the markers can also be used with the whole body or with a person perceived as whole for both generic and particular use. 2.23

həm-rɑ hɑ̃t̪ʰ mẽ I-Gen hand in/Loc I have pain in my hand.

2.24

həm-ni me I-Plu in/Loc We have valour.

2.25

ok-ra dunu ke peʈ (s)he-Obl two Gen stomach Those two have pain in their stomach.

himmɑt̪ valour

d̪ərd̪ pain

(Ang)

cʰɑi Aux

(Bho)

bɑ Aux

22

me in/Loc

d̪ərd̪ pain

cʰəi Aux

(Mai)

LOCAL CASES

2.26

rəɟuɑ me Raju in/Loc Raju has valour.

himmət̪ brave

(Mag)

həi Aux

These languages have only these two primary locative markers (/me/ and /per/). However, only /me/ can be said to be the primitive spatial markers in these languages. Other location markings are derived by attaching it to deictic elements like bəgle (near); bəgle me (nearby), nicʰe me (at the bottom), upəre me (on the top). However, this is not possible with /pər/. The deictic element always follows the genitive marker. 2.27

cittʰi pənnɑ: ke bic letter page Gen between The letter is in between the pages.

2.28

kursi-ɑ ʈebʊlə-wɑ ke chair-Clf table-Clf Gen The chair is beside the table.

bəgle near

mẽ in/Loc

me in/Loc

cʰɑi Aux

həiː Aux

(Ang)

(Mag)

This makes one question whether both /me/ and /pər/ are of the same category or not, and I find that they are not. /pər/ is the grammaticalized form of /upəre/, which means ‘on top of’. That is why /me/ can be used with /upəre/. /upəre/ is a deictic element like /nice/ or /bəgle/ which is now in the process of grammaticalization (Lahiri, 2013). As is known, when a word is in the process of grammaticalization, at the initial stage both the original and the grammaticalized version coexist (Kuteva, 2001; Traugott & Heine, 1991). Here too it can be seen that both /upər/ and /pər/ coexist in the same conditions. If /pər/ is taken as the grammaticalized form of the deictic element /upəre/, then it leads to another argument that these languages (Angika, Bhojpuri, Maithili and Magahi), like their neighbouring languages (Group 2), also have one locative case marker. This discussion is expanded in § 2.3. Arguments in support of /pər/ as the grammaticalized form of /upəre/: 1 Both the form /pər/ and /upəre/ coexist in these languages and can be replaced by each other in many contexts. As mentioned earlier, this happens in the initial stage of grammaticalization. In this stage both the grammaticalized and the non-grammaticalized forms coexist. 2 Phonetic reduction is another feature of grammaticalization which can be witnessed here as well; /upəre/ is phonetically reduced to /pər/. 3 /upəre/ is a deictic element with which /me/ can be used, but /pər/ cannot be used with /upəre/. This is because /pər/ is the grammaticalized form of /upəre/. 4 /pər/ cannot be attached to any deictic element, but it can be done with /me/ or /mẽ/, which makes /pər/ different from /me/ or /mẽ/. 23

LOCAL CASES

The following table shows the difference between the two markers /me/ or /mẽ/ and /pər/ and their behaviour within these languages. This difference supports the argument that both the markers are not of the same category or level. Thus, they should be studied as elements of different levels (Table 2.1). Table 2.1  The differences between two locative markers Features of Case Markers Language(s)

me/mẽ

Language(s)

pər

In all the languages

Used when the LM is perceived as an enclosed figure Follows an affix when LM is animate; LM(animate) -rɑ +me

In all the languages

Follows an affix when LM is singular pronominal; LM(SING.PRO) -rɑ +me/mẽ Can be attached to deictic elements.

In all the languages

Used when the TR is perceived to be on the axis of the LM Follows an affix when LM is singular pronominal; LM(SING.PRO) -rɑ +me Seems to derived from ‘upəre’; upəre → pər Can be replaced with ‘upər’ in some places.

Only in Maithili

In all except Maithili

In all the languages

Only in Magahi

In all the languages

Cannot be attached to deictic elements.

2.2.2  Group 2 languages Asamiya, Bangla and Odia have only one locative marker each: /ɔt̪/, /t̪e/ and /re/, respectively. It was long believed that every language has a primitive on and in concept. But languages such as Asamiya, Bangla and Odia show that there need not be any perspective dichotomy between basic locations, like in versus on. Moreover, works by Brown (1994) and Levinson and Meira (2003) have shown that notions like in or on do not seem to be primitive holistic concepts to many languages. There can be alternative kinds of distinctions (Bowerman, 1996; Bowerman & Choi, 2003) or no distinction at all, like in the above-stated languages. 2.29

bɔl-tu kuŋwɑ-t pori ball-Clf well-Loc fell The ball fell into the well.

gol went

(Asa)

2.30

lorɑ-zuɑli-bor bench-ɔt̪ boy-girl-Plu bench-on/Loc Boys and girls sat on the bench.

bohil sat

(Asa)

24

LOCAL CASES

2.31

t̪ʰoli-t̪e ʃobɟi ɑcʰe bag-Loc vegetable Aux There is vegetable in the bag.

(Ban)

2.3

cele-tɑ ceɑr-e boʃlo boy-Clf chair-Loc sat The boy sat on the chair.

(Ban)

2.33

2.34

puɑ-ti ɟʰiɔ-ti-ku pɑɳi-re dʰ̪ɔkkɑ boy-Clf girl-Clf-Obj water-Loc push The boy pushed the girl in (into) the water. cʰuɑ-mɑɳe bhũe-re child-Plu ground-Loc Children sat on the ground.

(Odi)

mɑrilɑ hit

(Odi)

bosicʰɔɳt̪i sat

Asamiya, Bangla and Odia have one locative marker each, which is used for every type of topography. However, when the topographical location needs to be specified this gets attached to the deictic elements. The locative marker works as the primitive spatial marker in these languages. Like Group 1 languages, the locative marker is attached to the deictic elements to mark a specific location, like /xɑmukʰ+ɔt/ (front+LOC), /mɑɟ+ɔt̪/ (between+LOC) (Asamiya), /kɑcʰ+e/ (near+LOC), /nic+e/ (under+LOC) (Bangla), /upɔr+e/ (on+LOC), and /ɑgə+re/ (front+LOC) (Odia). 2.35

mo-i sitʰi-kʰon prist̪ʰɑ-bur-ɔr mɑɟ-ɔt̪ I-Agt letter-Clf page-Plu-Gen between-in/Loc I had kept the letter in between the pages.

2.36

loɾɑ-boɾ t̪eo-r boy-Plu (s)he-Gen Boys sat on him/her.

2.37

o-r baɽi ʃteʃn-er (s)he-Gen house station-Gen His house is near the station.

2.38

boi-tɑ tebil-er nic-e book-Clf table-Gen under-Loc The book fell under the table.

2.39

se steʃən ɑgə-re/ samnɑ-re (s)he station front-Loc/ front-Loc (S)he lives in front of the station.

2.40

citʰiti tebul upɔr-e tʰoɑicʰi letter table on-Loc kept The letter is kept on the table.

upor-ɔt̪ on-on/Loc

t̪ʰoisilu kept

(Asa)

bohil sat

(Asa)

kɑc-e near-Loc

(Ban)

pore fall

gælo went rɔhe live

(Ban)

(Odi)

(Odi)

As can be seen in the above examples (e.g. 2.35 to 2.38), whenever a locative marker is used with the deictic elements, it is followed by the Genitive marker in Asamiya and Bangla, but not in Odia (e.g. 2.39 & 2.40). 25

LOCAL CASES

The locative markers in Asamiya, Bangla (Lahiri, 2011) and Odia cannot be used with animate TRs. Like many other languages, the Genitive marker is used with animate locations rather than locative markers. Creissels notes that in many languages there is a general tendency to express spatial relations with “human beings as the reference point in an indirect way, through a Genitival construction (‘at N’s place’)” (Creissels, 2009, p. 612.). But here it is not restricted to humans only; rather, the same method of using Genitival construction is used for all animates. So, animate LMs are not mere locations but the possessor of the TRs. 2.41

d̪ʰobɑ-zon-ɔr d̪ʰɑr ɑse washerman-Clf-Gen debt Aux Washerman has debt (on him) (Washerman is in debt).

(Asa)

2.42

rɑm-er kʰɔmot̪ɑ Ram-Gen capacity Ram has the capacity.

(Ban)

2.43

se-mɑnɔŋkɔ-rɔ (s)he-Plu-Gen They have valour.

ɑcʰe Aux bɑhut̪ very

(Odi)

sɑhɔs valour

For all the above sentences, Group 1 languages use the locative marker /me/, /mẽ/ or /pər/. The locative marker can be used in Group 2 with animates when there is a deictic element. The locative marker can follow the deictic element when the host is animate, but cannot appear without the deictic element in such instances. 2.44

mo-r t̪omɑ-lok-ɔr upor-ɔt̪̪ I-Gen you-people-Gen on-Loc I am angry with you people.

2.45

kriʃɔk-er opor-e deʃ farmer-Gen on-Loc country The country is dependent on the farmers.

2.46

mo upɔr-e bʰɔrɔsɑ kɔr nɑhĩ I on/Loc believe do Neg Do not believe on me (Do not trust me).

kʰɔŋ anger

ut̪ʰi rise

nirbʰɔr dependent

ɑse Aux

(Asa)

(Ban)

(Odi)

Bangla /-e/ marker is used to mark agents in very restricted usages. It has already been discussed that the marker /-e/ cannot be used with animate objects in the absence of deictic elements. When it is used with animate objects then we get agentive reading. Agentive marking is used in Bangla to get generic meaning. However it may even be dropped. 2.47

kukuɾ-e dog-Agt Dogs bite.

kɑmɾe bite

d̪æe do

(Ban)

Though Bangla agentive marker /-e/ is homophonous with the Bangla ­locative marker, I do not establish any relation between these two markers 26

LOCAL CASES

(/-e/ of locative and /-e/ of agentive), so this may be an instance of case syncretism. Comrie (1991) defines case syncretism as when the forms of the markers are identical but the case relations are not connected. It should be noted that in some instances different case relations marked by the same case markers can be justified as part of the same continuum, while in other instances it is not possible to do so. When the same case markers mark totally different case relations and the connection between these cases cannot be established, then they are referred as instances of case syncretism. In both Asamiya (see Chapter 6) and Bangla (restricted use) the agent is marked with a homophonous marker. The relation between these markers and the characteristics of these markers may be established through diachronic studies.

2.3 Discussion Asamiya, Bangla and Odia have one locative marker which shows the location of TR with reference to LM, but the marker states neither the position nor the direction of the TR. It is expressed only through the context. For example, sentence 2.48 in Bangla can be ambiguous if quoted out of context. It may mean both ‘the fan is on the bed’ and ‘the fan is above the bed’. 2.48

pɑkʰɑ bicʰɑn-ɑr opor-e fan bed-Gen top-Loc. The fan in on/above the bed.

(Ban)

This type of locative markers, which do not show any particular location, has been referred to as General Spatial Terms (GST) in the literature (Levinson, 2003; Feist, 2008). If a language has GSTs, they occur in virtually all spatial descriptions and impart no specific information about the location of the figure. Instead, these terms serve to indicate that there is a locative relation between the figure and the ground. The most important point for the understanding of GSTs is contextual variability (Feist, 2008). Specification of the semantics of the GST must be computed relative to a context of utterance (Kennedy, 2007; Kyburg & Morreau, 2000). The use of GST does not point out any specific location, but nonetheless they are used to mark locations. According to Feist (2010), the GST only marks the closeness of the TR with the LM. It is used in a scene to mark the closeness of one object with another for the convenience of interpretation. She clarified that the GSTs provide no discriminating information about the placement of the objects. Similarly here the locative markers do not mark any specify locations, so various spatial markers are used in the form of deictic elements. The GST has also been termed “General locatives” (Feist, 2000; Levinson, 2003). Angika, Bhojpuri, Maithili and Magahi also had one GST: the /me/ or /mẽ/ marker. This is the older locative marker which is used in every context of location. However, a recent development is redefining the meaning 27

LOCAL CASES

of /me/ or /mẽ/ in these languages. This is the occurrence of /pər/, the grammaticalized version of /upər/. This marker can be used independently like /me/ or /mẽ/, but cannot be attached to the deictic elements like /me/ or /mẽ/. As /pər/ is the grammaticalized form of the deictic element /upər/, which broadly means ‘on’, /pər/ is also used to mark the location ‘on’ and related locations such as above or on top of. The occurrence of /pər/ has redefined the meaning of /me/ or /mẽ/ by narrowing down its meaning. Now /me/ or /mẽ/ is used in these languages only for the meaning related to ‘in’ or ‘inside’, though it still occurs with various deictic elements, including /upər/. Moreover, in support of the argument that /pər/ and /me/ or /mẽ/ are not locative markers of the same category (or level), it can be said that in some contexts one can be replaced by the other (e.g. 2.49 & 2.50) without bringing any change in the meaning. This would not have been so if both were locative markers of the same category as both have opposite meanings. 2.49

həm-ər gɑ:l pər/me I-Gen cheek on/in Loc I got slapped on my cheek.

2.50

o gʰər pər/me (s)he school on/in Loc (S)he is in the house.

t̪ʰəppər slap ɑcʰə Aux

pərləi felt

(Mag)

(Mai)

As the above arguments show that both the markers /me/ and /pər/ are of different levels, /me/ can be termed as a Level 1 locative marker and /pər/ as a Level 2 locative marker. There is a possibility that, over time, /pər/ can develop into a Level 1 locative marker. For the present scenario, we cannot leave behind /pər/ as it is not just a deictic element like /upəre/ or /nice/. It does not function like them. It cannot be attached to /me/. However, at the same time, it is not like /me/ (the reasons for this are discussed in § 2.1). The above arguments show that these two markers belong to different categories. When the exact position or direction is to be marked, then the various deictic elements are used. All these languages then attach the locative marker to the deictic elements. The locative markers, in these languages, do not serve the purpose of the spatial markers. These locative markers, like other case markers, are often stretched. Herskovits (1986) proposed that there are two types of meanings for spatial markers. One is the literal meaning, and the other is the derivation from the literal meaning. However, the literal (ideal meaning) and the derivative meaning can overlap over time and it can become quite challenging to differentiate one from the other, which is the case in these languages. The use of locative markers has literal meaning, and various meanings are derived from it, giving birth to a polysemy network. The usages of these markers are extended to be used for the abstract TR. In all these languages, the abstract use of the locative markers can be seen. 28

LOCAL CASES

Roughly, it can be said that for Group 1 languages, when the LM is an enclosed figure then /me/ or /mẽ/ is used to describe the location of the TR. For TR to be in LM, LM must have an interior. This sense of enclosure gets widened with the abstract use of the locative markers. 2.51

i kut̪t̪ɑ mẽ bʰonke this dog-Clf in/Loc bark This dog has the habit of barking.

kə Gen

2.52

rɑɟ ke res me ɟit̪əl ɑscərɟ Raj Gen race in/Loc win surprise It is not a surprise that Raj won the race.

ke Gen

2.53

həm ɑpəs me We among in/Loc We will share among us.

bɑĩʈ share

2.54

ek məhinɑ me one month in/Loc Diwali is within a month.

d̪ivɑliː Diwali

ɑddɑt̪ habit bɑt̪ talk

cʰe Aux

(Ang)

kʰe is

(Bho)

nei Neg

(Mai)

leb take

(Mag)

həuː Aux

In all the above examples, a sense of enclosement can be seen. In sentence 2.51 the habit is enclosed in the dog (the body of a dog is taken as an enclosed figure). In sentence 2.52, the event of the race is perceived as an enclosed thing which has a start time and an end time. The race event was conducted within a particular time period (time duration is perceived as an enclosed thing). Similarly, enclosed space is being created (at an abstract level) among friends in 2.53. In the last example, a time period is formed; from the present time till the time mentioned that is “this month”. The whole time period is perceived as an enclosed temporal space within which a particular event may occur or the event may be placed. It should be noted that any physical body, event, space or time can be perceived as an enclosed entity if it is not open-ended. If the start point and the end point are marked, then the entity can be perceived to have an ‘inside’ to it. To mark this ‘inside’, the locative markers /me/ or /mẽ/ are used in the above-mentioned languages. Similarly, when the periphery of a certain object is perceived, then to mark this periphery the marker /pər/ is used in the Group 1 languages. Here the TR is within the periphery of the LM so /pər/ is used. 2.55

ɔrt̪i-ɑ bəc-wɑ pər ciləiləi (Mag) woman-Clf child-Clf on/Loc shouted The woman shouted on the child (The woman shouted at the child).

2.56

ekɑ-ek həm-ɑr nəɟər suddenly I-Gen sight Suddenly I saw him/her.

uk-rɑ (s)he-Gen

per on/Loc

pərel felt

(Bho)

As the locative markers in Group 2 languages are primarily GST, the exact position of TR concerning LM does not matter. The locative marker here 29

LOCAL CASES

Table 2.2  Difference in locative marker in two groups Languages Group1

Group 2

Two layers of locatives markers showing two-way distinction Layer 1 can only be used with deixis; TR+GEN Deixis LOC

One marker; GST Can only be used with deixis; TR+GEN Deixis LOC (except Odia). Odia does not need the Genitive marker before the deictic element Cannot be used with animates

Can be used with both animates and inanimates

serves the purpose of showing the connection between the TR and the LM. In work by Bowerman and Pederson, 1992; and also Bowerman & Choi, 2001) the “attachment” area was seen as a category invaded by the encroachment of large in and on categories. The attachment area here too can be seen as a category which is reflected through locative markers in abstract locations. When some exact location is perceived, then to mark it the deictic elements are used for both concrete and abstract objects (Table 2.2). 2.57

kukur-tu-e lorɑ-to-r dog-Clf-Agt boy-Clf-Gen The dog barked at the boy.

2.58

ɔnek-er ur-t̪e bʰɔe many-Gen fly-Loc fear Many people are scared of flying.

2.59

opor-ɔt on-in/Loc kɔre do

bʰuki bark

ut̪ʰil rose

(Asa)

(Ban)

dʰ̪obi upɔr-e bɑhut̪ runɔ ɔcʰi (Odi) washerman on-Loc lot debt Aux There is lots of debt on the washerman (The washerman is in debt).

2.4 Dynamic A prototypical motion event “consists of one object (the ‘Figure’) moving or located with respect to another object (the reference-object or ‘Ground’)... [T]he ‘Path’... is the course followed or site occupied by the Figure object with respect to the Ground object” (Talmy, 1985, pp. 61). The location of a dynamic object can be perceived from different points with reference to its LM. Generally, the main verb is the motion verb. The three basic dynamic locations are the source (from where the TR starts moving), the path (through or via which the TR travels) and the goal (the point that the TR reaches or aims to reach). In addition to these, additional

30

LOCAL CASES

complexities can be added to the location depending on the manner of the motion. “A motion event can have a ‘Manner’ or a ‘Cause”’ (Talmy, 1985, p. 61), which can affect the relationship between the TR and the LM. Moreover, the basic three – source, path and goal – can be further scrutinized to look at different dimensions. Jackendoff (1983) and Landau and Jackendoff (1993) give subclasses of path: via, to, from and away from. Ahmed (2009) explains the use of the Urdu/Hindi se and Pashto pa by using the feature Path which has subclasses source, via and end. Here, for both Group 1 and 2 languages I have taken two basic dynamic positions. One is the separation of the TR from the point where the action starts (LM). This point of separation can be called the Source. The second is the Path through which the TR travels. The relation between the Path and the TR is marked by the local case. The Goal is often included with the Source and the Path but it is not included here because both Group 1 and 2 languages use the same static marker to locate the position of the TR when it reaches its destination. When the TR reaches its goal it becomes static, which justifies the use of static case markers that are used with the goal. 2.4.1 Source The Ablative case marks the relationship between the object (TR) and its source (LM). The source is marked in Angika, Magahi and Bhojpuri by the marker /se/, in Maithili by /sə̃/ or /sə/, in Asamiya by /porɑ/, in Bangla by /t̪ʰeke/ and in Odia by /t̪ʰɑru/ or /t̪ʰu/. In Bangla, if TR gets separated from an animate object (i.e. if LM is animate) then the ablative marker /t̪ʰeke/ needs to follow the Genitive marker (GEN) /-er/ or /-r/. The Genitive marker in Asamiya (/-ɔr/ or /-r/) always precedes the ablative marker, irrespective of the object’s animacy status. 2.60

ɑurɑt̪ meɟ se gərd̪ɑ: pocʰɑlkɑe woman-Clf table Abl dust wiped The woman cleaned the dust from the table.

(Ang)

2.61

per-wɑ se seo girləi tree-Clf Abl apple fell The apple fell from the tree.

(Mag)

2.62

pəisɑ oiɟɑ se money there Abl Money fell from there.

(Bho)

2.63

o ləɽka gam sə cəil that boy village Abl walk That boy went away from the village.

girəl fell

31

gel went

(Mai)

LOCAL CASES

2.64

mekuri-tu sɑd̪-ɔr cat-Clf roof-Gen The cat fell from the roof.

2.65

cʰele-tɑ skul t̪ʰeke boy-Clf school Abl The boy escaped from the school.

2.66

cʰɑtro ʃikkʰɔk-er t̪ʰeke boi student teacher-Gen Abl book The student took the book from the teacher.

2.67

guri-ti se t̪ʰɑru kite-Clf that Abl The kite fell from there.

pɔrɑ Abl

(Asa)

poril fell pɑlie escape

pɔri fall

gælo went

(Ban)

nilo took

(Ban)

(Odi)

gəla went

In all the above examples, it can be seen that TR gets separated from its source. The process of separation denotes that the object is related to some motion; hence, it is in a dynamic location. However, the motion is not always overt like in the example from Angika. It may seem that the agent ‘woman’ is in motion, but it is the ‘dust’ that gets displaced. The ‘dust’ is separated from the table, so the relation between the ‘dust’ and the ‘table’ is marked out by the ablative case. Similarly, in the Bangla example, the ‘book’ gets separated from the ‘teacher’. The source for the ‘book’ is the ‘teacher’. The use of the Genitive marker with the animate LM focuses on the fact that the animated source possesses the TR before it is separated from the LM (discussed further in § 5.3.1.2). The source may not always be direct. There can be an expected source, like when asking a question of someone. It is assumed that the source of the answer will be the one to whom the question has been asked. In all these languages the ablative case marker is used in the sentences which carry the meaning of expected separation from the excepted source, through asking or begging (which implies an expected source). In such sentences the expected source is the LM, and the excepted object of separation (e.g. answer for the question and alms for the begging) is the TR. Like any regular ablative case marked sentence, here too the TR is perceived to become separated (in expectation) from the LM. 2.68

ləikə-wɑ əpən məiː-jɑ se boy-Clf his mother-Clf Abl The boy asked for money from his mother.

2.69

lərki kɨtɑb sə̃ ek-ʈɑ girl book Abl one-Clf The girl tore one page from the book.

2.70

u kitab sɔ nai he book Abl not He did not read from the book.

32

pəiːsɑ money

pənnɑ page

pɔrlke read

mɑ̃gkəiː asked

pʰɑɖlək tore

(Mag)

(Mai)

(Ang)

LOCAL CASES

2.71

həm i kit̪ɑb d̪illi I this book Delhi I will buy this book from Delhi.

2.72

xi t̪ɑ-r bond̪ʰu-r porɑ ouxd̪ (s)he (s)he-Gen friend-Gen Abl medicine (S)he bought medicine from her/his friend.

2.73

o raɟa-r t̪ʰeke (s)he king-Gen Abl He begged from the king.

2.74

corɔʈi buɽi lokɔʈi t̪ʰɑru poisɑ thief old woman Abl money The thief stole money from the old woman.

se Abl

bʰikkʰe alms

kine:li buy kinile bought

(Asa)

(Ban)

cɑilo asked cori steal

(Bho)

kɔlɑ do

(Odi)

Another type of source is the source of experience, as in dative subject sentences (Ahmed, 2007 discusses this for Pasto). In Group 1 languages, the ablative case is also marked with the source of experience. The source of experience can be defined as a physical or abstract object which creates an experience (triggers a feeling) of either a psychological or a physiological nature. In such sentences, an experience is perceived to be emerging from a source. The ablative case marks the source of anger, fear or other psychological or physiological experiences. In example 2.75 ‘a lion’ is the source of fear for ‘the man’. In this set of languages, for the source of experiences the ablative marker can also be replaced with the locative marker /per/, without any change in the meaning of the sentence. For example, in sentence 2.76 the ablative marker is replaced with the locative marker /per/ (2.77) in Bhojpuri. However, the other locative marker /me/ cannot replace the ablative marker (due to their different features, as mentioned in §§ 2.1 & 2.3). 2.75

ɑd̪mi ke sɨŋʰ sə̃ man Obj lion Abl The man was scared of the lion.

2.76

u hɔm-rɑ se he I-Obl Abl He/she is angry with me.

2.77

u hɔm-rɑ per gussɑ he I-Obl Loc angry He/she is angry on (with) me.

gussɑ angry

ɖər fear

lɑgəl feel

(Mai)

(Bho)

bɑ is

(Bho)

bɑ is

In Asamiya, Bangla and Odia, for expressions where there is a source for experience (as defined above), the accusative case is used. 2.78

mɑnuh-jon-e bɑgh-to-k mɑn-Clf-Agt tiger-Clf-Obj The man was scared of the lion.

33

bʰoj fear

kʰɑise felt

(Asa)

LOCAL CASES

2.79

mɑnuʃ bɑgʰ ke bʰɔe man lion Obj fear The men are scared of the lion.

pɑe feel

(Ban)

2.80

mɔɳisɔʈi-ku siŋgʰɔ-ku dɔr man-Obj lion-Obj fear The man was scared of the lion.

lɑgilɑ feel

(Odi)

The ablative case also marks the perceived source of time and space. It is used to mark the starting time of any event when used with the temporal deixis. If time is seen as a scale, the starting time becomes the source of the event because from that point in time the action starts. The action here is TR, whereas the timescale is LM. The displacement is between the two time spans. 2.81

hɔm bʰor sə̃ sɑnjʰ t̪ɑk I morning Abl evening till I worshipped from morning to evening.

2.82

hɔm somɑr se sənicr I Monday Abl Saturday I work from Monday to Saturday.

2.83

ɑmi sɔkɑl t̪ʰeke poɽcʰi I morning Abl studying I am studying since morning (I am studying since the morning).

2.84

rɑm sɔkʰɑl t̪ʰɑru soicʰi (Odi) Ram morning Abl sleep Ram is sleeping since morning (Ram is sleeping from the morning till now).

tɑk till

puɟɑ worship kɑm work

kərə do

keləm did

(Mai)

hiɑi: Aux

(Mag)

(Ban)

Similarly, it is used with the spatial location where the deictic element is used to mark a certain distance. Here the source is the LM from which the distance is measured. The measurement is stated to mark the distance. The direct movement of the TR is not visible, but it is an instance of the use of the ablative case with the abstract object. In the following examples (2.85 & 2.86) the distance between the two points is measured where one point is taken as a source (‘here’) and the other as a goal (‘house’). The distance is conceptualized as a path. The perceived path starts from one point and ends at another (Table 2.3). 2.85

ɑmɑ-r bari ekʰɑn I-Gen house here My house is far away from here.

2.86

hɔm-ɑr ghɔr kʰet̪ se d̪ur I-Gen house field Abl far My house is far away from the field.

34

t̪ʰeke Abl

ɔnek far bɑ is

d̪u:r away

(Ban)

(Bho)

LOCAL CASES

Table 2.3  The semantics of the ablative marker Semantics

Examples

Languages

Separation

Separation from the source (e.g. 2.60) Something taken directly from someone/something (e.g. 2.69) Asking, begging (e.g. 2.68) Fear, anger (e.g. 2.75)

In all

Time or Place as the source of the action, starting point (e.g. 2.81 & 2.85)

In all

Direct source With the expected source With the source of experience With the deictic elements

In all In all Not in Bangla

2.4.2 Path The Path is the LM through which the TR passes. It can be concrete or abstract. The case relation which marks the Path or the relation between the TR and the LM where the TR passes through LM is called the Perlative (Per) case. The case relation is also sometimes marked just as Path. Creissels (2009) mentions some features of the markers used to encode the Path. Some of these apply for the EIA languages. 1 Ablative markers are often used to encode not only source but also Path 2 Path may also be encoded by a complex case marker consisting of an ablative marker plus an extension 3 Path may be encoded by means of the combination of a spatial case and an adposition 4 Instrumental case markers or adpositions often have the expression of Path as one of their possible uses, even in languages that have a distinction between an instrumental case/adposition and the ablative case. In Group 1 languages, the ablative marker is also used to mark the Path, and the marker is the same as the instrumental case marker. However, in Group 2 languages (except Odia), there are different markers for the ablative case and the Path. The path marker is shared with the instrumental case marker. The use of the instrumental marker for marking the Path is a common feature in many languages. It has even been noted that the instruments are conceptualized as abstract Paths (Ostler 1979). 2.4.2.1  Group 1 Angika, Bhojpuri, Maithili and Magahi use the same marker for the source and the path, which is common for the instrument. The common marker for 35

LOCAL CASES

both the source and the path can lead to ambiguity, as can be seen in the following examples. 2.87

wẽ pul se ɟɑ:j (s)he bridge Abl go (S)he goes through the bridge.

2.88

ʊ ɟəŋgəl se ɟɑ (s)he forest Abl go (S)he goes through the forest.

2.89

rɑm stesən se gʰər Ram station Abl house Ram goes home through the station.

2.90

o pul sə̃ ɟɑit̪ (s)he bridge Abl go (S)he goes through the bridge.

(Ang)

cʰəi Aux

(Mag)

həi Aux ɟɑilɑ go

(Bho)

(Mai)

rəhəl Aux

In the above examples it is hard to say whether the person passed through the forest, bridge or station or went away from forest, bridge or station. These sentences can be made unambiguous by looking at the context or by the use of the verb ‘ho’ + ‘ke’, which together means ‘through’. 2.91

ʊ ɟəŋgəl se hoke (s)he forest Abl be (S)he goes through the bridge.

ɟɑ go

həi Aux

(Mag)

2.92

rɑm stesən se hoke gʰər Ram station Abl be house Ram goes home through the station.

ɟɑlən go

(Bhoj)

To show the exact position of the moving TR with reference to the LM, the locative marker or locative deixis is also used at times with the ablative marker. The locative marker in such usage tells the location of the TR concerning LM while the ablative marker marks the LM as the path. This is a common expression which is explained by Kracht. He gives the structure [M [L DP]]. According to this, M is a modalizer (specifying the mode), L a localizer (specifying the configuration) and DP a determiner phrase (Kracht, 2002a). A modalizer for Kracht is a type of movement concerning location. However, if the modalizer is here taken just as a movement with respect to its location, then Kracht’s structure can be used to explain the use of both the locative and the ablative case for a dynamic TR. The structure for these languages will be [[DP L]M]. 2.93

o pul ke upər (s)he bridge Gen on/Loc (S)he goes through the bridge.

36

sə̃ Abl

ɟɑit̪ go

ɑcʰi Aux

(Mai)

LOCAL CASES

2.94

ʊ ɟɔŋgəl ke bʰit̪re (s)he forest Gen inside (S)he goes from inside the forest.

se Abl

ɟɑ go

həi Aux

(Mag)

2.4.2.2 Group 2 In Asamiya, Bangla and Odia the ablative marker is not used for the Path. In Asamiya and Bangla the marker for the Path is the same as that for the instrumental, like in Group 1 languages. 2.95

xi dolong-kʰon-ɔr he bridge-Clf-Gen He goes through the bridge.

2.96

ʃe ɟɔŋgol d̪ie (s)he forest Inst (S)he goes through the forest.

2.97

se pulo-d̪ei ɟɑe (s)he bridge-Per go (S)he goes through the bridge.

mɑje-re middle-Inst

ɟɑj goes

ɟɑe go

(Asa)

(Ban)

(Odi)

It should be noted that all the languages of Groups 1 and 2 use a common marker for both the instrument and the path except Odia. It is perhaps the only language in the Eastern Indo-Aryan group which has a different marker for the path which does not mark any other case relations. A separate case for the path is not a feature typical of IA languages, but such a case is found in a few Dravidian and Australian languages (Blake, 1987). The following are some more examples from Odia: 2.98

mu pɑhɑd-d̪ei sɑhɑr I hill-Per town I go to the town through the hills

2.99

mu skul kʰet̪-d̪ei I school field-Per I go to school through the field.

ku Obj

ɟɑe go

(Odi)

ɟɑe go

Table 2.4 shows the different case relations and their semantics across the EIA languages used to mark the dynamic locations.

Table 2.4  Case markers used to mark dynamic locations Case Markers Languages

Source

Path

Group 1 Asamiya & Bangla Odia

Ablative/Instrumental Ablative Ablative

Ablative/Instrumental Instrumental Perlative

37

LOCAL CASES

2.5  Static verses dynamic The use of the verb generally decides whether the TR is static or dynamic. However, sometimes when the TR is just a patient, then depending on the context, the TR can either be marked by the static marker or the dynamic marker. Replacing one with the other may not bring a huge difference to the meaning. However, they are pragmatically different and contextually bound. Native speakers naturally choose the marker depending on the context. However, when speakers are asked, in isolation, to differentiate between the sentences with different markers, then speakers are unable to differentiate the meaning. This point is elaborated through the following examples from Angika. 2.100a

hɑmmẽ

dilli

mẽ

i

kit̪ɑ:b

kinɑbɑe

I

Delhi

in/Loc

this

book-Clf

buy.Fut

(Ang)

I will buy this book in Delhi. 2.100b

hɑmmẽ

dilli

se

i

kit̪ɑ:b

kinɑbɑi

I

Delhi

Abl

this

book-Clf

buy.Fut

I will buy this book from Delhi.

To use the locative case in example 2.100a, the speaker has to be in the same place. When the speaker uses the ablative case, it means he/she may not be in the same place to buy it. He/she can buy it (make the book separated from a place) from another place. This can be clearly understood from the following example. Flipkart/Amazon is an online store. The buyer can never be ‘in’ it (as it is not a physical place), so here the use of the locative marker is inappropriate. 2.100c

hɑmmẽ

pʰilipkɑrt/amazon

se

i

kit̪ɑ:b

kinɑbɑi

I

Flipkart/Amazon

Abl

this

book-Clf

buy.Fut

(Ang)

I will buy this book from Flipkart/Amazon. 2.100d

hɑmmẽ

pʰilipkɑrt/amazon

me/per

i

kit̪ɑ:b

I

Flipkart

Loc

this

book-Clf

kinɑbɑi* buy.Fut

In the following examples, it can be seen that the locative marker can be replaced by the ablative marker, but again it is context bound. The locative marker in the first sentence (2.101a) focuses on the location of the dust which was possessed by the top of the table. In the second sentence (2.101b), the dust was taken away from the table. It can be from any part of the table or from the whole table, unlike the prior example where the dust from the top of the table was cleaned. 38

LOCAL CASES

2.101a

əurət̪

meɟə

per

ke

gərd̪ɑ

ɟʰɑrli

woman

table

on/Loc

Gen

dust

wiped

(Bhoj)

The woman cleaned the dust which was on the table. 2.101b

əurət̪

meɟə

se

gərd̪ɑ

ɟʰɑrli

woman

table

Abl

dust

wiped

The woman cleaned the dust from the table.

Similar examples cannot be found in Group 2 languages. The case markers are not interchangeable for the same structure. Whenever there is a verb of separation (like, buy, fall, bring, etc.) there has to be an ablative case. The locative marker can be used to mark the location of a static object or to show an object reaching its goal. In example 2.102b the expected goal (Delhi) hosts the locative marker. 2.102a

2.102b

ɑmi

boi-tɑ

d̪illi-t̪e

kinbo

I

book-Clf

Delhi-Loc

buy.Fut

ɑmi

boi-tɑ

d̪illi-t̪e

gie

kinbo

I

book-Clf

Delhi-Loc

go

buy.Fut

(Not good)

(Ban)

I will go to Delhi and buy this book. 2.102c

ɑmi

boi-tɑ

d̪illi-t̪ʰeke

kinbo

I

book-Clf

Delhi-ABL

buy.Fut

I will buy this book from Delhi.

2.6 Conclusion In this chapter, local cases of two positions, static and dynamic, have been discussed. The locative case is used to show the static location of a TR. On the surface, it seems that Group 1 languages have two locative markers, while Group 2 has one locative marker. The Group 2 locative marker can be said to be a GST (General Spatial Term). It does not mark any exact location (such as on, in, under) of the TR in relation to the LM, but it shows the link or ‘attachment’ (Bowerman and Pederson, 1992; and also Bowerman & Choi, 2001) between the two. I argue that the Group 1 languages also had one locative marker (me/mẽ) which was used as a GST, but a recent development has included another locative marker for this group of languages. The deictic marker /upəre/ has been grammaticalized to /pər/, affecting the locative marking in Group 1 languages. The detailed argument is given in § 2.1 and 2.3. The two locatives function differently; hence, they have been marked as Level 1 and Level 2 markers (§ 2.3). One marker is used when the LM is perceived as an 39

LOCAL CASES

Level 2: Periphery

Level 1

Level 1 Level (enclosement)

Level 2 OVER LAPPING

Figure 2.1 Two layers of the locative case. Source: adapted from Lahiri, 2013: p. 112.

enclosed figure, while the other (Level 2) is used when the axis of the LM has to be pointed out. However, at times Level 1 and 2 may overlap, which is illustrated in Figure 2.1. As discussed in the chapter, there are many cases which help in marking location. As well as the locative case, the ablative, instrumental and perlative cases are used in these languages to mark different locations of an object. Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of the different cases in the EIA languages. The Group 1 languages use two cases as the local case: locative and ablative. The locative is used to mark a static position, whereas the ablative is used to mark a dynamic position, including both the source and the path. The ablative marker is the same as the instrumental marker in these languages. Local Cases Static Location

Group 1

Locatives

Dynamic

Source

Group 2

Group 1 & 2

Locatives

Ablative

Path

Group 1

Asamiya, & Bangla

Ablative

Instrumental Perlative

Instrumental Level 1

Level 2

GST

Figure 2.2  The use of the local cases in both groups.

40

Odia

LOCAL CASES

In Group 2 languages, it can be seen that Asamiya and Bangla use three local cases. One is used to mark a static location, and the other two are used to mark a dynamic location. They use two different markers for the source and the path. The marker for the source is ablative and the marker for the path is instrumental. Odia also uses three local cases to mark the various relations between the LM and the TR. One is used to mark a static location and the other two, like in Asamiya and Bangla, are used to mark a dynamic location. However, unlike Asamiya and Bangla (and Group 1 languages), the marker for the Path is shared with neither an ablative marker nor an instrumental marker, which is an uncommon factor for the Eastern IndoAryan group.

41

Chapter 3 INSTRUMENTAL CASE

3.1 Introduction “An instrumental case encodes the instrument with which an action is carried out” (Blake, 2001, p. 154). Palancar (2002) defines the instrument as an object which is manipulated by the agent to bring some change in the patient. However, like other case markers, the instrumental marker also crosses its boundary of instrumental usage and serves other purposes. The instrument used in the instrumental case has often been classified depending upon its characteristics and the type of verb it accompanies. The classification included categories such as that of basic tools (Lehmann & Shin, 2005), which has been further categorized as artefacts, body parts, etc., abstract tools, medium, agent for passives and companions. A study by Stolz (2001) shows that the use of instrumental as agentive and comitative is most popular. This polysemy has been well explored by many linguists, including Janda (1993), Stolz (2001), Luraghi (2001) and Palancar (2002). Though the instrumental marker serves as agentive and comitative in many languages, it has also been identified as a typical case for inanimate objects (Narrog, 2009). This feature of being unpopular with animates makes the instrumental stand differently from comitative and agentive (Nilsen, 1973). Janda (1993), in describing the Russian Instrumental case, gives a summary of instrumental roles. She divides the roles into various schemas. According to Janda, the instrumental has only four roles: it can serve as a conduit for the action of the verb (“conduit Instrumental”), it can become the setting for the action (“Instrumental of setting”), it can be juxtaposed with one of the non-oblique participants (“attributive Instrumental”), or it can be merely proximate to one of the participants. (Janda, 1993, p. 139) These four roles have been further divided into various categories depending on the semantics of their usages. Langacker (1986) distinguishes the instrumental from the accusative primarily by their relative positions in the 42

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

event chain (i.e., the accusative is the furthest downstream). However, he does refer to distinctions in their case roles. Langacker (1987) labels the accusative an “energy sink”, and the instrumental a “noncentral participant”. The instrumental case in EIA languages is always used with non-­volitional agents [--volitional] – i.e. it needs an external force to make the agent work. However, interestingly, instruments can be grouped with the agent when they behave like an agent and bring a change in the patient. Similarly, they can even be grouped with the patient when they suffer change along with the patient due to the effect of the agent on it (Naess, 2007). Both of these kinds can be found in EIA languages. They are discussed in detail in the following sections.

3.2  Core instruments In this section I describe the instruments which help the agent perform an action. Here, the instrument works as a means to achieve the goal. It can be classified as an entity which helps the agent make the event occur (Langacker, 1991). Baker (1992) describes the instrumental case as a kind of intermediate agent theme. He explains it using the example of bread and a knife. He states that in the first act of the event chain, the knife changes its location. However, it does not suffer any change of state. In the second act, the knife acts on the bread in such a way that the bread is cut and so the state of the bread changes. Though the knife changes location it does not suffer any change within itself. It just acts as a mediator which is of no use after the completion of the action. Here, the instrument becomes a path to reach the goal. This is explained in Figure 3.1. In Group 1 languages, case syncretism can be found between the instrumental and ablative cases as both are marked by the marker /se/ or /sə/. 3.1

ɑ:d̪mi: bənd̪uk sə ɑppən d̪usmən man gun Inst his enemy The man killed his enemy with a gun.

3.2

lərkɑ pət̪t̪ʰər sə̃ kʰɨrki boy stone Inst window The boy broke the window with the stone.

3.3

ləikɑ sɑ̃pə ke lɑt̪ʰi boy snake Obj stick The boy killed the snake with the stick.

AGENT

kə Obj t̪oɨr break

se Inst

INSTRUMENT

Figure 3.1  Agent reaching action through Instrument.

43

mɑir kill

d̪elke (Ang) gave

d̪elək gave mərələk killed

ACTION

(Mai)

(Bho)

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

3.4

ləik-wɑ cəku-ɑ se seo boy-Clf knife-Clf Inst apple The boy cut the apple with a knife.

kɑt cut

d̪elkəi gave

(Mag)

There are two types of instruments: animate and inanimate. Instruments which are inanimate need to be handled by the agent and they can be termed as inanimate instruments for the simple reason that they are inanimate. There are some animate objects which perform as an instrument for the agent. They are termed as animate instruments (described in detail in § 3.4). These instruments are used by the agent to perform an action but are not handled by the agent. Asamiya uses the markers /–ere/ and /-d̪i/ to mark the instrument. Both the instrumental markers of Asamiya share the same distribution. In Bangla the marker is /d̪ie/ with inanimate instruments (Lahiri, 2012). The locative and instrumental marker /–re/ is homophonous in Odia but it cannot be used with animate objects. However, Group 2 languages have different markers for animate instruments. 3.5

lorɑ-ɟon-e lɑtʰi-re xɑp-dɑl-ɔk boy-Clf-Agt stick-Inst snake-CLf-Obj The boy hit the snake with a stick.

3.6

xikʰok-ɟon-e chɑlk-dɑl-ere teacher-Clf-Agt chalk-Clf-Inst The teacher is writing with the chalk.

3.7

3.8

likʰise writing

̪ lukɔ-ti katʰi-re gʰɔrə t̪iɑri man-Clf wood-Inst house make The man built the house with the wood. cʰele-tɑ pɑt̪ʰor d̪ie ɟɑnlɑtɑ boy-Clf stone Inst window The boy broke the window with the stone.

kobɑle hit

(Asa)

(Asa)

kəla did bʰeŋe break

(Odi)

d̪ilo gave

(Ban)

Even body parts can be used as instruments. Body parts, being just parts of a body, are inanimate and hence fall under the category of inanimate instruments. Therefore these languages use the marker for an inanimate instrument for body parts. The following are some examples from both groups which show a body part being used as an instrument. 3.9

mo-i mu-r I-Agt I-Gen I walk with my legs.

bʰori-re leg-Inst

3.10

ɑmi hɑt̪ I hand I eat rice with my hand

d̪ie Inst

44

kʰuz walk bʰɑ:t̪ rice

kɑrhu do kʰɑi eat

(Asa)

(Ban)

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

3.11

hɔnumɑn tɑnko lɑnɟɔ-re lɔŋkɑ-re niɑ lɑgɑi d̪ele (Odi) Hanuman his tail-Inst Lanka-Loc fire put gave Hanuman put fire in Lanka with his tail (Hanuman burnt Lanka with the fire on his tail).

3.12

ləik-wɑ əpən bʰəi-wɑ ke boy-Clf his brother-Clf Obj The boy hit his brother with leg.

3.13

rɑɟu mɑjɑ ke ɑ:pən Raju Maya Obj own Raju saw Maya with his own eyes.

lət̪iɑ: kick

ɑ̃kʰ eye

se Inst

se mɑrəlkəi Inst hit

(Mag)

d̪ekʰələn saw(+Hon)

(Bho)

3.3  Partial Patient In some uses of instrumental case, the instrument does not help directly in the action but it is part of the action. Such instruments are termed a Partial Patient. The object taking the instrumental case stays there even after completion of the action, which is in contrast to the instrumental case used with basic instruments. This idea can be elaborated with English examples such as (a) I killed the snake with a stick and (b) I filled the glass with the water. In example (a) the stick does not need to remain on the snake after killing it to keep it dead. If instead of a stick in example (a) we use an arrow and the arrow is stuck in the snake’s body, it is still similar to killing with a stick as the arrow does not have to be on the snake to keep it dead. Its work is over after the action is completed. The instrument in such sentences just performs the action, and then it no longer needs to remain with the patient. In example (b) the water needs to be in the glass to make the glass full. It does not only perform an action; rather, it becomes part of the patient during the process of the action. It is not there only to perform the action, but it is part of the action, the absence of which will leave the action undone. In such type of constructions, the instrumental case works more like a locative case. It gives the instrument a location in the scene of the action. After the completion of the action if the instrument is to be described, then the location of it will be stated. In the process of the action, the instrument becomes the TR and the patient the LM. The glass is filled with (Inst) the water (e.g. (b)), but after that the water is in (Loc) the glass. The state of water changes from that of an instrument into the part of the patient. Such usage of the instrumental case can be found in both Group 1 and Group 2 languages. The following are pairs of sentences from each of these languages, with different verbs showing the use of the instrumental case, where the instrument becomes an inseparable part of the event. 3.14a

ɑ:d̪mi: gʰorɑ: ke rɑssi: man horse Obj rope The man tied the horse with the rope.

45

sə Inst

bɑ:nəlhɑke tied

(Ang)

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

3.14b

gʰorɑ: rɑssi: sə bɑ:nəl horse rope Inst tied The horse is tied up with the rope.

cʰɑi Aux

3.15a

simɑ gilɑs pɑni se Sima glass water Inst Sima filled the glass with water.

3.15b

gilɑs pɑni se bʰərəl glass water Inst fill The glass is filled with water.

3.16a

ɑdmi ləkri sə̃ gʰər man-Clf wood-Clf Inst house The man made the house with the wood.

3.16b

gʰər ləkri sə̃ house wood Inst The house made of wood.

3.17a

lərki pʰul se gʰər səɟɑ girl flower Inst house decorate The girl decorated the house with the flowers.

3.17b

gʰər pʰul se səɟəl house-Clf flower Inst decorated The house is decorated with flowers.

bɑ Aux

3.18a

suwɑli-ɟoni-e gilɑs-to pɑni-re girl-Clf-Agt glass-Clf water-Inst The girl filled the glass with water.

bʰorɑi fill

3.18b

gilɑs-to pɑni-re bʰori glass-Clf water-Inst fill The glass is filled with the water.

3.19a

mu ɟʰɑɽɔ-re bʰiɟi I sweat-Inst wet I got wet with sweat.

gɔla went

3.19b

mu ɟʰɑɽɔ-re bʰiɟi I sweat-Inst wet I am wet with sweat.

ɔcʰi went

3.20a

bɑɽi-tɑ ɑ:lo d̪ie ʃɑɟɑlɑm house-Clf light Inst decorate (I) decorated the house with the lights.

3.20b

bɑɽi-tɑ ɑ:lo d̪ie ʃɑɟɑno house-Clf light Inst decorated. The house is decorated with the lights.

bʰər fill

bənəl made

d̪eləkəiː gave

(Mag)

həi Aux bənəilək made

(Mai)

əcʰɨ Aux d̪elək gave

dile gave

(Bho)

(Asa)

ɑse Aux (Odi)

(Ban)

In the above examples it can be seen that the instrument not only helps in the completion of the action but also becomes inseparable part of it. It starts

46

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

AGENT

INSTRUMENT

PATIENT

Figure 3.2  Instrument as Partial Patient. Source: Naess, 2007, p. 97.

like an instrument but ends up acting the part of the patient. Figure 3.2 is a schematic representation adapted from Naess (2007, p. 97).

3.4  Second agent (Causatives) When the instrumental case is used with the animate instrument, then the verb becomes a double causative. Explaining the instrumental marker in Hindi, Naess (2007) describes the animate instrument as the non-affected agent, while Saksena (1982) explains it as a causee, which is the means towards the end. It can be said that causative sentences have two agents in these languages. The primary agent can be termed the First agent as it initiates the action in the event chain. However, it does not do the work by itself; rather, it uses an animate instrument, which can be termed the Second agent, to do the work. The use of the instrumental case seems to be entirely justified as the Second agent works as an instrument for the First agent. However, the form of the verb changes to causative, which is not so when there is an inanimate instrument. This may be explained by the fact that when there is an inanimate instrument, the work has to be done by the First agent. When there is an animate instrument, then the First agent does not need to do the work itself; the First agent needs to instruct the instrument (the Second agent) to do the action. The animate instrument, being animate, can do the work by itself. When there is an inanimate instrument, then there has to be a physical connection between the agent and the instrument to get the work done. When there is an animate instrument, there is no need for a physical connection between the agent and the instrument (the Second agent). This is explained through the schemas illustrated in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. It should also be noted that in Figure 3.3, only one action is involved in the event chain: the agent using the instrument to perform the action.

AGENT

INANIMATE INSTRUMENT

ACTION

Figure 3.3  Connection between the inanimate instrument and the agent.

47

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

AGENT

ANIMATE INSTRUMENT

ACTION

Figure 3.4  Connection between the animate instrument (Second agent) and the (First) agent.

In Figure 3.4, there are two actions in the event change: the action of First agent in employing the Second agent for the action. Here the action of the event chain is initiated. Then the Second agent performs the action. Here the action of the event chain gets completed. The Second agent may even use another instrument to complete the work. 3.21

lərki nəukrɑni sə̃ kəmrɑ sɑpʰ kərwɑ rəhəl cʰəl (Mai) girl maid Inst room clean do.Cau live Aux The girl was making the room cleaned by the maid (The girl was making the maid clean the room).

3.22

lərikɑ həm-rɑ ke kut̪tɑ boy I-Obl Obj dog The boy made the dog bite me.

3.23

məi-jɑ ləik-wɑ ke d̪əijɑ se d̪ʊd̪ʰ mother- boy-Clf maid Inst milk drink. Clf Obj Cau Mother made the maid feed milk to the baby.

3.24

rɑɟɑ sipɑhi sə ɟud̪ʰɔ lɔrwɑilke king knight Inst war did.Cau The king made the soldier fight in the war.

se Inst

kəitɑ bite.Cau

d̪eliək gave pilvəlkəiː

(Bho)

(Mag)

(Ang)

In many Indo-Aryan languages, the adjunct agent-causee of a causative construction is marked by an instrumental marker (Masica 1991, Saksena 1982, Kachru 1978, Hook 1979). In similar constructions, Asamiya uses the genitive marker /-r/ followed by the postposition /d̪ɑrɑ/ to mark the agentcausee. In such constructions there is a main agent (First agent) followed by an agent-causee (Second agent). The action is done by the agent-causee. The agent-causee performs the action but does not control the action. The action is controlled by the main agent through the agent-causee. In Group 2 languages, the instrumental case is marked differently for animate instruments (agent-causee or Second agent). When an animate instrument is used, then the verb of Group 2 languages, like Group 1 languages, becomes causative. These languages do not have double causatives so both the transitive and the intransitive verb change into causative. As mentioned above, Asamiya uses the genitive marker /-r/ followed by the postposition /d̪ɑrɑ/ to mark the instrument when it is an animate instrument. 48

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

3.25

rɔzɑ-i mo-r d̪ɑrɑ zud̪d̪ʰɔ king-Agt I-Gen Inst war The king made me fight in the war.

3.26

loɾɑ-tu-e kukur-tu-r d̪ɑrɑ boy-Clf-Agt dog-Clf-Gen Inst The boy made the dog bite me.

kɔrowɑle did.Cau mo-k I-Obj

(Asa)

kɑmurɑle bite

(Asa)

Odia too, like Asamiya, uses the postposition /d̪wɑrɑ/ to mark an animate instrument, but unlike Asamiya /d̪wɑrɑ/ it does not follow the genitive marker. However, when the marker /d̪wɑrɑ/ is used then the verb becomes causative. 3.27

cʰuɑ-ti kukur d̪wɑrɑ boy-Clf dog Inst The boy made the dog bite me.

3.28

mɑɭi d̪wɑrɑ bɔgicɑ sɑpʰɑ gardener Inst garden clean Get the garden cleaned by the gardener.

mot̪e I-Obj

kɑmoɽɑilɑ bite.Cau

(Odi)

kɔrɑu do.Cau

(Odi)

The inanimate instrumental marker /re/ can be used with an animate object if it is followed by the noun /sɑhɑɟo/ (help). Though in such sentences the real instrument is an animate instrument, the immediate instrument is the ‘help’ which, being an abstract noun, is taken as an inanimate instrument so it is followed by the marker /re/. In such sentences the verb does not become causative (e.g. 3.29). 3.29

rɑɟɑ sipɑhi-ti sɑhɑɟo-re ɟudʰə lɔɽile king knight-Clf help-Inst war fight The king fought the war with the help of the knight.

(Odi)

In such sentences there are two instruments: the animate instrument and the inanimate instrument. The agent uses the animate instrument to perform the action but the animate instrument performs the action with the help of an inanimate instrument. This is explained in Figure 3.5.

1st AGENT

ABSTRACT INSTRUMENT

2nd AGENT

ACTION

Figure 3.5  Connection between First agent, Second agent and the (abstract) inanimate instrument.

When the noun ‘help’ is used with an animate instrument in Asamiya and Bangla, then, like Odia, they do not take the usual instrumental marker. The ‘help’ noun in such instances is followed by the locative marker in both languages. Unlike Odia, in Asamiya and Bangla the noun ‘help’ has to follow the genitive marker attached to the Second agent. The noun ‘help’ is perceived as an object possessed by the Second agent (the animate Instrument), 49

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

which is used for the completion of an action and hence becomes the immediately needed instrument for the completion of the action, but it does not take the instrumental case. It may be argued that ‘help’ in Asamiya and Bangla is not perceived as an instrument so it does not take the instrumental case. It is perceived as a part of the animate body. This part (help) of the animate body (which is the instrument) and the body (animate instrument/ the Second agent) are bound together with the genitive marker. 3.30

rɔzɑ-i xoinnɔ-zɔn-ɔr xɔhɑj-ɔt zud̪d̪ʰɔ king-Agt knight-Clf-Gen help-Loc war The king fought the war with the help of the knight.

3.31

ɑmi bond̪ʰu-r ʃɑhɑɟʝe porikkʰɑ pɑʃ I friend-Gen help exam pass I passed the exam with the help of my friend.

korile did

korlɑm did

(Asa)

(Ban)

Bangla uses the accusative marker followed by the instrumental marker (ke + d̪ie) to mark the animate instrumental case. It also uses /d̪ɑrɑ/ with animates, which can be found in many other Indo-Aryan languages as it is derived from Sanskrit /d̪wɑrɑ/. 3.32

t̪umi mɑli ke d̪ie gɑcʰ you gardener Obj Inst tree You make the gardener plant the tree.

pot̪ɑo plant

(Ban)

Bangla has restricted use of /d̪ɑrɑ/. It can be found with the ‘non-agentive construction’ (Abbi, 1994). They are the only affected nominals without the power of an agent. In benefactive and attributive construction some action is being done to the subject, though sometimes the subject does some action but the action is not under his/her control. In such instances the construction is syntactically and semantically passive. As the agent does not have control over the action it works more like an instrument than an agent. It can only be used with the verb ‘happen’ /hɔbɑ/. It follows the genitive marker. This is also discussed in § 3.6 (Passives). 3.33

ɑmɑ-r d̪ɑrɑ hɔbe I-Gen by happen It can be done by me.

3.34

rimɑ-r d̪ɑrɑ hɔbe Rima-Gen by happen It cannot be done by Rima.

(Ban)

nɑ Neg

(Ban)

3.5  Non-volitional action The instrument can be recognized as an agent in the absence of an agent. The verb in such sentences is typically an explicative compound verb (ECV) in EIA languages. It is observed that these types of constructions generally 50

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

use grammaticalized verb forms like ‘ɟɑit̪ɑi’, ‘gel’, ‘golu’, ‘ɟibɑ’ (forms of the verb ‘go’) and ‘hɔbɑ’ (forms of the verb ‘happen’). The instrumental case is used with non-volitional action in both Group 1 and 2 languages. In such sentences the subject acts like a Patient or Experiencer while the Instrument works like an Agent. The usage of instrumental marker here overlaps with the one discusssed in § 3.4. It seems as if the instrument has control over the action, as can be seen in the following examples. In example 3.35 it can be said that the speaker is just conveying the message that through chapatti his/her breakfast will be done (chapatti will be enough for his/her breakfast). Here, the speaker does not show his/her direct involvement in the action; rather, (s)he shows himself/herself as a Patient. In example 3.36 (and other examples following it) the speaker acts like the Patient while the Instrument ‘sweat’ acts like an Agent. ɟɑit̪ɑi go

3.35

rɔt̪i: sə hɑmm-ɑr nɑst̪ɑ: hɔj chapatti Inst I-Gen breakfast do Chapatti will be enough for my breakfast.

3.36

həm pəsinɑ se I sweat Inst I got wet by sweat.

3.37

roʈie sə̃ həm-ər peʈ bʰəir gel chapatti Inst I-Gen stomach fill went My stomach got filled with chapatti (My stomach was filled by chapatti).

(Mai)

3.38

roti se kɑ:m nə cəli chapatti Inst work Neg go. Fut Chapatti will not do, rice is needed.

(Bho)

3.39

moi gʰɑme-re I sweat-Inst I got wet by sweat.

3.40

mu ɟʰɑɽɔ-re I sweat-Inst I got wet by sweat.

bʰig wet

titi wet bʰiɟi wet

(Ang)

geli went

(Mag)

cɑbəl rice

golu went

cɑhi want

(Asa)

gelɑ went

(Odi)

This type of construction is not possible in Bangla with the instrumental marker. The locative marker is used for such constructions. It should be noted that the ‘-e/t̪e’ is used in Bangla with other agentive constructions as well (discussed further in Chapter 6). 3.41

ɑmi gʰɑm-e I sweat-Loc I got wet by sweat.

3.42

ruti-t̪e ɑm-ɑr pet bʰorbe chapatti-Loc I-Gen stomach fill My stomach will not be full with chapatti.

bʰiɟe wet

gelɑm went

51

(Ban)

nɑ Neg

(Ban)

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

3.43.

ɑmi lɔɟɟɑ-e I shame-Loc I died of shame.

more gelɑm die

(Ban)

went

3.6 Passives The instrumental case marker is widely used with the agent of passive sentences. According to Bhatta (1989), Panini states that non-agentive cases such as ‘instrument’, ‘locus’, etc., are also the agents of different actions and therefore can be considered to be the kārākās. Both Group 1 and 2 languages use the instrumental marker to mark the agent of the passives; however, it is not commonly used in Bangla. 3.44

həm-rɑ se ɑuru I-Obl Inst more I cannot eat more.

nɑ Neg

ɟɑi walk

(Bhoj)

3.45

həm-rɑ sə̃ t̪elək sisi ʈuiʈ I-Obl Inst oil bottle broke The bottle of oil got broken by me.

gel went

(Mai)

3.46

pɑpɑ se rɑmu ke bəhʊt̪e father Inst Ramu Obj lots Ramu was beaten well by his father.

mɑr beat

3.47

həm-rɑ sə ɑ:ro I-Obl Inst more I cannot walk more.

3.48

mu d̪wɑrɑ t̪elɔ sisi bʰɔŋgi I Inst oil bottle broke The bottle of oil got broken by me.

3.49

telo-r botol-tu mo-r d̪ɑrɑ oil-Gen bottle-Clf I-Gen Inst The bottle of oil got broken by me

bʰɑgil broke

(Asa)

3.50

ɑm-ɑr d̪ɑrɑ ʃiʃi-ti oil-Gen Inst bottle-Clf The bottle got broken by me.

gælo went

(Ban)

kʰɑəl eat

buləl walk

nɑi Neg

bʰɑŋiɑ broke

ɟɑj go

pəɽləiː felt cʰɑi Aux

gɔlɑ went

(Mag)

(Ang)

(Odi)

There is very limited use of passive sentences in Bangla, and they are generally with the instrument marker /d̪ɑrɑ/. In Bangla most such constructions have become archaic and take the archaic form of the verb, as in example 3.50. Sentences such as example 3.50 are not used in speech any more, though they can be found in old, written literature. Some sentences with /d̪ɑrɑ/ can be used in speech (e.g. 3.51). Where the marker /d̪ɑrɑ/ can be used in speech it can be replaced with the instrumental marker for an animate instrument (ke + d̪ie) (e.g. 3.52), which is not possible with the archaic form of the verb, as in example 3.50. This can be seen in example 3.53. 52

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

3.51

t̪or d̪ɑrɑ hɔbe-nɑ you Inst do-Neg It cannot be done by you.

(Ban)

3.52

t̪o-ke d̪ie hɔbe-nɑ you-Obj Inst do-Neg It cannot be done by you.

(Ban)

3.53

ɑmɑ I

ke Obj

d̪ie Inst

ʃiʃi-tɑ bottle-Clf

bʰɑŋiɑ broke

gælo* went

(Ban)

3.7  Instrument of manner The instrumental case in Group 1 languages is used to modify the verb when it comes with adverbs. Many linguists may not agree on calling such usage an instance of the instrumental marker. I, however, insist on taking such instances as usages of the instrumental marker: in such structures the adverb carries the sense of contributing to the action, like an instrument. In such sentences, the instrumental marker, along with the adverb, works as an adverbial phrase. In these sentences, the adverb is not the instrument of the action through which the action is performed, but it helps in the completion of the action. It can be termed as Partial Instrument as it works like one. Janda describes such usage of an instrument as something “which channels the event, but does not participate in it” (Janda, 1993, p. 143). This statement can be found to be true because, like the core instrument or partial patient here, the instrument does not participate directly in the action and, without it, the action can be done as well. However, its presence adds to the action. 3.54

mɑjɑ ok-rɑ cupke se d̪ekʰkəiː (Mag) Maya (s)he-Obj hidden Inst saw Maya being unnoticed saw him/her (Unnoticed, Maya saw him/her).

3.55

rɑɟu ok-rɑ Raju he-Obj Raju saw him well.

3.56

gend̪ɑ t̪eɟi se ball fast Inst The ball is rolling fast.

3.57

ɑ:d̪əmi ɟor sə cikərəlkəi man loud Inst shouted The man shouted loudly.

əccʰɑ good

sə̃ Inst lud̪ʰəkət̪ rolled

d̪ekʰələk saw bɑ Aux

(Mai)

(Bho)

(Ang)

In Group 2 languages such use of the instrumental case is not found. This can be seen in the Bangla translation of the Angika sentence 3.57. Both the sentences are semantically and syntactically parallel, but the Bangla 53

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

sentence does not use the instrumental marker. This is the same for Asamiya and Odia. 3.58

lok-tɑ ɟore cecɑlo man-Clf loud shouted The man shouted loudly.

(Ban)

3.8 Reciprocal The instrumental case in these languages is also used with transitive verbs like ‘meet’, ‘talk’, etc., that include two agents. One is the active agent while other is the passive agent. Such uses can be found only in Group 1 languages, not in Group 2 languages. There are some actions which need two persons to complete the action. One is the active agent, the other the passive agent. The active agent performs the action with the help of the passive agent, which shows that the involvement of the passive agent in the action is equally important. Verbs which involve both agents can be contrasted with verbs that do not, such as ‘see’. Such verbs have only one agent, and the other object is the patient (not a passive agent). In ‘see’ only one person can see the other; the other may not get involved in the action, so these types of verbs do not take the instrumental case in these languages. 3.59

lərkɑ: lərki: kə boy girl Obj The boy saw the girl.

d̪ekʰɑlkɑi saw

(Ang)

In sentence 3.59, when the boy sees the girl it does not mean that the girl has seen him too. The girl is the patient while the boy is the agent. As the object of the sentence is not the passive agent the instrumental marker cannot be used here (instead, the accusative case has been used). But in sentence 3.60, when the boy talked to the girl, then the girl also had to participate in the action, by at least listening (and even responding). This makes her involved in the action, and hence ‘she’ is the passive agent of the action. In such instances, a reciprocal relationship is built between the two participants of the action. For such sentences, the instrumental marker is used. 3.60

lərkɑ: lərki: sə bɑt̪ boy girl Inst talk The boy talked to the girl.

kərelkəi did

3.61

bid̪jɑrt̪ʰi mɑstər se student master Inst The student met the teacher.

3.62

həm-rɑ ok-rɑ sə̃ roɟ I-Obj he/she-Obl Inst daily I have to talk to him/her daily.

(Ang)

milləi meet

54

bɑt̪ talk

(Mag)

kərə to do

pərəit̪ have

əcʰi Aux

(Mai)

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

3.63

həm unkə-rɑ se kʰet̪ I they-Obl Inst farm I will fight with him in the field.

me in/Loc

lərbəi fight

(Bho)

3.9  Nominalized verbs When verbs get nominalized and they are used as the reason for subsequent action, then they are followed by the instrumental marker. Here one action follows the other. The first action works as an instrument to cause the second action. Both the actions result in the completion of the event chain. Such usage of the instrumental marker is common in Group 1 languages but it is not found in Group 2 languages. In such sentences the nominalized verb phrase works as an instrument for another action. 3.64

ok-rɑ kit̪ɑb pərʰe se həm-rɑ nind̪ kʰət̪əm ho geləi (Mag) (s)he-Obj book read Inst I-Gen sleep end happen went My sleep vanished due to his/her reading of a book (I lost sleep due to his reading of a book).

3.65

bəhut̪ log ke ure se many people Obj fly Inst Many people are scared of flying.

3.66

rimɑ-k kəprɑ kʰərɨdə sə̃ həm-rɑ Rima-Gen clothes buying Inst I-Obj Rima’s buying clothes made me angry.

3.67

dər fear

lɑgelɑ feel gossɑ anger

(Bho)

ɑel came

(Mai)

ɔk-ɑr ɟor sə kit̪ɑ:b pərhɑlɑ: sə mɑt̪ʰɑd̪ərd̪ bʰe geləi (Ang) (s)he-Gen loud Inst book read Inst headach happen went Due to his/her reading loudly my headache started

(I got a headache due to his/her reading loud).

3.10  Instrumental or ablative The instrumental marker is used in some other settings, such as time, path and source. All these uses are related to instrumental cases in many languages. The usages of the instrumental and ablative cases overlap in Group 1 languages as the markers for both cases are the same in these languages. The instrumental case marker is used with the path in both groups of languages. “A path can be metaphorically conceived of as a method for accomplishing a goal” (Janda, 1993, p. 166). The similarities between an instrument of movement like a car and a path are perceived similarly. This is evident in the following pair of sentences where the instrumental case marker is used for both the car and the path.

55

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

ɟɑit̪ go

3.68

o gɑri sə̃ (s)he car Inst (S)he goes in a car.

3.69

o kʰet̪ sə̃ ɟɑit̪ (s)he field Inst go (S)he goes through the field.

ɑcʰi is

(Mai)

ɑcʰi is

(Mai)

Though the instrumental marker is used for path in Group 2 languages, it cannot be used with an instrument of movement such as a car (as in example 3.68). For time and source too these languages do not use the instrumental marker. They have a different marker for such uses (/t̪ʰeke/ in Bangla; /porɑ/ in Asamiya) which can safely be termed as the ablative case. But Group 1 languages have a common marker which serves the ablative case as well as the instrumental case. At times it is difficult to differentiate between the two. 3.70

ʊ ləiki-ɑ ʊ ləik-wɑ ke bəhut̪e d̪in se ɟɑnə həi (Mag) that girl-Clf that boy-Clf Obj many day Inst know Aux That girl knows the boy from a long time (Since long ago, that girl knows the boy).

3.71

ɟəb sə hum since Inst I Since I was born….

3.72

həm-ɑr gɑũ uk-rɑ gɑũ I-Gen village (s)he-Gen village My village is far from his village.

3.73

bəhute ke ʊɖə sə̃ many Obj fly Inst Many are afraid of flying.

pəid̪ɑ birth

holijɑi….. happen

ɖər fear

(Ang)

se Inst lɑgəi feel

d̪ur far cʰəi Aux

bɑ Aux

(Bho)

(Mai)

Time is perceived as a scale which is measured from a particular point with the help of the instrumental case. It is also used for space, source and comparison (see Chapter 2).

3.11  Comparative and Comitative Comparisons can be of two types: where an object is compared with another; and where an object is said to be like another (e.g. “girls are like angels”). Here girls are said to be like angels, which means they are equated with angels. This is known as the simulative case (Haspelmath, 2009; Crowley, 1998). When the comparison is between two or more unequal objects, then it is called the comparative case (Noonan, 2003). In the second type of comparison, two or more objects are compared, and the inequality between them is shown. This is done by making one object

56

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

superior or inferior to the other(s) – for example, “girls are better than angels”, where girls are not equated with angels but instead are shown to be superior to angels. It is in the second type of comparison that the instrumental marker is used in Group 1 languages. This is called the comparative case (Com). In Group 2 languages, the instrument marker is not used for such comparisons (see § 6.5). mit̪ʰɑ sweet

3.74

seu-ɑ kel-wɑ se apple-Clf banana-Clf Inst/Com The apple is sweeter than the banana.

3.75

koəl kɑ:g səb sə̃ cuckoo crow all Inst/Com Cuckoos sing sweeter than crows.

mi:t sweet

3.76

i ok-rɑ se nimən this it-Obl Inst/Com better This is better than that one.

bɑ Aux

3.77

rɑɟ mohɑn sə Raj Mohan Inst/Com Raj is taller than Mohan.

lɔmbɑ tall

cʰe Aux

həi Aux gəbəie sing

(Mag)

(Mai)

(Bho)

(Ang)

In Bangla the marker /d̪ie/ is also used to mark the comitative case with inanimate objects, where two objects are inanimate but they are with each other. 3.78

ɑmi macʰ d̪ie I fish Comi I eat fish with rice.

bʰɑt̪ rice

kʰɑi eat

However, if the objects are animate then the same marker is not used, as can be seen in example 3.79. The marker becomes genitive followed by the postposition /ʃɔŋge/ or /ʃɑt̪ʰe/. 3.79

ɑmi mɑ-r ʃɔŋge/ʃɑt̪ʰe I mother-Gen Comi I will go with my mother.

ɟɑbo go.Fut

3.12 Discussion The above sections show that, as in some other languages (e.g. Russian; Janda, 1993), in the EIA languages instrumental marking is multidimensional. The use of the marker is similar among languages in Group 1, while it differs for languages of Group 2. Languages in Group 2 maintain differences. Figure 3.6 shows the multifunctionality of the instrumental marker in Group 1 languages.

57

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E Instrumental marker

Inanimate

Inanimate/Animate

Animate

-Basic Instruments

-Non-volitional

-Second

- Partial Patient

-Comparative

-Reciprocal Agent

-Manner

-Agent Passive

-Nominalised Verbs -Path

Figure 3.6  The use of instrumental case in Group 1 languages.

The markers of the ablative case and the instrumental case are homophonous in Group 1 languages, so it is difficult to establish their boundary. The  polysemy network of both markers makes it difficult to detach one from the other. If we take both the cases as two categories to classify the usage of the case marker, we can understand that the usages cannot be kept strictly in different categories. At times it is difficult to decipher the exact case relation of a certain usage as the relationship can be termed both instrumental and ablative. Schlesinger’s (1979) study shows that the instrumental and the comitative do not form discrete categories. They are part of the same continuum. This holds partially true for Bangla where the marker for an inanimate instrument and the inanimate company (comitative case) is the same. Some studies show that the same holds true for the instrumental and the manner of doing the work (adverb) (Schlesinger 1979 and others). This holds true for the instrumental and the ablative case of Group 1 languages, as shown in Figure 3.7. In Group 1 languages, all the four case relations (ablative, instrumental, comparative and perlative) are marked by the same marker so it is hard to distinguish the case relations. Distance between two cases can come under the scope of the ablative case (as discussed in § 2.3.1). The distance between two places can also be marked with the perlative case as the path between the two places joins those two places. The path can also be taken as the instrument, which leads to the goal (§ 3.10). So, it can be said that the ablative, instrumental and perlative cases are part of the same conceptual continuum in Group 1 languages. 58

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

ABL

Distance between two places

INST

PERT

COMP

Figure 3.7  Case relations as part of the same conceptual continuum.

Group 2 languages have a distinguishing line between the instrumental and the ablative case. Unlike Group 1 languages, these languages differentiate between animate and inanimate objects through their markers. The instrumental case is used in Group 2 languages for the following purposes (Figure 3.8). Instrumental marker

Inanimate

Different Markers

Animate

-Basic Instruments

-Second Agent

- Partial Patient

- Agent of Passive

-Path

-Non-volitional (Not in Bangla)

Figure 3.8  The use of the instrumental case in Group 2 languages.

All three Group 2 languages do not behave equally in this respect. Table  3.1 shows the various semantics of the instrumental case of both groups of languages If the languages of both groups are compared, it can be seen that the instrumental case marker has a wider range in Group 1 languages than in 59

I N S T RU M E N TA L CA S E

Group 2 languages. This also points towards the fact that the instrumental case marker for Group 1 languages is not used exclusively for the instrumental case. In Table 3.1 it can be seen that the instrumental case marker is used for various functions which are marked by other markers in Group 2 languages. Table 3.1  Comparing the use of the instrumental marker in both groups

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

GROUP 1

GROUP 2

Core Agent Partial Patient Second Agent Non-Volitional Passives Manner Reciprocal Nominalized Verbs Ablative: Source, Path, Time Comparative

Core Agent Partial Patient Second Agent Non-Volitional (not Bangla) Passives (archaic in Bangla) Path (not in Odia)

Comitative (only in Bangla)

3.13 Conclusion EIA languages mark various types of instruments through the instrumental case marker. In this chapter I have listed ten types of instruments which are marked by the instrumental marker. Additionally, the comparative case is also marked by the instrumental case marker in Group 1 languages. In Group 1 languages case polysemy between ablative and instrumental case markers is seen. It becomes hard to draw a distinguishing line between the two case relations (§ 3.12). There are several usages which are neither strictly instrumental nor ablative but can be kept somewhere in between. This leads me to argue that the instrumental marker and the ablative marker are the same markers with a wide range of semantics (described in Chapter 7). This is an example of case polysemy, rather than of case syncretism. Both the instrumental case and the ablative case are part of the same semantic continuum. Case syncretism is found in the Odia marker /re/. It serves two functions: one of the locative, and the other of the instrumental case. Mahapatra (2007), in discussing the case syncretism of Odia, points out that the instrumental /-re/ of Odia can be replaced by /d̪wɑrɑ/. However, the locative /-re/ cannot be replaced by any other marker. However, it is interesting to note that the /-re/ marker for both the instrument and the location is used to mark only an inanimate LM. For both an animate location and an animate instrument, the language has different markers.

60

Chapter 4 OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

4.1 Introduction The objective case has been discussed and described in the literature of case for its different functions. One of its primary functions is to discriminate between the arguments of a clause, as noted by Naess (2007, p. 153): “the basic function of core case marking is to overtly distinguish between the arguments of a transitive clause”. Case marking is often used in a twoargument clause to distinguish between the subject and the object, such as how the ergative case is used with a subject or the objective case with an object. The discriminatory or differentiating function of case is the use of case marking in distinguishing the ‘agent’ from the ‘patient’ in transitive clauses (Comrie, 1989). Agents are generally taken as the cause or initiator of some action, while the patients are the endpoints or the affected argument (Croft, 1991). In the ditransitive clause, case marking helps to differentiate the ‘recipient’ from the ‘theme’. Languages are said to exhibit fundamental structural differences as to how they group the grammatical relations of subject and object. Some languages consistently mark their subjects in opposition to their objects and are termed ‘accusative languages’. Languages which mark their intransitive subjects the same as their objects, keeping a special marker – the ergative – for transitive agentive subjects, are called ‘ergative languages’ (Dixon, 1979, 1994; Plank, 1979). However, few languages maintain this norm across every use. As well as discriminating between the subject and the object, the objective case often performs the function of indexing. It takes into account the indexing properties of the referents of arguments or of the clause itself and marks them accordingly. The properties of the referents of arguments may concern their inherent characteristics (e.g. animacy) or contingent ones (e.g. definiteness, referentiality, focus). Indexing approaches case marking as the reflector or the index marker of certain semantic properties, such as animacy, humanness or definiteness. The objective case performs both the function of DOM and indexing in the EIA languages.

61

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

4.2  Cognitive approach According to the CG, the subject and object relations are grammatical manifestations of trajector/landmark alignment: A subject is a nominal that codes the trajector of a profiled relationship; an object is one that codes the landmark. Trajector/landmark alignment was established independently as an aspect of linguistic meaning. It is a matter of focal prominence: trajector and landmark are the primary and secondary focal participants in a profiled relationship. (Langacker, 2008, p. 366) The TR and the LM play the roles of agent and patient. These strategies are referred to as agent orientation and theme orientation, respectively. The difference between agent orientation and theme orientation is that in agent orientation the agent performs some action, whereas in theme orientation the patient is a passive part of the incident. One action or incident can be perceived as a chain of action. The action initiates from the source, passes through the path and reaches the goal. Generally, both the source and the goal are participants of this action chain. However, generally one participant is more active than the other one. Broadly speaking, in these languages object is perceived in two ways, and they are marked accordingly. One type of object is that which is taken to be the cause of action; the other is that which is not taken to be the cause of the action. When the object is the cause, then it is not the agent of the action but the reason behind the action. Such objects are marked by the case relations, which are often named the dative case or the benefactive case. When the object is not the cause or the reason but is needed for the action to be completed, then the relation is marked as an objective case. In such actions, the involvement of the object in the action may be of varying degrees, as will be explained in the following sections. In certain actions, the object may be the Goal. In this chapter, both ‘theme’ and ‘object’ are used to refer to the same entity which gets marked by the objective case in these languages.

4.3  Objective case 4.3.1  Marking animate objects Onishi notes that “dative is prototypically used for the animate third argument (E) of verbs such as ‘give’, ‘tell’ and ‘show’, where the O is the Gift, Message or Thing shown, respectively” (Onishi, 2001, p. 5). In EIA languages the “O” is mostly unmarked. To avoid confusion with the accusative and dative cases, which are mostly marked by the same marker in IA ­languages, I prefer the term Objective. In EIA languages, the Objective (Obj) case is used to mark the objects of both transitive and ditransitive 62

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

(indirect  object) arguments. This is a common pattern which is found in languages across the world (Haspelmath, 2005). In Group 1 languages, the postposition /ke/, /kə/ or /kɑ/ is used to mark objects when they are nouns. 4.1

mɑjɑ rimɑ ke kəl d̪illiː Maya Rima Obj yesterday Delhi Yesterday Maya saw Rima in Delhi.

4.2

mɑ̃ bəccɑ ke d̻ud̻ʰ mother child Obj milk Mother fed milk to the baby.

4.3

lərikɑ səb kukur ke bʰukt̪e boy all dog Obj bark All the boys heard the dog bark.

4.4

lərkɑ: lərki: kə boy girl Obj The boy saw the girl.

me in/Loc

d̪ekʰkəiː saw

piəulək fed

(Mag)

(Mai)

sunləʃ heard

(Bho)

d̪ekʰɑlkɑi saw

(Ang)

In these languages the objective marker works differently with pronouns. In all the languages of Group 1 (except Bhojpuri), /rɑ/ is used with a singular pronoun, whereas in all other occurances, including plural pronouns, /kɑ/ is used. If a number comes after the pronominal then too the /kɑ/ marker is used. The structure becomes like this: PRO NUM ke Verb. It should be noted that /rɑ/ also works as an oblique marker which precedes many postpositions (see the detailed description in § 6.4). The following are examples (in Magahi, Maithili and Angika) in pairs to show the contrast between singular and plural pronouns hosting the objective marker. 4.5

həm ok-rɑ I (s)he-Obj I saw him/her steal.

coriː steal

4.6

həm ok-ni t̪iːno I (s)he-Plu three I saw him/her steal.

4.7

həm ok-rɑ d̪ekʰ ke gussɑ geləũ I (s)he-Obj see after angry went I got angry to see him/her (I was angry to see him/her).

(Mai)

4.8

həm un-kɑ d̪ekʰ ke gussɑ geləũ we they-Obj saw do angry went I got angry to see them (I was angry to see them).

(Mai)

4.9

hɔmmẽ ok-rɑ I (s)he-Obl I saw him/her.

(Ang)

kə Obj

kərit̪ do ke Obj

d̪ekʰəli: saw coriː steal

d̪ekʰəlijəi saw

63

kərit̪ do

(Mag)

d̪ekʰəli: saw

(Mag)

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

4.10

hɔmmẽ ok-rɑ I (s)he-Obl I saw them all.

səb all

kə Obj

d̪ekʰɑlijɑi saw

(Ang)

It can be seen in example 4.10 that the third person takes the marker /rɑ/, which is followed by the word for the plural, which is further followed by the objective marker /ka/. Here the /rɑ/ marker does not occur as an objective marker, but its multi-functionality results in its appearance (discussed in § 6.4) as an oblique marker. In the Group 1 languages case syncretism can be witnessed for the /rɑ/ and /kɑ/ or /ke/ marker, which is discussed in Chapter 7. In Bhojpuri the marker /rɑ/ is also used. However, unlike the other languages of its group, in Bhojpuri /ke/ comes after /rɑ/ or /kɑ/. When the object is plural or honorific then /ke/ follows /kɑ/. In such situations the /rɑ/ or /kɑ/ marker functions like an oblique marker and not as an objective marker. The semantic range of /rɑ/ is different in Bhojpuri compared to its sister languages of Group 1. 4.11

u həm-rɑ ke (s)he I-Obl Obj He/she has seen me.

4.12

həm un-kɑ I (s)he-Obl I saw him/her.

d̪ekʰ see

ke Obj

lelebɑrən took

(Bho)

d̪ekʰəni saw

(Bho)

In Group 2 languages the objective case is marked by affixation in all three languages for both nominal and pronominal objects. It is /-ɔk/ in Asamiya (the vowel drops when the root ends with a vowel), /-ke/ in Bangla and /ku/ in Odia. 4.13

moi tɑ-k I (s)he-Obj I saw him.

d̪ekʰilu saw

4.14

mɑnuh-gorɑki-e lorɑ-t̪o-k kombol-ere man-FEM-Agt boy-Clf-Obj quilt-Inst The lady wrapped a blanket around the boy.

4.15

mɑjɑ ĩ:d̪ur-tɑ-ke Maya rat-Clf-Obj Maya killed the rat.

4.16

kukur-tɑ cʰele-tɑ-ke dog-Clf boy-Clf-Obj The dog smelled the boy.

4.17

mu t̪ɑ-ku I (s)he-Obj I kicked him/her.

goit̪ʰɑ kick

(Asa)

mere kill

pʰello fall

dʰɑki cover

d̪ile gave

(Asa)

(Ban)

ʃũklo smelled

(Ban)

mɑrili hit

(Odi)

64

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

4.18

kukurti cʰuɑ-ku d̪ekʰil bʰokila (Odi) dog child-Obj saw bark Dog barked seeing the child (The dog started to bark after seeing the child).

In all these languages, when the nouns are marked with the objective marker then they are interpreted as definite in the absence of numerals. In all of the following examples (4.13–4.18) it can be seen that all the objects which are hosts to the objective marker are definite entities. In Table 4.1 it can be seen that the Group 2 languages do not differentiate between nouns and pronouns in marking objective case; however, Group 1 languages do. Moreover, Group 1 languages do not mark the singular and the plural pronouns similarly. Magahi and Maithili use the same means to mark the objective case of the plural pronoun as they use to mark the noun. Angika and Bhojpuri use both the marker of the singular pronominal affix /-rɑ/ and the nominal postposition /kɑ/ or /ke/ to mark the objective case.

Table 4.1  The different markers of the objective case Languages

Singular Pronominal

Plural Pronominal

Elsewhere

Angika Bhojpuri Magahi Maithili Asamiya Bangla Odia

-rɑ -rɑ + ke, (+HON) kɑ + ke -rɑ -rɑ NA NA NA

Noun+rɑ PLU+kɑ Noun+rɑ PLU+kɑ NA NA NA NA NA

kɑ ke ke ke -ək/k -ke -ku

4.3.2  Marking inanimate objects The objective marker is generally used with animate objects, but it can be used with inanimate objects too. It may be argued that the differences in case marking due to difference in the animacy feature can be explained in terms of semantic roles. Many semantic roles inherently involve animate participants like Agentives and Comitatives, whereas other semantic roles are taken to be inherently inanimate, such as Instrumentals and Goals. One could claim that the semantic roles select the different coding. However, in certain case relations, the semantic role fails to explain the difference in the marking. For example, in Bangla, the animate object is case marked overtly while the inanimate object is not marked when both share the same semantic role. In the following Bangla examples (4.19 & 4.20), it can be seen that the same position of the object is case marked in 65

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

the one with the animate object and not case marked in the other with the inanimate object. The use of the objective marking brings the animate reading of the word, which otherwise mean an inanimate object. It can be said that the objective marker adds animacy value to the inanimate objects in the Group 2 languages. 4.19

robi boʃt̪u-ti-ke Robi thing.Anim-Clf-Obj Robi saw him/her.

4.20

robi boʃt̪u-ti Robi thing.Inan-Clf Robi saw the thing.

d̪ekʰəlo saw

d̪ekʰəlo saw

(Ban)

(Ban)

In example 4.19, the lexical meaning of /boʃt̪u/ is inanimate object (so it is marked with the classifier denoting an inanimate definite object, /ta/) but the use of /ke/ in the sentence has made it animate. Here, the inanimate noun /boʃt̪u/ is being used to refer to a person. The use of an inanimate noun with the inanimate marking classifier for a human is used to show disrespect to the human. The human is referred to as an object in a derogatory manner. But since the real-life reference is animate the obligatory object marking has been used. Similar sentence can be seen in example 4.27 where the doll gets the animate reading. It is interesting to note that unlike Hindi (Mohanan, 1990), in Bangla, Odia and Asamiya the objective marker is not used to mark specificity or definiteness. This is because Bangla and Asamiya have classifiers, which are used to mark the object as definite. If the noun of a sentence is definite then the presence of the classifier is obligatory, as the classifiers give the definite reading of the object (e.g. 4.20). The objective marker is also obligatory with two types of verbs. One is verbs which, as causatives, take animate objects, like feed (to animate), to make someone see, to make someone wear clothes, etc. These actions are performed mainly on animate objects. These verbs subcategorize for animate objects in their causative forms. I name these verbs Animate Verbs (AVs). In the following examples the contrast between the two types of verb is shown. In example 4.21 it is the causative form of the verb wear. The causative of wear needs an animate indirect object as the verb is semantically related with animacy. Animate objects wear clothes. Here the case marker used is the objective marker. In example 4.22 the verb is the causative form of offer (to make God an offering) which does not subcategorizes an animate object so locative marker has been used. 4.21

pəndit͈ʰɟi durgaɟi ke murt͈i ke sund͈ər sari pəhinəilin (Mag) priest    Goddess Durga Gen idol Obj beautiful   sari wear.Cau The priest made the idol of Goddess Durga wear a beautiful sari.

66

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

4.22

murt͈i pər sundər sari cəɽəilin (Mag) pəndit͈ʰɟi durgaɟi ke priest Goddess Durga Gen idol Loc beautiful sari offer. Cau Priest made the idol of Goddess Durga wear a beautiful sari.

The following are parallel examples in Odia to show that the same pattern is followed in Group 2 languages as well. 4.23

nana durga ma-ŋkɔ murt͈i ku sundɔr sari pindʰeilej priest Godess Durga Gen idol Obj beautiful sari wear.Cau The priest made the idol of Godess Durga wear a beautiful sari.

4.24

nana durga ma-ŋkɔ murt͈i-re sundɔr sari priest Godess Durga Gen idol-Loc beautiful sari Priest made the idol of Godess Durga wear a beautiful sari.

cʰadeilej offer.Cau

The other is Impingement Verbs (IV) (examples: 4.25, 4.26, 4.29 and 4.30), like hit, kick, punch. IVs are those verbs which involve power, force and contact by the agent to the object and leave the object physically affected or change its position (Longacre, 1976). 4.25

lərkɑ gẽnd̪ kə lɑt̪ʰ boy ball Obj kick The boy kicked the ball.

4.26

lərkɑ boy

4.27

ɑd̪mi ɖɨbbɑ səb ke bəɟɑr man box all Obj market The man sent the boxes to the market.

4.28

ɑd̪mi ɖɨbbɑ səb bəɟɑr pəhũcelək man box all market sent The man sent the boxes to the market

(Mai)

4.29

lərkɑ səb d̪iwɑl ke boy all wall Obj The boys punched the wall.

(Bho)

4.30

lərkɑ boy

4.31

ləiki-jɑ əpən guɽijɑ ke Girl-Clf self doll Obj The Girl fed food to her doll.

4.32

ləiki-jɑ Girl-Clf

lɑt̪ʰ kick

gẽnd̪ ball

səb all

d̪iwɑl wall

əpən self

mərəlke hit

gurij doll

gʰusɑ punch

gʰusɑ punch

(Ang)

mərəlke* hit

(Ang)

pəhũcelək sent

(Mai)

mɑrlək hit

mɑrlək* hit

kʰɑnɑ food

67

kʰɑnɑ food

(Bho) kʰilələkəiː feed

kʰilələkəiː* feed

(Mag)

(Mag)

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

4.33

ʄʰiɔ-ti dɑbbɑ-guɽi-ku bɔʄɑrɔ girl-Clf box-Plu-Obj market The girl sent the boxes to the market.

4.34

ʄʰiɔ-ti dɑbbɑ-guɽi bɔʄɑrɔ pɑtʰɑilɔ girl-Clf box-Plu market sent The girl sent the boxes to the market.

pɑtʰɑilɔ sent

(Odi)

(Odi)

In example 4.25, the object ‘ball’ takes the objective marker as the verb is an impingement verb. The ‘ball’ in the sentence can refer to a specific ball or may even mean any ball (not specific). The verb is ‘kick’, which is an IV so the sentence will be ungrammatical without the objective marker. In example 4.32 the verb form is causative. The verb feed in these languages subcategorizes for animate patients so the inanimate object doll gets the objective marker as it is treated as an animate object. If the word doll is replaced by stone idol, then the structure of the sentence remains same, where the objective marker is obligatory. In example 4.34 the objective marker can be dropped as the verb is not an IV. If the objective marker is dropped then the sentence gives a non-­ definite or general reading of the object ‘boxes’. The above phenomenon can be explained through the Differential Object Marking (DOM) approach. The literature on DOM (Comrie, 1986, 1989; Croft, 1988; Lazard, 1984; Bossong, 1983–1984; Silverstein, 1976, 1981) focuses on the idea that when an object is higher in prominence, then it is more likely to be overtly case marked. Prominence includes the features of animacy and definiteness (Aissen, 2003). The usual explanation for DOM relies on the concept of markedness. Aissen (2003) considers ranking, according to which if there are two unmarked objects – one animate, the other inanimate – then the unmarked animate object is more prominent than the unmarked inanimate object. The pattern in Hindi, where only humans are obligatorily case marked, is also described by Aissen (2003). Animate objects are obligatorily marked in Hindi, while inanimate objects may be left unmarked because they are highest positioned on the animacy hierarchy scale. In examples 4.1–4.30, it can be seen that animate objects are always marked whereas inanimate objects are marked only when they are definite (or are arguments of IV or AV). This follows the typical DOM theory. However, as can be seen in the above examples, there are selective verbs (IV and AV) with which the inanimate objects also take the objective marking. This shows that not only the argument of the verb or the index of the object but also the semantics of the verb affect the object marking. According to Aissen (2003), in many instances DOM is used to disambiguate the subject from the object, but then in other instances the object is not required to be differently marked (from the subject or the other object), yet objective marking can be found. Keenan (1976) notes that those direct objects which resemble typical subjects get overtly case marked. According to 68

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

him, subjects are associated with agenthood and topicality, so animacy and definiteness are unmarked properties for subjects. Aissen’s (2003) scale of animacy hierarchy puts humans in the highest position, followed by animate and inanimate objects, respectively: Human > Animate > Inanimate. The double-object argument verbs or ditransitive verbs like ‘give’, ‘gift’ or ‘send’ involve the combination of a verb of transfer with a definite human goal and definite animate theme. Both the goal and the theme get marked with the same objective case marker. In such instances, the objective case is used with the direct object when it is [+ human] or [+definite +animate]. However, it is not used with direct objects when the object is inanimate [–animate±definite]. In such sentences, the objective marker works like a DOM. It shows the marking of the objective case based on the hierarchy of the object. In the following sentences both objects (direct object and indirect object) get case marked as both are either [+ human] or [+definite +animate]. 4.35

həm lɑik-wɑ ke ok-ər I boy-Clf Obj (s)he-Gen I gave the child to his/her mother.

məji:ɑ mother

4.36

həm ɑpən d̪ost̪ə ke ɑpen kut̪t̪-wɑ-ke I self friend Obj self dog-Clf-Obj I gifted my dog to my friend.

4.37

həm ɑpən d̪ost̪ə ke I self friend Obj I gifted a dog to my friend.

4.38

mu pilɑ:-ti-ku tɑ: mɑ:-ku I child-Clf-Obj her mother-to I gave the child to her mother.

d̪eli gave

4.39

mu kukurɑ-ti-ku mo sɑ:ngɑ-ku I dog-Clf-Obj my friend-Obj I gifted my dog to my friend.

upɑhɑ:rɑ gift

kut̪t̪-wɑ dog-Clf

ke Obj uphɑ:r gift

uphɑ:r gift

d̪ed̪eliəi give d̪ed̪eliɑi gave

d̪ed̪eliɑi gave

(Mag)

(Mag)

(Mag)

(Odi)

d̪eli give

(Odi)

It is stated that DOM works as disambiguating machinery between subject and object. But at the same time it can be witnessed in some structures where the absence of objective marker does not lead to ambiguity; rather, its presence can create ambiguity. When both the direct and the indirect objects are human and so both are marked by the objective marker this may sometimes leads to amibiguity. Word order and context play a role in disambiguating such sentences. 4.40

ɑmi bʰɑi-ke mɑ-ke I brother-Obj mother-Obj I give (my) brother to (my) mother.

d̪ilɑm give

(Ban)

Similarly, in the following sentence, it can be seen that the non-human object (dog) is hosting objective marking as it is definite. However, it is in 69

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

the lower position in the hierarchy scale (Aissen’s [2003] scale of animacy hierarchy) than the human so it cannot be a recipient of the human object. So the following sentence is not ambiguous though both the objects are marked with the objective marker. It can be seen that without the objective marker the word order can be changed. In such instances the non-human object does not take the objective marker (4.37). 4.41a

robi ɑm-ɑr kukur-tɑ-ke Robi I-Gen dog-Clf-Obj Robi gave my dog to Maya.

4.41b

robi Robi

4.42

robi mɑjɑ-ke ɑm-ɑr Robi Maya-Obj I-Gen Robi gave my dog to Maya.

mɑjɑ-ke Maya-Obj

ɑm-ɑr I-Gen

mɑjɑ-ke Maya-Obj kukur-tɑ-ke dog-Clf-Obj kukur-tɑ dog-Clf

d̪ie give d̪ie give

d̪ie give

d̪ilo gave

(Ban)

d̪ilo* gave d̪ilo gave

Wherever the object behaves like an inanimate Goal argument (i.e., like inanimate locations) then it is marked with the locative suffix rather than the objective marker in Bangla (Bhattacharya & Simpson 2007). 4.43

ɑmi bɑri-t̪e ek-tɑ I house-Loc one-Clf I sent a letter to (my) house.

cittʰi letter

pɑt̪ʰɑlɑm sent

(Ban)

4.44

ɑmi rɑɟu-ke ek-tɑ I Raju-Obj one-Clf I sent a letter to Raju.

cittʰi letter

pɑt̪ʰɑlɑm sent

(Ban)

4.45

mu rɑɟu-ku gote I Raju-Obj one I wrote a letter to Raju.

4.46

mu mo gʰɑrɑ-ku gote I my home-Obj one I wrote a letter to my home.

cit̪ʰi letter cit̪ʰi letter

lekʰili wrote lekhili wrote

(Odi)

(Odi)

In Group 2 languages, in the Partial Patient Instrument construction (for Partial Patient, see § 3.3) the locative case marker can be used with the inanimate object. The same sentence can also be constructed with the objective case marking. The difference in case marking alters the meaning. Whenever the objective case is used in such sentences it is always followed by the instrumental case after the theme (direct object). 4.47a

lərki gɨlɑs ke pɑin sə̃ girl glass Obj water Inst The girl filled the glass with water.

4.47b

lərki gɨlɑs me pɑin girl glass Loc water The girl filled the glass with water.

70

bʰərlək fill bʰərlək fill

(Mai)

(Mai)

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

In Bangla, this construction is not possible with an objective marker. For such sentences, only locative case marking can be used. glɑs-ke glass-Obj

ɟɔl water

4.48a

meje-tɑ Girl-Clf

4.48b

meje-tɑ glɑs-e ɟɔl Girl-Clf glass-Loc water The girl filled the glass with water.

bʰorəlo* fill

(Ban)

bʰorəlo fill

(Ban)

The use of the objective case with Goals is similar to Themes. Whenever the Theme is animate the objective marking is used. The same can be said about the Goal. When the Theme is inanimate but definite, then it takes the objective marker; however, when the inanimate Goal is definite it does not take the objective marker in Group 2 languages. But Group 1 languages take the objective case marker which is followed by the instrumental case marker after the instrument (noun) (Figures 4.1 and 4.2).

OBJECT

GOAL- LOC

AGENT

Figure 4.1  Goal takes the locative marker in absence of the instrumental case.

AGENT

GOAL-Obj

INSTR

OBJECT

Figure 4.2  Goal takes the objective marker in the presence of the instrumental case.

It can be seen in Table 4.2 that the objective marker is used with inanimates in all the languages except Asamiya. But the objective marker can be used with inanimate objects only in certain contexts, which are listed in the table. In Bangla and Asamiya, it cannot be used with the instrumental construction, unlike the other languages. Table 4.2  Use of objective case markers with inanimate objects

1 2 3 4 5

Objective marker with inanimates

Languages

Definite Object Object perceived as animate Animate verbs Impingement verbs Instrumental construction

In all except Asamiya In all except Asamiya In all except Asamiya In all except Asamiya In all except Asamiya & Bangla.

71

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

4.4 Functions The objects which are hosts to the objective case not only bear the semantic role of ‘patient’, which is often considered the prototypical role of objects, but also bear a range of other roles. The change in the verb changes the role of the object. Sentences which share the same NPs as their subjects and objects, varying only in the verb, show change in the role that might be attributed to the object. In the languages under observation, the objects of the sentences, both direct and indirect, get marked for various theme orientations. The theme orientation “subsumes a number of ‘passive’ semantic roles”, like “patient, mover, experiencer, and zero” (Langacker, 2008, p. 266), which can be witnessed in these languages. Levin (1999) states, while describing the semantic range of the objects of the transitive verbs, that there are many English transitive verbs whose objects cannot come under the predefined semantic role inventories. The  same can be said about the objects which take the objective case. These objects which take objective marking, here (in this text) are divided into three categories: Patient Theme, Experiencer Theme and Second Agent Theme. This classification is based on the involvement of the object in the action. In the patient theme, the object is least involved in the action. It is just passively present in the action frame. In the experience theme, the object is the experiencer of the action done by the agent. In the second agent theme, the object is the agent of an action which is not the main action of the frame, but it performs some action which is termed as the second action. Sometimes the subject or the main agent is affected due to this second action.

4.4.1  Patient theme When the object is just a patient in a sentence, then it may be termed as a patient theme. It neither suffers any change nor does it play an active role in the action, but still its presence is necessary to make the action happen. These actions generally involve static verbs (for static verbs, see Rothmayr, 2009; Bach, 1986), such as verbs related to perception, experience, knowledge, etc. Objects with such theme orientation are marked with the objective marker in these languages. Such objects have been termed as “stimulus/ object of perception” and “stimulus/target or object of emotion” (Levin, 1999). Levin gives examples such as “The engineer saw the bridge (­stimulus/ object of perception). The engineer hated the bridge (stimulus/target or object of emotion)” (Levin 1999, p. 224). However, I would like to keep the category of ‘stimulus’ under the cover term ‘patient’. In the above examples from Levin, it can be said that the object (bridge) may have worked as a stimulus, but it did not intend to do so. It does not play an active role and is just present in the action as an inactive object; hence, I prefer calling it 72

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

the patient. The following are examples of the animate patient objects in the Group 1 languages. 4.49

həm rɑvi I Ravi I saw Ravi.

ke Obj

d̪ekʰəli: saw

(Mag)

4.50

u to-ra dekʰ (s)he you-Obj see She/he has seen you.

4.51

o ɟəŋəl ke bɔcwol lel (s)he forest Obj save Ben She/he fought to save the forest.

4.52

həm ok-ra I (s)he-Obj I saw him/her.

4.53

kut̪wɑ lərkɑ ke dog girl Obj The dog smelt the boy.

4.54

həm un-kɑ I (s)he-Obl I saw him/her.

4.55

lərkɑ: lɑrki:-ɑr ke boy girl-Clf Obj The boy stalked the girl.

4.56

hɑmmə̃ ok-rɑ t̪ɑrɑpʰ I (s)he-Obj side I ran towards him/her.

lelk əu take was

(Mag)

lərlək fight

dekʰəlɨyəi saw

ke Obj

(Mai)

(Mai)

suŋgʰələk smelt

(Bho)

d̪ekʰəni saw

(Bho)

picʰɑ: stalk

kərlɑkɑi did

d̪ɑurliɑi ran

(Ang)

(Ang)

In Group 2 languages too the object can be seen to take the semantic value of a patient. The following are examples of animate patient objects which are marked by the objective marker. 4.57

moi lorɑ-to-k I saw boy-Clf-Obj I saw the boy.

4.58

moi t̪ɑ-k I he-Obj I saw him.

4.59

robi rɑd̪ʰɑ-ke Robi Radha-Obj Robi knows Radha.

4.60

ɑmi t̪omɑ-ke I you-Obj I want you.

d̪ekʰilu saw

d̪ekʰilu saw

(Asa)

(Asa)

cene knows

(Ban)

cɑi want

(Ban)

73

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

4.61

se ɟʰiɔ-ti se puɑ-ti-ku that girl-Clf that boy-Clf-Obj That girl knew that boy.

4.62

mu t̪ɑ-ku I (s)he-Obj I saw him/her.

ɟɑnit̪ʰilɑ knew

d̪ekʰili saw

(Odi)

(Odi)

4.4.2  Effected theme The object, at times, experiences the effect of an action. The effect on the object may be psychological or physiological, or it may lead to some change in the object. Objects which undergo an abstract change are termed an ‘experiencer object’. An experiential construction is one “which has an experience verb accompanied by one experiencer noun and one or zero patient noun” (Abbi, 1994, p. 70). Similarly, experiencer objects can be defined as the object of the sentence which experiences the physiological or psychological effect created by the subject of the sentence. dɑ̃tlət̪ʰi: scolded

4.63

pɑpɑ həm-rɑ father I-Obj Father scolded me.

(Mag)

4.64

lərkɑ lərki ke d̪ʰokɑ Boy girl Obj cheat The boy cheated the girl.

4.65

buriɑ lərki ke sikʰɑili old-woman girl Obj taught The old woman taught the girl.

(Bho)

4.66

kut̪wɑ lərkɑ kə pəresɑn dog boy Obj disturb The dog disturbed the boy.

(Ang)

4.67

mɑk-e rima-k mother-Agt Rima-Obj Mother dressed up Rima.

4.68

ɑmi t̪ɑ-ke d̪ukkʰo I (s)he-Obj sad I made him/her sad.

4.69

bɑgʰə-ti mɑnisu ku d̪ɑrɑilɑ tiger-Clf man Obj frightened The tiger frightened the man.

d̪elək give

kɑpor clothes

(Mai)

kərəlke did pindʰɑle worn.Cau

d̪ieci gave

(Asa)

(Ban)

(Odi)

In the Effected objects, the action performed involves the object to a greater degree than the patient object. However, the result of the action may be 74

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

such that the object is not affected by the action, like sentence 4.65, which can have two interpretations: the tiger frightened the man, but the man was not scared of it; or, the man got scared of the tiger. Rothmayr (2009) notes that the verbs allow for a stative interpretation only when the object or the subject is the experiencer. Arad (1998) makes a distinction between stative and eventive verbs and discusses the different readings of object experience verbs. Arad (1998) defines the stative reading as “ha[ving] neither an agent nor any change of mental state in the object” (Arad, 1998, p. 182). But the stimulus of the experience is perceived in the subject that may even be called the agent. Here, the agent or the subject may be the stimulus of the action intentionally or unintentionally. It is further stated that the stative reading holds as long as the perception trigger is exposed to the experiencer. As soon as the two are separated, the described state ceases to exist. (Arad, 1998). Some of his examples are as follows. a b c d

John / John’s haircut annoys Nina. John / John’s behavior / nuclear war frightened Nina. This problem concerned Nina. Blood sausage disgusts Nina. (Arad, 1998, p. 182)

When the object experiences physical change then it might be termed a Changed-Object. If the object is inanimate and it takes the objective marker then it always undergoes physical change, such as changes in position, shape, size, etc. In both the Experience-Object and the Changed-Object, the object gets affected. In example 4.70, the agent boy kicks the object brother, which may or may not bring about a change in the object, but in example 4.71 the agent boy kicks the ball, which implies that the position of the object ball is changed. 4.70

ləik-wɑ əpən bʰəi-wɑ ke boy-Clf (s)he brother-Clf Obj The boy hit his brother with his leg.

4.71

ləik-wən gend̪-wɑ ke lət̪iɑ: boy-PLU ball-Clf Obj kick The boys hit the ball with their legs.

4.72

ɑd̪mi əpnɑ dʊʃmən ke man self’s enemy Obj The man killed his enemy.

4.73

həm cɨʈʈʰi ke kɨtab I letter Obj book I kept the letter in the book.

4.74

mɑi ɑpnɑ bɑuɑ ke mother her child Obj Mother fed milk to her child.

lət̪iɑ: kick se Inst

mɑir kill me Inst

75

mɑrəlkəi hit d̪elək give

rɑkʰne keep

d̪ud̪ʰ milk

se Inst

mɑrəlkəi hit

(Mag)

(Mag)

(Mai)

cʰələũ was

(Mai)

piələk drink-Cau

(Bho)

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

4.75

bəllɑ gend̪ ke bat ball Obj The bat hit the ball.

mərlək hit

4.76

hɔm ok-rɑ I (s)he-Obj I kicked him/her.

4.77

ɑd̪mi d̪ibəbbɑ səb kə bəɟɑr man box all Obj market The man sent the boxes to the market.

lɑit̪ʰ kick

(Bho)

mɑrlie hit

(Ang)

pəhũcəelke sent

(Ang)

In Group 2 languages, too, such uses of the objective case can be witnessed with the affected object; however, such examples cannot be found with inanimate objects in Asamiya as the objective marker is not used with inanimates in the language. In the other two languages the objective marker can even be dropped with the inanimate objects. 4.78

mɑk-e zijek-ɔk kɑpor mother-Agt daughter-Obj clothes The mother dressed up her daughter.

4.79

ɑmi robi-ke I Robi-Obj I bit Ravi.

4.80

o d̪eɑl-tɑ -ke (s)he wall-Clf-Obj punch (S)he punched the wall.

4.81

puɑ-ti ɟʰiɔ-ti-ku pɑɳi-re boy-Clf girl-Clf-Obj water-Loc The boy pushed the girl into the water.

4.82

bɑɽɑk-mɑne bɑl-guɽi-ku boy-Plu ball-Plu-Clf Boys hit the balls.

pindʰɑle worn.Cau

mɑrlam beat

(Asa)

(Ban)

gʰuʃi hit

mɑrlo

̪ dʰɔkkɑ push

mɑrile hit

(Ban)

mɑrilɑ hit

(Odi)

(Odi)

4.4.3  Second agent theme When the agent perceives the object while doing some action, then the object is marked by the objective case. Some action is performed by the object, but the main action of the event frame is that of perceiving, which is done by the agent. This involves incidents where the object is an agent for some action, but the whole action is perceived or witnessed by the subject of the sentence, which then becomes the real agent as the work is experienced by the subject. 4.83

ləikə-wɑ kʊʈɑ ke bʰokit̪ boy-Clf dog Obj bark The boy heard the dog barking.

76

sʊnkəi heard

(Mag)

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

4.84

həm ok-rɑ cori I (s)he-Obj steal I saw him/her stealing.

kərəit̪ do

dekʰəlɨyəi saw

4.85

lərkɑ lərki ke gɑət̪e boy girl Obj saw The boy heard the girl sing.

4.86

hɑmmẽ cor kɑ I thief Obj I saw the thief stealing.

4.87

mɑ bɑccɑ-tɑ-ke kʰet̪e d̪ekʰe mother child-Clf-Obj eat see Mother was happy to see the child eat.

4.88

puɑ-ti lokoti-ku kɑsilɑ boy-Clf man-Obj cough The boy heard the man cough.

(Mai)

sunələk

kərt̪əi do

cori: steal

(Bho)

d̪ekʰəlie saw kʰuʃi happy

(Ang)

holo happen

sunilɑ heard

(Ban)

(Odi)

4.5 Discussion The objects have been classified here according to their degree of involvement in the action. In the Patient theme, the agent does intend to affect the object. The action may or may not affect the object. Here, the object has the least involvement in the event. In the Effected theme, there are two situations; one where, without the subject’s intention, the object gets affected by the action; the other where the subject intends to affect the object but the object may or may not be affected by the action of the agent. In both situations the object’s presence is important. In the last category, where the object is categorized as the Second Agent theme, the involvement of the object is much more than in the earlier two categories, as here the object itself plays the part of an agent. The main action follows the action performed by the Second Agent theme (Figure 4.3). In such constructions the objects are mostly animate and hence are marked with the objective marker. Theme

Patient Theme

Effected Theme Experiencer

Second Agent Theme Changed

Figure 4.3  Classification of the themes.

The difference in the involvement of the object in the sentence can also be perceived in sentences where either of the two markers of the instrumental 77

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

case or the objective case can be used but the difference in case marking brings a difference in the semantics of the sentence. Butt and Ahmed (2010) explain the use of these two different cases and note that the use of the instrumental shows less involvement of the object than the use of the objective case. If the object is the instrument by which the action is brought about, but is not involved/ affected by the action, then the instrumental marker is used. But if the object is affected, then the objective marker is used (Butt and Ahmed, 2010). The same can be found in the languages under observation. 4.89

həm rəbi ke mitʰɑi I Rabi Obj sweet I made Rabi taste the sweets.

cʰəkʰəiliəi taste.Cau

4.90

həm rɑbi se mit̪ʰɑi I Rabi Inst sweet I made Rabi taste the sweets.

4.91

mɑ cele-ke miʃti kʰɑbɑlo mother son-Obj sweet feed The mother fed sweets to the son.

4.92

mɑ cele-ke d̪ie miʃti-gulo ʃeʃ mother son-Obj Inst sweet-Clf end The mother made the son finish the sweets.

(Mag)

cʰəkʰəiliəi taste.Cau

(Mag)

(Ban)

kɔrɑlo do.Cau

(Ban)

In the Magahi examples 4.89 and 4.90, it can be seen that the objective marker can be replaced with the instrumental one. This can be done with all the other languages of Group 1, but in Group 2 languages with the difference in the case marker the verb also changes (see examples 4.91 & 4.92).

4.6 Benefactive The benefactive case is often perceived as part of the dative case. It has also been said that concrete datives are benefactives (Haspelmath, 2006). The benefactive case generally refers to when the object is in the beneficiary position: “When the indirect object gets benefit of the situation or when the indirect object is the goal to which the direct object reaches then the marking used for the indirect object is termed as benefactive” (Zúñiga & Kittilä, 2010, p. 3). The indirect object which hosts the case marking is generally termed as the beneficiary: The beneficiary is a participant that is advantageously affected by an event without being its obligatory participant (either agent or primary target, i.e. patient). Since normally only animate participants are capable of making use of the benefit bestowed upon them, beneficiaries are typically animate. (Zúñiga & Kittilä, 2010, p. 2)

78

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

Such constructions have an actor who performs the action due to which the beneficiary benefits. Zúñiga & Kittilä (2010) translates Lehmann et al. (2000) thus: “[t]he situation is prototypically controlled, i.e. includes an Actor – the benefactor. A prototypically benefactive situation also includes an Undergoer, which is created (i.e. effected) or affected as benefactum for the benefit of the beneficiary” (Zúñiga & Kittilä, 2010, p. 3). The benefit does not carry a positive or negative connotation when used in this context. ‘Benefit’ here means that the agent does something for the object. The presence of the object indirectly motivates the agent for the action. This object can be both animate and inanimate. “Beneficiaries are often affected by the result of an event. Patients are integral parts of the event that results in the affectedness of the beneficiary” (Zúñiga & Kittilä, 2010, p. 4). The EIA languages use the benefactive case to mark the indirect object. Angika uses /ke/ followed by /-lɑ/ or /lie/ to mark the nominal benefactor whereas /–rɑ/ followed by /-lɑ/ or /lie/ is used with pronominals. Magahi uses the similar marker /-lɑ/ or /ləgi/ with a nominal object, which follows the marker /–rɑ/ when the benefactor is pronominal. For Maithili it is /lɑ/ or /lel/ with nominal objects and with pronominal object it follows /–rɑ/. In Bhojpuri the marker is /ke/ or /kʰɑt̪ir/ for nominal objects and /-rɑ/ or /kʰɑt̪ir/ for pronominal objects. 4.93

lərk-wɑ əpən bʰəiwɑ ləgi mit̪ʰɑi boy-Clf self brother Ben sweet The boy brought sweets for his brother.

4.94

t̪o-rɑ lɑ həm you-Obl Ben I I did this for you.

4.95

serni hun-kɑ le sikɑr lioness it-Gen Ben hunt Lioness hunted for it (the lion).

kelək did

4.96

sitɑ həm-rɑ lel ek-tɑ Sita I-Obl Ben one-Clf Sita sang a song for me.

git̪ song

4.97

lərkɑ lərki ke kʰɑt̪ir pʰul boy girl Obj Ben flower The boy bought a flower for the girl.

4.98

serni uk-rɑ kʰɑt̪ir sikɑr lioness it-Obl Ben hunt Lioness hunted for it (the lion).

4.99

mɑ həmə-rɑ lɑ kʰɑnɑ mother I-Obl Ben food Mother cooked food for me.

iː this

lɛilkəi brought

kəil did

79

(Mag)

(Mag)

(Mai)

gəilək sang

(Mai)

ləilən brought

(Bho)

kəilək did pəkəlkɑi cook

(Bho)

(Ang)

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

4.100

u t̪o-rɑ lie mitʰ̻ɑe (s)he you-Obl Ben sweet (S)he brought sweets for you.

lelo brought

cʰe Aux

(Ang)

Unlike Group 1 languages, Group 2 languages do not mark nominal and pronominal objects differently. Asamiya uses two markers for the purpose: the postposition /kɑrone/ or the affix /-loi/. 4.101

loɾɑ-zon-e t̪omɑ-loi etɑ mitʰɑi boy-Clf-Agt you-Ben this sweet The boy brought this sweet for you.

4.102

loɾɑ-zon-e t̪omɑ-kɑrone etɑ boy-Clf-Agt your-Cause this The boy brought this sweet for you.

ɑnile brought

mitʰɑi sweet

(Asa)

ɑnile brought

(Asa)

The benefactive marker for Bangla is the postposition /ɟonne/ followed by the marker genitive marker, while in Odia it is the postposition /pɑĩ/ for all the benefactors. 4.103

ɑmi t̪om-ɑr ɟonne bɑɽi-tɑ I you-Gen Ben house-Clf I painted the house for you.

4.104

puɑ-ti jʰiɑ-ti pɑĩ pʰulɑ kinilɑ boy-Clf girl-Clf Ben flower bought The boy bought a flower for the girl.

roŋ colour

korlɑm did

(Ban)

(Asa)

The benefactive marker is also used with the verb in these languages when the agent does some action for the benefactor. The benefactor is often assumed to be animate, but it may not be so all the time (see Table 4.3). 4.105

teo zɔŋgʰɔl-kʰɔn bɔsɑbo-loi He forest-Clf save-Ben He fought to save the forest.

4.106

rɑm ok-ər iɟɟət̪ bəcɑwe Ram (s)he-Obl honour save Ram fought to save his/her honour.

4.107

4.108

mu t̪ɑ-ku dʰ̪ɔribɑ I (s)he-Obj catch I ran to catch him/her.

pɑĩ Ben

rɑm oi səb bəcəwɑi-le Ram that all save-Ben Ram fought to save all those.

80

zuzile fight

(Asa)

lɑ Ben

d̪ɑuɽili ran lərlɑ fight

ləɽɑi fight

kərkəi did

(Mag)

(Odi)

(Mai)

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

Table 4.3  Markers of the benefactive case in EIA languages Languages

With Nominals

With Pronominals

With Nominalized Verbs

Angika Bhojpuri Magahi Maithili Asamiya Bangla Odia

ke-lɑ/lie ke kʰɑt̪ir ləgi le/lel loi, kɑrone -r ɟonne pɑĩ

-rɑ-lɑ/lie -rɑ kʰɑt̪ir rɑ-lɑ/ləgi rɑ-lel/le loi, kɑrone -r ɟonne pɑĩ

lɑ kʰɑt̪ir ləgi ke lel loi, kɑrone -r ɟonne pɑĩ

4.7 Conclusion In this chapter, I have discussed the objective and benefactive cases. Both of these cases get marked on the theme and goal (objects) of the sentence. The objective case marker work like a DOM with animate and definite objects. It also distinguishes between verbs. The objective case marker occurs with the arguments of Animate verbs and Impingement verbs. It can be argued that the objective case is basically perceived in these languages as a marker of the animate object. When an inanimate object is definite, it rises from a status of inanimacy to one of animacy, so it gets marked with the objective case. The same can be said about the use of the two types of verbs (AV and IV) with which this case it is used. The use of these verbs makes the inanimate object attain the status of the animate object, which helps it in hosting the objective case. Total animacy is not attained by these objects; however, these inanimate objects come close to the animate objects when they fulfil one of the criteria (uses Animate verbs, Impingement verbs, or is a definite object). The use of these criteria by the inanimate objects forms a

Animate object Animate verbs Impingement verbs Definite object

Figure 4.4  Scale showing the hierarchy in use for marking the objective case in EIA languages.

81

OBJECTIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CASES

hierarchy scale. In this hierarchy scale, animate objects are at the top and the other inanimates follow it. Inanimate objects with the Animate verbs come closest to the animate objects, followed by objects with the Impingement verbs and then the definite objects. This hierarchy scale works for the languages discussed in this study. This scale is formed on the basis of the use of the objective case (Figure 4.4). The objective case also has highly restricted use depending on the pragmatics, in all the languages discussed. Superficially, it may seem that the objective case can be replaced with the beneficiary, or vice versa, like in the following Bangla examples (4.109 & 4.110): 4.109

mɑ̃ meje-r ɟonne æk-tɑ mother daughter-Gen Ben one-Clf Mother bought a dress for (her) daughter.

4.110

mɑ̃ meje ke æktɑ ɟɑmɑ mother daughter Obj one-Clf dress The mother bought (her) daughter a dress.

ɟɑma dress kine buy

kine buy

d̪ilo gave

d̪ilo gave

It may seem that in both sentences the object ‘daughter’ (meje) benefits, but it is not so. In example 4.109 the dress is being bought for the daughter. The sentence could mean that the mother bought a dress and handed it over to someone else to keep it for some time but the dress is supposed to be worn by the daughter. Example 4.110 means that the mother bought the dress and gave it to the girl; however, it may not be for the daughter but for someone else to wear. So, it can be seen that both the objective and the beneficiary mark the objects, yet they have fixed pragmatic domains which barely overlap in these languages.

82

Chapter 5 GENITIVE CASE

5.1 Introduction In many languages, the genitive case marker is used to mark the relation beyond the possessor and the possessed. The genitive case marker has a variety of meanings and high frequency of use. According to Bhatta (1989), Panini states that genitive case markers are “the nominal affixes expressing the non-kārakas” Bhatta, (1989, p. 17) used to show the relation between the two nouns. It has also been noted by Panini (sheshe shashthi) that the sixth one (genitive marker) is to be used elsewhere (Bhatta, 1989). The case under study in this chapter is multifunctional. However, I would like to stick with the term ‘genitive’ as “the term genitive for the case of the possessor is relatively unproblematic, and there seems to be no strong reason to rename it possessive case” (Haspelmath, 2009, p. 157); also, as Haspelmath notes, it is a good option to take one function as the basic term for the case and then mark all its other uses. The primary function of the genitive case seems to be to create a reference point for an otherwise generic object: “The linguistic expression of ‘possession’ within a noun phrase can be viewed as one of the realizations of a broader concept of association or relationship between two nouns” (Aikhenvald, 2013, p. 2). However, the genitive case marker is also used for various other functions in these languages, some of which can be justified by forming a link of structured polysemy while others cannot. In the present chapter, I try to show various uses of the genitive marker in these languages. The semantic varieties of the genitive marker are described and the chapter tries to find coherence between the various uses of the genitive case marker in EIA languages. The genitive case builds the relationship between the TR and the LM. This links the TR and the LM. Generally, the LM is more permanent and more definite than the TR, and so defining the TR in relation to the LM makes an otherwise general TR appear definite. As noted by Janda (1999, p. 445), “the LM serves as a sort of mental address (locus, source, destination, or standard of comparison) for the TR”. This was the idea initially given by Langacker (1995) when he explained the function of the genitive as being to establish mental contact. To establish mental contact means to single out an individual from the general class in order to create conscious 83

GENITIVE CASE

awareness about that individual. Langacker (1995) proposes the underlying structure for the possessive category as a reference point model. A reference point model is where the genitive marker states the LM as the TR’s reference point: “The reference-point model is simply the idea that we commonly invoke the conception of one entity for the purpose of establishing mental contact with another” (Langacker, 1995, p. 58). Langacker gives prototype status to the three main categories (ownership, kinship and physical part/whole relations), explaining that “each involves a clear and clearly defined reference point relationship” (Langacker, 2000, pp. 176–177), which can be observed Figure 5.1 by Langacker (2003).

T

D R

C = conceptualized R = reference point T = target

C

D = dominion = mental path of conceptualizer

Figure 5.1  Reference-point schema. Source: Langacker, 1993, p. 6.

The conceptualizer, who can be either the speaker or the listener, uses the reference point to identify the target. The mental contact with the target is formed via the reference point. The reference point is present in the concept of the conceptualizer. He or she uses the reference point to contact the target. Janda (1999, p. 445) explains that the abstract schema is grounded in the universal human experiences of containers (metaphorically mapping onto the genitive entity the role of the body as a container and of other physical containers), movement along a path, and relative distance, as illustrated in Figure 5.2. In the figure it can be seen that the TR is in the immediate proximity of the LM so the LM here works as an address for the TR. The position of the dotted TR is proximal to the LM, which is perceived as the TR within the LM. Here the LM becomes the container (as stated above) in which the TR is kept. This can further be viewed as the LM possessing the TR. 84

GENITIVE CASE

LM TR TR

Figure 5.2  Overall schema. Source: Janda, 1999, p. 445.

In possessive constructions the entity coded as the possessor is always the more salient entity in a given situation and is thus the reference point. It also makes the possessed entity definite. For example, when it is said “it is Mahato’s bow”, then the ‘bow’ becomes not just any bow but a specific one. Mitkovska (2004, p. 2) notes that “this cognitive ability has a direct effect on linguistic organization, proving one of the basic claims of cognitive linguistics”. This is in line with Lakoff’s (1987) and Johnson’s (1987) accounts of the importance of image schemas in structuring meaning and, consequently, language. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2008) categorized possessive relations in three main categories, with sub-categories following them. The main categories are Modification, Apposition and Partitive and pseudo-partitive relations. I have also grouped the various usages of the genitive marker according to the following semantic categories: Ownership, Relations, Partitives, Containers, Action Relations/Nominalization, Universal Properties and Agentive. It was seen that not all of these relations show a possessive relationship. Here, possessive means the sense of belonging, whereby the LM possesses the TR. Sometimes the TR is the inherent part of the LM, but not always. When it is not, the LM has control over the TR. But when the TR is inherent to the LM then the LM is bound to form the genitive relation with the TR. The genitive case marker in these languages is also used as a base for other case markers (postpositions) to occur. This base function of the genitive case is not detached from its semantics. Rather, it is present there to create the relation between the TR and the LM. As Janda (1993) explains, the postposition follows the genitive case marker in some instances to create a link between the TR and the LM. I begin with the description of the various genitive markers in these languages.

5.2 Markers Group 1 languages have different genitive markers which depend on the host. All these languages use /ke/ or /kɑ/ to mark the genitive case on nouns. 5.1

ego ɑd̪əmi ke d̪ʊ-go one man Gen two-Clf One man had two sons.

beʈɑ son

85

hələiː Aux

(Mag)

GENITIVE CASE

5.2

i ɟʰurɑ oi lərkɑ this bag that boy This is that boy’s bag.

5.3

kukur ke dog Gen Dog’s bone.

5.4

rɑɟ ke hɑ̃t̪ʰ mẽ Raj Gen hand in/Loc Raj has pain in his hand.

ke Gen

cʰie Aux

(Mai)

(Bho)

həddi bone d̪ərd̪ pain

cʰɑi Aux

(Ang)

In all these languages, with a singular pronoun /ɑr/ or /ər/ is used. But when the noun is followed by a plural marker then the /ke/ marker is used. In the following sentences the various distributions of the markers can be seen. 5.5

i həm-ər this I-Gen This is my bag.

bəstɑ bag

5.6

i həm-əni ke I I-Plu Gen This is our bag.

5.7

həm-ər matʰa d̪ərd̪ I-Gen head pain My headache increased.

5.8

ok-ər səb it-Obl all Their wheel.

5.9

roti se hi həm-ɑr pet chappati Inst Emph I-Gen stomach My stomach got filled with the chapatti.

5.10

i t̪ohə-rɑ log-ən this you-Obl people-Plu This is your (plural) bag.

5.11

okk-ɑr həddi it-Gen bone It’s (dog) bone.

5.12

okk-ɑr sɑb ke it-Obl all Gen Their (dogs) bone.

ke Gen

həi is

bəstɑ bag

(Mag)

həi is bəiɖʰ increase

(Mag)

gel went

əicʰ Aux

(Mai)

cəkkɑ wheel

(Mai)

ke Gen

bəst̪ɑ bag

bʰər fill hət̪e is

gəil went

(Bho)

(Bho)

(Ang)

həddi bone

(Ang)

In Group 2 languages the marker for both the nominal and the pronominal objects are the same; in Asamiya it is /- ɔr/, in Bangla it is /-er/ and for Odia it is /-r/. 5.13

nɔd̪i-r pɑni xɑgɔr-ɔr nisinɑ nɔhɔj (Asa) river-Gen water sea-Gen like Neg River’s water is not like sea’s water (The water of the river is not like that of the sea).

86

GENITIVE CASE

5.14

ei-boɾ ɑm-ɑr this-Plu we-Gen These are our bags.

5.15

bone-r pɑ-e kʰub bæt̪ʰɑ sister-Gen leg-Loc very pain Sister’s leg has pain in it (My sister’s leg is aching).

(Ban)

5.16

o-r ɟut̪o (s)he-Gen shoe Her/his shoe is lost.

(Ban)

5.17

kukur-maŋɔnko-r dog-Plu-Gen Dog’s bone.

5.18

ei-tɑ t̪ɑ-r it-Clf (s)he-Gen It is her/his bag.

beg bag

hɑrie lost

(Asa)

gecʰe went

hɑɽ bone

(Odi)

ɟʰulɑ bag

(Odi)

However, in Odia it can be seen that the genitive marker is mostly dropped for non-humans. The use of gentive in such a position does not make the sentence ungrammatical, but in fluent speech it is not used in the following constructions. 5.19

t̪ɑ hɑɽ it bone It’s (dog) bone.

(Odi)

5.20

t̪ɑ-ŋkɔ cɔkkɑ it-Plu wheel It’s (car’s) wheel.

(Odi)

It may be said that non-human entities are ranked at a lower position in the animacy heicharchy scale, which diminishes their capacity to possess. When the LM is inanimate then it does not possesses the TR in Odia; rather, the LM becomes the body and the TR behaves like a part of the LM. Hence, a compound word construction is formed (see Table 5.1).

Table 5.1  Genitive markers in these languages Languages

GEN Markers

Angika Bhojpuri Maithili Magahi Asamiya Bangla Oriya

-ɑr (PRO.SING), ke -ɑr (PRO.SING), ke - ər (PRO.SING), ke - ər (PRO.SING), ke - ɔr -r -r, Can be dropped when LM is inanimate object

87

GENITIVE CASE

5.3  Semantic categories 5.3.1 Ownership Ownership is taken as the most prototypical concept of the genitive case. It is the base of the genitive case in most of the languages. Possession always “involves a clear and clearly defined reference point relationship” (Langacker, 2000, pp. 176–177). Ownership shows possession. The LM possesses the TR but the TR is not the inherent part of the LM. In the following sentences it can be seen that the LM possesses the TR. The LM is marked as it is the owner of the TR. The LMs in such instances are generally animate, while the TR is inanimate. 5.21

i: hɔmm-ɔr this I-Gen This is my bag.

bɔstɑ bag

cʰe Aux

(Ang)

5.22

i t̪oh-ɑr guddi this you-Gen kite This is your kite.

hət̪e Aux

(Bho)

5.23

e-tu loɾɑ-zɔn-ɔr this-Clf boy-Clf-Gen This is the boy’s bag.

beg bag

(Asa)

Generally, when the TR is animate then it is lower on the animacy hierarchy scale (for the animacy hierarchy scale, see Aissen, 2003) than the LM. So, if the LM is human then the TR is either non-human or inanimate. If the LM is non-human then the LM is inanimate. ke Gen

kut̪wɑ dog

5.24

i u ləikə-wɑ it (s)he boy-Clf It is that boy’s dog.

həi Aux

5.25

i kukur ke kətori it dog Gen bowl It is the dog’s bowl.

5.26

i cʰeɽi siŋgʰɔ-r ʃikɑr this goat lion-Gen hunt This goat is lion’s hunt (This goat is a hunt for the lion).

cʰe Aux

(Mag)

(Mai)

(Odi)

Example 5.26 is interesting as both the LM and the TR are non-human animates. But still, in terms of the hierarchy scale the lion can be put above its hunt (goat) as it thrusts its power in the hunt and thus proves to be superior to the goat. On the hierarchy scale, members holding the upper position can always exert their power on members in the lower position as generally they are the more salient entity in the discourse. So, if explained through the

88

GENITIVE CASE

process of conceptualization, the lion is more powerful than its prey, so it is in the upper position in the hierarchy scale and it can possess the hunt. In these sentences, when the object in the high position of the animacy hierarchy scale is not definite then the object in the lower position becomes the LM. In such cases the LM can be an inanimate object and the TR animate. There, the inanimate object becomes the more salient entity in the discourse. As noted by Mitkovska (2004, p. 2), “In possessive constructions the entity coded as the possessor is always the more salient entity in a given situation and thus the reference point.” 5.27

ei baɽi-r mɑlik ke? this house-Gen master who Who is the owner of this house?

(Ban)

5.28

bɑs-er drɑibʰɑr æksident kore pɑliecʰe Bus-Gen driver accident did escape The driver of the bus escaped after committing an accident.

(Ban)

In example 5.27 it can be seen that the owner is unknown so it becomes the TR and the house, though it is in the lower position on the animacy hierarchy scale, becomes the LM. This is because it is definite while the object with the higher hierarchy position (mɑlik; owner) is not definite. In example 5.28 again it is the bus which is in the lower hierarchy position, yet it is the LM. This is because it is definite and more salient in the discourse. So, it can be said that although it may be assumed that the animate body will always be chosen to be the LM in the discourse, it is not so. When there are two entities, the more salient object is taken as the owner (LM) of the TR. 5.3.1.1  Extended ownership In Asamiya and Bangla, the genitive marker is also used before the ablative marker. In Asamiya, the genitive marker always precedes the ablative (ABL) marker. In Bangla, only when the ablative marker is attached to a human source does the genitive marker precede the ablative marker. In Odia and other Group 1 languages the genitive marker is not used with the ablative case marker. 5.29

sɑt̪rɑ-zon-e xikkʰɔk-ɔr pɔrɑ kit̪ɑp-kʰɔn student-Clf-Agt teacher-Gen Abl book-Clf The student took the book from the teacher.

5.30

mekuri-tu sɑd̪ɔ-r pɔrɑ cat-Clf roof-Gen Abl The cat fell from the roof.

5.31

cʰele bɑbɑ-r t̪ʰeke tɑkɑ cɑilo son father-Gen Abl money asked The son asked for money from (his) father.

poril fell

89

lole took

(Asa)

(Asa)

(Ban)

GENITIVE CASE

5.32

ɑmi bɑɟɑr t̪ʰeke pʰɔl I market Abl fruits I bought fruits from the market.

kinlɑm bought

(Ban)

The ablative case is marked for separation from the Source. The source is the location of the object which is to be separated. The Animate Source (as in examples 5.29 & 5.31, Teacher & Father) clearly possesses the object. The teacher possessed the book so (s)he can give it to the student. Maybe (s) he was not the owner of it (which means (s)he may have borrowed it from someone or from the library), but at that moment of time (s)he possessed it and (s) was the owner of it. It can also be said that the book was located with the teacher. The teacher is the reference point for the book. Bangla distinguishes between human locations and non-human locations by the use of genitive marking. Asamiya does not do so; it marks the source with the genitive and the act of separation from the source with the ablative. Here the source (LM) seems to own the object (TR) which gets separated from its owner (source). The genitive marker in Asamiya, Bangla and Bhojpuri also precedes the benefactive (BEN) case. The use of genitive before the benefactive can be justified by the intention of the agent. An agent intends to give an object a new location. There is a sense of target location (goal) which is marked by the genitive marker. The agent has the intention of attaching the TR to the LM. Again, the action of displacement of the object is marked by the benefactive while the target location is marked by the genitive. The agent targets a LM to possess the TR. Here, unlike ablative case, genitive marker is not part of the event. It occurs prior to the event (event of separation). In the benefactive case the genitive marker is used with the intended goal: possession, which is intended to follow after the event. kɑrone Ben

ɑnisu bring

5.33

moi pʰul-kʰini tomɑ-r I flower-Clf you-Gen I brought flowers for you.

5.34

d̪id̪i bʰɑi-er ɟonne kʰælnɑ ɑnlo (Ban) sister brother-Gen Ben toy bring Sister brought toy for brother (The sister brought a toy for her brother).

5.35

lərkɑ ɑpən bʰɑi ke kʰɑt̪ir boy his brother Gen Ben The boy brought sweets for his brother.

mitʰɑi sweet

(Asa)

ləilən brought

(Bho)

The use of the genitive with the ablative and the benefactive can be also explained through Croft’s (1991) idea of antecedent and subsequent roles in the causal chain of events. As Luraghi (2003, p. 19) explains, “antecedent roles are those that precede the object, while subsequent roles follow it”. These two help in the semantic spreading and polysemy of the case marker. In the ablative case the genitive is hosted by the antecedent role. It precedes 90

GENITIVE CASE

the main event chain. Similarly, in the benefactive the genitive is used by the subsequent role, which intends to follow the main event. 5.3.2 Relations Relations can be of the following types which are marked in these languages with the genitive marker. i ii iii iv

Kinship Terms Social Relation Terms Equal Terms Generic Relations

In the above-mentioned relations, both the LM and the TR are in the same position in the hierarchy scale, except for Generic Relations. In Relations, the LM does not possess the TR. The sub-classifications are described below. 5.3.2.1  Kinship terms and social relation terms Other than kinship terms, all other relations are not inherent to the LM. “The most permanent family relations occupy the central position” in the kinship terms (Mitkovska, 2004, p. 6). One’s relations to the other members of the family, such as mother, father and brother, are predetermined by the person’s position in the family. The other types of relations are socially based and are not predefined. A person can create social relations such as ‘friend’, ‘servant’, etc. The following are examples of kinship and social relation terms which are marked with the genitive marker. 5.36

ləiki-jɑ ke d̪ɑd̪i girl-Clf GEN grandmother The girl’s grandmother.

5.37

mɑjɑ-i t̪ɑ-r bʰoni-ɔk Maya-Agt (s)he-Gen sister-Obj Maya saw her sister yesterday.

5.38

rim-ɑr swɑmi ku Rima-Gen husband Obj Rima’s husband likes fish.

5.39

i bilɑi ke this cat Gen This is a cat’s baby.

5.40

rinɑ ke nɑukɑr Rina Gen servant Rina’s servant ran.

(Mag)

zuɑkɑli yesterday

mɑcʰə fish

bʰɑlə good

d̪ekʰisil saw

(Asa)

lɑge feel

(Odi)

bɑ Aux

(Bho)

d̪əurləun ran

(Mai)

bəccɑ child

91

GENITIVE CASE

In this type of relationship, where both the objects are at an equal level in the animacy hierarchy scale, again it can be seen that the more salient one is used as the LM. The LM in such instances also makes the TR specific. Grandmother (e.g. 5.36), sister (e.g. 5.37), husband (e.g. 5.38), child (e.g. 5.39) and servant (e.g. 5.40) are generic terms, but they become specific when they are linked with a definite LM, as in example 5.36, where ‘ləiki-jɑ’ is a definite entity which is marked by the classifier ‘ja’ so it becomes the salient object in the sentence, and likewise for the other examples above. 5.3.2.2  Equal terms Another instance of the genitive case marker in EIA languages can be found when the TR and the LM share equality of some sort. This is specifically done when one can be exchanged with the other as they are of equal value or the value of one object is determined by the other. Here, the LM determines the quantity or the quality of the TR and hence makes it definite. In the generic world of the TR, the LM chooses a particular (quality or quantity) TR which is equal to the LM itself, making the TR definite by giving it a reference point. Such usages of the genitive are quite restricted and can only be found with inanimate objects. In such instances the LM indicates the worth of the TR. Such relations between the TR and the LM has been termed Equal Terms. 5.41

pɔncis tɔŋkɑ-rɔ cini ɑno (Odi) twenty-five money-Gen sugar bring Bring sugar of twenty five rupees (Bring sugar worth twenty five rupees).

5.42

æk liter d̪ud̪ʰ-er kɔt̪o d̪ɑm one litre milk-Gen how cost What is the cost of one litre milk?

5.43

həm pəd̪mɑ ke d̪əs rupɑe ke cəna d̪eliəi (Mag) I Padma Obj ten rupees Gen nut gave I gave Padma nuts of worth rupees ten (I gave Padma nuts worth ten rupees).

(Ban)

5.3.2.3  Generic relations Two nouns build a relationship through the genitive to give a generic meaning. This can be seen in the following examples. 5.44

cʰeɽi siŋgʰɔ-r ʃikɑr goat Lion-Gen hunt Goat is lion’s hunt (The goat is a hunt for the lion).

(Odi)

5.45

goru-r kʰɑbɑr gʰɑʃ cow-Gen food grass Cow’s food is grass (The food for the cow is grass).

(Ban)

92

GENITIVE CASE

The generic reading seems to contradict the notion given by cognitive linguists (including Langacker, 2000; Janda, 1999; Mitkovska, 2004), namely that the genitive marker makes the TR definite by attaching it to a particular LM. In examples 5.44 and 5.45, that is not happening. In those sentences, it can be observed that a class (goat or grass, in examples 5.44 and 5.45) is being made definite by attaching it to another class (lion or cow). The LM is present in the conceptualizer’s concept though the prior knowledge. The generic term under consideration is not goat but the whole animal kingdom. Goat has been marked among all animals, which again makes it definite. This is explained in Figure 5.3.

T R D

Animal Kingdom

C

Figure 5.3  R eference-point schema for generic sentence.

In Figure 5.3 the conceptualizer (C) reaches the target (T) through the reference (R). The circle with the text ‘animal kingdom’ represents the whole animal kingdom. Both the reference and the target are parts of it. But as it is marked by Langacker (1993), the reference point is present in the conceptualizer’s mind. He/she connects it with the target to create a mental path. Here, the target is distinct from the rest of the members of the animal kingdom because it is chosen to be the target. One member has been taken out from the whole lot and it has been made definite by connecting it with the reference. In the above sentence (The goat is a hunt for the lion), the species ‘goat’ has been made definite by connecting it with the species ‘lion’. All the other animal species are within the circle of ‘animal kingdom’. Only one species (goat) is pointed out and so it becomes definite. So, it can be seen that in generic sentences one particular object is not made definite, but a whole class is made definite. Hence, it may appear that the genitive marking is not making the TR definite as the TR is not just one object but a class, but it does so by making the whole class definite. 93

GENITIVE CASE

5.3.3 Partitives Partitives show the part–whole relationship. The part here is the TR and the whole body is the LM. Mitkovska (2004, p. 6) proposes that part–whole relations are conceptually linked to body part relations. In fact, I propose that the central senses are metaphorical extensions from body parts: the relation between an inanimate concrete object and its parts is perceived as parallel to a relation between a person and his/her body parts. Parts (TR) of an inanimate LM are taken as its body parts, and hence the genitive marker is used as it is used with the body parts of an animate object. 5.3.3.1  Separable and inseparable I have divided the Partitives into two classes. One is where the part (TR) of the object (LM) is its (LM’s) body part, and the other where the object (LM) is made up of the part (TR). The body parts get extended beyond animate bodies. əicʰ is

5.46

həm-ra hatʰ me dərd I-Gen hand Loc pain There is pain in my hand.

5.47

u d̪unu ke pet me d̪ərd̪ə (s)he two Gen stomach Loc pain There is pain in their (those two’s) stomach.

5.48

ruti-ru mo-r peʈɔ bʰɔri chapatti-Inst I-Gen stomach fill My stomach was filled by the chapatti.

5.49

cirijɑ ke pə̃kʰ bird Gen wing The bird’s wing is red.

5.50

tebul-wɑ ke pəir tu:t table-Clf Gen leg broke The table’s leg has broken.

5.51

botol-er mukʰ-e cʰipi lɑgɑ bottle-Gen mouth-Loc cap put Put the cap on the (mouth of) the bottle.

(Ban)

5.52

goru-r nez-dɑl suti cow-Gen tail-Clf short The cow’s tail is short.

(Asa)

lɑl red

(Mai)

gɔlɑ went

cʰe is

bɑ is

(Bho)

(Odi)

(Ang)

geləiː gone

he is

(Mag)

When the TR is the part of the LM because the LM is made up of the TR then generally both are perceived as inanimate objects. There can be two types of TR in such sentences. One type is where the TR can be easily taken out (Separable) from the LM, like the pages of a book. A book is made up 94

GENITIVE CASE

of pages; one or two pages can be easily taken from the book and the book still remains a book. This may be called a Separable TR (see examples 5.49 & 5.50). The other type is where the TR cannot be taken out from the LM (Inseparable), such as a wooden chair. The chair is made of the wood, thus the wood cannot be taken out from the chair without destroying the chair. If the wood is taken out from the chair then the chair does not remain a chair any more. This may be called an Inseparable TR (see examples 5.53 to 5.57). This is explained in Figure 5.4. 5.53

bohi-rɔ prostɑ-guri kɔ ulotɑho book-Gen page-Clf Obj turn Do not turn the pages of the book.

5.54

gəŋgɑ ke pɑni nik Ganga Gen water good Water of the Ganga is good.

5.55

kɑtʰ-er bɑti bʰeŋe wood-Gen bowl break The wooden bowl broke.

5.56

u kagaɟ ke t̪iləŋgi (s)he paper Gen kite (S)he made a paper kite.

5.57

u nimbu ke (s)he lemon Gen (S)he ate lemon pickle.

nɑhi Neg

cʰe is

(Mai)

gælo went

(Ban)

t̪əijɑr ready

nimki pickle

(Odi)

kəili did

kʰəlkəi ate

(Bho)

(Mag)

Inanimate Body

Separable e.g.: Leg of a chair

Inseparable wood in wooden chair

Figure 5.4  Classification to show parts of an inanimate body.

5.3.3.2  Extended partitives In these languages, the locative marker marks only the location, without any specific direction (§ 2.3). It works like a General Spatial Term. The deictic markers (also known as Noun Locatives) are added to state a specific location. The deictic markers follow the genitive marker in all these languages except Odia. The locative marker follows the deictic marker in all of the languages. 5.58

loɾɑ-tu mɑk-ɔr upor-ɑt̪ boy-Clf mother-Gen on-Loc The boy sat on his mother.

95

bohil sat

(Asa)

GENITIVE CASE

5.59

gəngɑ ke upər ke pul tutə gəil bɑ (Bho) Ganga Gen on Gen bridge broke gone Aux The bridge on top of Ganga broke (Bridge that was above Ganga broke).

5.60

ʊ əstesən ke sɑməne (s)he station Gen front (S)he lives in front of the station.

5.61

o pul ke upər ɟɑit (s)he bridge Gen on go (S)he is going on (to) the bridge.

5.62

cit̪t̪ʰi kit̪ɑ:b ke bic mẽ cʰɑi letter book Gen between in Aux The letter is in between (the pages) of the book.

rəhə live

həi Aux

ɑcʰi Aux

(Mag)

(Mai)

(Ang)

It can be said that the deictic element is the TR, which is part of the LM. So, in example 5.58, ‘on’ (lap) is perceived as part of the mother. The use of the genitive here is like the use of the partitive when used with a body part or other part–whole relationship. When the specific location of the LM is to be marked then only the genitive is used (with the deictic marker). Otherwise, the locative marker performs the task of stating the location, which is explained by the following Bangla examples. 5.63

lok-tɑ gɑcʰ-e corlo man-Clf tree-Loc climb The man climbed on the tree (The man climbed the tree).

5.64

lok-tɑ gɑcʰ-er opor-e corlo man-Clf tree-Gen on-Loc climb The man climbed on the tree (The man climbed the tree).

5.65

lok-tɑ gɑcʰ-er pɑʃ-e d̪ɑrie man-Clf tree-Gen on-Loc stand The man is standing near the tree.

5.66

lok-tɑ

5.67

lok-tɑ gɑcʰ-er nic-e man-Clf tree-Gen on-Loc The man is sitting under the tree.

5.68

lok-tɑ

gɑcʰ-e

gɑcʰ-e

d̪ɑrie

ɑcʰe Aux

ɑcʰe* boʃe sit

ɑcʰe Aux

ɑcʰe*

In the above six sentences it can be seen that the first two sentences (5.63 & 5.64) mark the same location but in one (5.64), the genitive construction is being used while in the other (5.63) it has not been used. The genitive construction is used to place emphasis on a certain part. When the sentence is uttered without the genitive then it can be any part within the tree. But when the location to be marked is not in the tree but at a proximal distance from the tree, the use of genitive construction becomes obligatory and so example sentences 5.66 and 5.68 are ungrammatical sentences. The tree here is the referral point. 96

GENITIVE CASE

These locations are the extended parts of the tree, and so to mark these the genitive case marker is obligatory. This holds true for all the languages under study except Odia. In Odia the genitive marker is not used before the diexis. 5.69

5.70

5.71

pilɑ-ti child-Clf The child.

gʰɔrɑ horse

upɔre on

bɔsilɑ sat

̪ mu citʰ ii-ti-ku prustɑ mɔɟʰɔre I letter-Clf-Obj pages middle I kept the letter in between the pages. pilɑ-ti t̪ɑ upɔre child-Clf it on The child sat on it.

rɑkʰi keep

d̪eli gave

bɔsilɑ sat

The genitive case is used before the comitative case in Group A languages (except Maithili). In Group B languages it is used with Asamiya and Bangla but not with Odia. Again, it can be said that the companionship is seen to be an extended part of the LM. The companionship is taken as a location (nearness) which is marked by the genitive marker. It becomes more like the use of the genitive marker with the deictic element. In examples 5.77 and 5.78 it can be seen that the genitive marker does not precede the comitative as it does in Odia sentences. 5.72

cirəij-ɑ ɟəl-wɑ ke sɑt̪ʰe bird-Clf net-Clf Gen with The bird flew away with the net.

5.73

lərkɑ mɑ̃i ke sɑt̪ʰe bəɟɑrə boy mother Gen with market The boy went to market with his mother.

5.74

ur fly

kɔpɔrɑ ke sɑtʰ ̪ ɟut̪t̪ɑ pʰri clothes Gen Comi shoe free The shoes are free with the clothes. nɑsibor dancing

geləi went gəil went milei get

5.75

mo-r tɑ-r logot I-Gen (s)he-Gen Comi I wish to dance with him.

mon wish

5.76

ɑmi bʰɑi-er ʃɑt̪ʰe I brother-Gen Comi I will play with (my) brother.

5.77

həm bʰɑt̪ə səŋe mɑcʰə I rice Comi fish I want to have fish with rice.

5.78

pue-ti t̪ɑ mɑ sɔhit̪ɔ bɑɟɑr gɔlɑ boy-Clf mother Comi market went The boy went to market with his mother.

kʰelbo play

97

kʰɑe eat

(Mag)

(Bho)

(Ang)

(Asa)

(Ban)

cɑheci want

(Mai)

(Odi)

GENITIVE CASE

5.3.4 Containers 5.3.4.1  Space as container When something is kept in a container, the container generally becomes the more salient entity, hence it serves as the reference point. The container becomes the LM, and the object which is contained is the TR. 5.79

gelɑʃ-er ɟɔl-tɑ gɔrom glass-Gen water-Clf hot The water of the glass is hot (The water in the glass is hot).

(Ban)

5.80

bɑkos-ər kɑpor-kʰini d̪iɑ box-Gen clothes-Clf give Give the clothes kept in the box (box’s clothes).

(Asa)

5.81

u dib-wɑ ke pəis-wɑ girləi that box-Clf Gen money fell Money of that box fell (Money dropped from the box).

(Mag)

Among the different types of image schemas, one of the most productive ones is the CONTAINER schema. The CONTAINER image schema (discussed by Johnson, 1987; Lako, 1987; Lindner, 1981; Clausner & Croft, 1997) consists of an interior, an exterior and a boundary, just like any real container. It is used for various senses of in, out and into. It can be seen in the following examples that the location of the TR is mentioned, which is in the LM: the field is in the village (example 5.82.), the garden is within the boundary of the house (example 5.83), tea which grows or can be found in Darjeeling (example 5.84). All these mentioned spaces (village, house and Darjeeling) are perceived as a container which has an interior (inside the village, house and Darjeeling), a exterior (outside the village, house and Darjeeling) and a boundary. 5.82

wẽ gɑ̃u ke kʰet̪ d̪ekʰ lẽicʰɑi (s)he village Gen field see took (S)he saw the field in the village (village’s field).

(Ang)

5.83

gʰɔr ke bɑri ni:k house Gen garden nice The garden of the house is nice.

(Mai)

5.84

ɑmi d̪ɑrɟiliŋ-er cɑ I Darjeeling tea I will buy Darjeeling tea.

cʰəi Aux

kinbo buy

(Ban)

5.3.4.2  Body as container The animate body is also perceived as a container. Peña (1997), Janda (1999), Santibáñez (2002) and others suggested the human body as a container.

98

GENITIVE CASE

A  Container schema typically involves entities containing other entities. Various abstract objects, like experiences, habits and qualities, use the body as the reference point. In such instances, the body is taken as a container and the qualities and the experiences are marked in the context of the body. Many linguists (e.g., Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2008) differentiate between body parts and what they call ‘properties’ or ‘qualities’ of a body when describing genitives. Here too I have differentiated between body parts as a part of the part–whole relation, and properties and feelings (valour, habit, odour, taste, feelings such as pain, happiness) as something contained within the body. 5.85

həm rɑm ke I Ram Gen I saw Ram’s valour.

himmɑt̪ valour

d̪ekʰəliəi saw

5.86

kut̪bɑ kɑ bʰɑukɑi ke dog Gen bark Obj Dogs have the habit of barking.

5.87

kukur-to-e lorɑ-to-r gondʰ pɑise dog-Clf-Agt boy-Clf-Gen smell got The dog got the boy’s odour (The dog got the odour of the boy).

(Asa)

5.88

ɑm-ɑr boeʃ ʃolo I-Gen age sixteen My age is sixteen.

(Ban)

5.89

rɑɟ ke bɑhut̪e d̪ukʰ cʰəi Raj Gen many sad is Raj is very sad (Raj has lots of sadness).

(Bho)

ɑ:dɑt̪ habit

(Mag)

huɑi happen

cʰɑi Aux

(Ang)

Genitive case marking is also used in Asamiya and Bangla to mark experiential constructions. An experiential construction is a construction “which has an experience verb accompanied by one experiencer noun and one or zero patient noun” (Abbi, 1994, p. 70). Here the experiencers are treated as the content of the body. The body is the container wherein the experiences and the feelings are stored. As the absence of the agent can be marked in such constructions, Abbi (1994) notes them as ‘Non Agentive’ constructions. She describes these constructions as “involuntary in nature and the affected party is an ‘experiencer’ or ‘benefactor’ or ‘recipient’ or just ‘exist’ in a state” (Abbi, 1994, p. 97). Nikiforidou (1991, p. 177) claims that “what is expressed by the genitive freely and productively is the experiencer, with the head noun denoting things such as feelings, moods, dispositions etc.” Mitkovska (2004, p. 11) also notes that “psychological states and experiences can marginally be perceived as components of one’s personality”. So, experiences and psychological states are perceived as being kept in the body, which is perceived as a container. “The experiencer participant in an experiential situation is typically more prominent than the

99

GENITIVE CASE

stimulus (or theme) that brings about the experience or forms its domain” (Bickel, 2001, p. 1). In such constructions the subject position takes the genitive marker to mark the psychological and physiological states. Onishi (2001) notes that in Bangla, predicates which require a Genitive S/A are typically complex verbs which consist of a verb such as hɔ- ‘become’, kɔr- ‘do’ and pa- ‘get’ (conjunct verbs). 5.90

ɑm-ɑr lɔɟɟɑ I-Gen shame I felt ashamed.

5.91

ɑmi loɟɟit̪o I shame I felt ashamed.

5.92

ɑm-ɑr kʰid̪e pejecʰe I-Gen hunger get I am feeling hungry.

(Ban)

5.93

ɑmi kʰud̪ɑrt̪ʰo I hunger I am hungry.

(Ban)

5.94

mo-r lɑɟ I-Gen shame I felt ashamed.

5.95

mo-i lɑɟ I-Agt shame I felt ashamed.

korlo did

(Ban)

holɑm happen

(Ban)

lɑgilə do

(Asa)

(Asa)

pɑlu felt

In Asamiya the verbs are lɑgilə- ‘feel’. Use of the verb ‘pɑlu’ shows control over the situation, but it is not so when the verb ‘lɑgu’ is used. The psychological and physiological states in these languages can be said in either way: either by using the genitive marker, or without it. As well as the conjunct verbs, some complex verb constructions can be used with the genitive construction. This requires an object with or without the Objective case marker. 5.96

ɑm-ɑr t̪omɑ-ke I-Gen you-Obj I remember you.

5.97

mo-r kit̪ɑb-tu porhibo I-Gen book-Clf read I have a wish to read this book.

mone mind

poɽe fall mon wish

(Ban)

ɑse Aux

(Asa)

Other than absence of volitionality, the genitive marker marks the absence of control over the situation, which can be compared with a parallel

100

GENITIVE CASE

sentence without the genitive marking. It is the absence of the control over the action which makes the Asamiya subjects take the genitive case marker because the presence of control has to be marked in Asamiya with the agentive case marker. Onishi notes that “Languages which have complex verb constructions may show oppositions between a controlling predicate such as ‘do’ (with a canonically marked A/S) and a non-controlling predicate such as ‘be/become’ (with a non-canonically marked A/S) (e.g. Hindi-Urdu and Bengali)” (Onishi, 2001, p. 126). The following are examples from Onishi (2001, p. 133). 5.98

ɑm-ɑr tʰɑndɑ I-Gen cold I got cold.

5.99

ɑmi bɑire berije tʰɑndɑ lɑgiecʰi I outside went cold hit By going out I have got myself cold.

legecʰe hit

In the Asamiya example (5.97), the subject only shows its desire to read the book: the desire, which it possesses. Similarly, in the Bangla example (5.98) the subject got cold which it contains but it has no control over it. Experiences, psychological and physiological, such as desires, wishes and remembrance, all are perceived to be kept in the body, which carries them all as a container would. 5.100

ɑm-ɑr bæt̪ʰɑ I-Gen pain I got hurt.

lɑglo hit

Here it can be seen that subject ‘I’ gets hurt; hence, ‘I’ is the experiencer of the pain. Experience gets inside the body and becomes one of the things kept in the container: the body, ‘I’. The LM (body) behaves like a container of the TR (experiences). But in sentence 5.99 genitive marking is absent. ‘Cold’ is something which the subject has gained due to his/her action. He/she is directly or indirectly responsible for it. However, in example (5.98) the subject is a passive survivor of the effect (getting cold). As Abbi 1994, p. 97 notes, “the constructions are Non Agentive in nature, and indicate a kind of passivity on the part of the non agent nominal”. So, it can be seen that with Non Agentive constructions the genitive marker is being used, while with its parallel agentive construction (GEN) it does not occur. Klaiman (1981) marks that these subjects are generally non-volitional. Moreover, it can be noted here that the genitive marker is not used to create mental address or to make the TR definite. The same sentence can be constructed without the genitive construction, by changing the verb

101

GENITIVE CASE

(examples 5.98 & 5.99). Such sentences can be taken as exceptions to the rule that genitives are used to mark the reference point of the TR. 5.3.4.3  Time as a container Genitives in these languages are also used to mark temporal relations. Luraghi (2003, p. 61) notes that “Spatial location can be conceptualized as temporal location … Temporal use of genitive is common in many IndoEuropean languages”. Here the vast area of the LM is not concrete, like location – it is abstract. A time period is perceived as a container and an event is taken as something kept inside it. A time period has many events as its various contents. An event is made specific/definite by connecting it with the time period through the genitive. 5.101

roti se subʰ ke nɑst̪ɑ ho chapatti Inst morning Gen breakfast happen Chapatti will be enough for the morning’s breakfast.

5.102

kɑl-ker pepər koi? yesterday-Gen paper where Where is yesterday’s newspaper?

5.103

sɔndʰijɑ beɽ-ɽ evening time-Gen Evening’s arti.

ɟɑil go.Fut

(Bho)

(Ban)

ɑɽti arti (ritual of worship)

(Odi)

In these sentences, a time period or a location is perceived as a container, as stated above. The events are the contents of the container. Similarly, the area within a particular location is the content of that particular location, which is perceived as a container. This idea is elaborated in Figure 5.5. Here, R is

B

C

A D R

C

Figure 5.5  Schema showing reference point of an event.

102

T

GENITIVE CASE

the reference point, which is a particular time period. It may be taken as evening time (from sentence 5.103). In the evening there are several events: A, B, C. It can be said that evening time is perceived as a container which has many events within it. A particular event – say, ‘arti’ (from sentence 5.103) – has been made the target (T) by the conceptualizer (C). The target gets linked to its reference (R), as shown in the figure. 5.3.5  Action relation In such constructions, the action is related to an object. The action is the TR, which is related to the LM. Here, the LM is the locus of the action. The LM makes the TR definite, like in all other above-mentioned instances. Such constructions are nominalized constructions derived from verbs. Here the action cannot be completed without the LM. Cienki notes that: the subject of the nominalized verb usually represents the more prominent participant in the given action, and so it is likely to be chosen as the reference point for the event...one of the participants serves as a reference point for establishing mental contact with the event. (Cienki, 1995, p. 82) Here, the LM is the locus of the action. Langacker (1993, p. 10) accounts for their existence by explaining that the participants serve as “natural reference points for events. Participants are conceptually autonomous, while an event is conceptually dependent. An event cannot be conceived of without evoking in some way the conception of the participants.” Mitkovska (2004) marks that in such constructions, the nominalized entity is the possessor and the initiator of the nominalized predication is the possessed. “Abstract products of people’s activity are often expressed in a similar way as the activity itself (deverbal nouns whose root is the verb for the activity) and can be interpreted, just like experiences, as more or less permanent” (Mitkovska, 2004, p. 11). Here, we can see that the activity is not always abstract. 5.104

ləik-wɑ ləiki-ɑ ke int̪əɟɑr boy-Clf girl-Clf Gen wait The boy waited for the girl.

5.105

gəhnɑ ke cori bʰenɑi jewellery Gen steal happen Stealing of jewellery happened (jewellery was stolen).

(Mai)

5.106

lərkɑ: lɑrki: ke picʰɑ: boy girl Gen follow The boy followed the girl.

kərlɑkəi did

(Ang)

5.107

kɑli rimɑ-r bɑhɑgɔrɔ tomorow Rima-Gen wedding Tomorrow is Rima‘s wedding.

ɑcʰi is

(Odi)

103

kərkəi did

(Mag)

GENITIVE CASE

5.108

rɑbi un-kər int̪ezɑr kərət̪ Ravi (s)he-Gen wait do Ravi was waiting for him/her.

5.109

ɑmi t̪om-ɑr ɔpekk̪ʰɑ I you-Gen wait I am waiting for you.

rəhəl Aux

(Bho)

korcʰi doing

(Ban)

5.3.6 Agentive Genitive constructions are also used to mark the agent. Keenan (1985) notes that when the genitive construction is used for the agent then the agent is conceived as the possessor of the action done by the agent. The genitive marks the agent, and by doing so it catches one of the features of the TR (similar to Figure 5.3, where one aspect of the TR is marked to make it definite) and makes the agent look like the modifier of the TR. Hence, the agent becomes the LM for the TR. The agent therefore being the LM works as the reference point for the TR. Nikiforidou (1991, p. 178) points out that “agents can be perceived as the possessors of the products of the activity just as experiencers are perceived as the possessors of the experience”. Yadav (2004) notes that infinitival and participial clauses in Maithili do not permit overt subject NPs in nominative case. Instead, their case must be demoted to the genitive or dative (Bickel and Yadava, 2000, pp 352–4). In an attributive clause, for example, the nominative case of a subject is demoted to genitive, (2004, p. 261) An example from Yadav (2004, p. 261) 5.110

rɑm-ɑk likhɑl cit̪ʰi/ rɑm Ram-Gen written letter/ Ram The letter written by Ram.

ke Gen

likhɑl written

cit̪ʰi letter

Such sentences can be found in all other languages as well, except Asamiya as Asamiya has a different agentive marker to these languages. 5.111

ɑmɑ-r lekʰɑ cit̪ʰi-tɑ kot̪ʰɑe I-Gen write letter-Clf where Where have you kept the letter written by me?

rekʰecʰiʃ put

In such sentences a verb comes in between the subject and the other nominal entity. The agent is used as a modifier for the TR. The verbs are always in the past forms. The verb gets nominalized and together with the LM works as a modifier. They make the second nominal entity definite. The objective case in such use also works as a modifier for the letter, but the sense of agentivity is absent from the modifier construction. 104

GENITIVE CASE

5.112

ɑmɑ-ke lekʰɑ cit̪ʰi-tɑ kot̪ʰɑe rekʰecʰiʃ I-Obj write letter-Clf where put Where have you kept the letter written to me?

If the genitive marker is dropped then the verb gets nominalized and works as a modifier, but again the sense of agentivity is lost. It can be said that the genitive marker in such constructions is used to mark the agent. Here the genitive marker works as an agentive marker. Agentive reading is absent when there is no genitive marker. 5.113

‘ɑmi’ lekʰɑ cit̪ʰi-tɑ kot̪ʰɑe rekʰecʰiʃ ‘I’ write letter-Clf where put Where have you kept the letter on which “I” is written (where the word “I” is written)?

5.114

toto/miʃti lekʰɑ cit̪ʰi-tɑ kot̪ʰɑe rekʰecʰiʃ Toto/sweet write letter-Clf where put Where have you kept the letter written “Toto/sweet” (on top of it)?

5.4 Discussion It can be seen that the genitive case is generally used to establish a mental address by making an object definite. The TR is linked with a salient LM. This makes the TR definite as it provides a mental address for the TR. This is done through possession, ownership, part–whole relation, using container imagery, equating or by relating an action to a locus. The basic function of the genitive is to establish a relation between two objects where, i ii

One noun is used to modify the other. One noun is used as a reference point for the other.

It can be seen from the above classifications that the genitive case is not always used for possession. In some instances there is a relation betweeen the possessor and the possesse, but not in all of them. Possession gives the sense of belonging which can be found in Ownership, Partitives, Containers and Agentives but not in various types of Relations and Action Relations. As a possessor does not possesses the Relation terms (as discussed in § 5.3.2) and the actions (Action Relations). It should also be noted that some of the relations are inherent to the LM while others are not. When the relations are inherent, the LM has no choice whether to build a relation with TR or not. But when the TR is not inherent to the LM then the LM chooses to build the genitive relation with the TR. Inherence show a closer link between the LM and the TR. Aikhenvald (2013, p. 4) notes that “Kinship possession and whole-part relationship reflect a closer link between the Possessor and the Possessee than conventional ownership construction.” This can be plotted through the concept of inherence. Figure 5.6 shows the classifications according to inherence. 105

GENITIVE CASE Genitive

Inherent

Partitives Container

Kinship

Non-Inherent

Social Terms Equal Terms

Actions Ownership

Figure 5.6  Classification of genitives.

The various semantic categories discussed in the chapter are shown in Table 5.2, along with the extended use. It can be seen that the semantic range of the genitive marker in Bangla is the widest, and it is narrowest in Odia. It should also be noted that most of these languages use the genitive with diectic markers and with comitatives. In Group 1 languages, Bhojpuri has the widest range of use of the gentive marker. It is least used in Maithili. It can be seen, that other than the two functions of the genitive marker mentioned above, it also marks the location as the Source or the Goal of an object when the object experiences displacement. If the object is to depart from a Source, then the Source is marked by the genitive marker, and if the object is to reach or intends to reach a Goal then again the genitive marker is used with the Goal. Such usages are found only in Asamiya and Bangla (used with the ablative and benefactive) and Bhojpuri (for the benefactive). Bangla, however, distinguishes between human and nonhuman sources. The non-human source is not marked by the genitive case marker. Other than the location of the Source and the Goal, the location of nearness (comitative) is also marked by the genitive marker in all these languages except Maithili and Odia. Odia never uses the genitive marker to mark location. It can be said that the genitive marker shows the attachment of LM and TR, but then the locative case also does the same in these languages. The genitive marker is different from the locative marker as it does not state the position of the TR like the locative marker. The genitive marker only modifies or makes the TR definite by attaching it to a salient LM.

106

Table 5.2  Semantic categories of the genitive marker in EIA languages Languages

Semantic Categories Ownership Own

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ex. Own ABL

BEN

N N N N Y +H N

N Y N N Y Y N

Partitive Part

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Container Ex. Part

D

COMI

Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Y Y N Y Y Y N

Abbreviations used in the Table Own: Ownership in general Ex. Own: Extended Ownership with Ablative (ABL) and Benefactive (BEN) Relation: Includes all relations discussed in § 5.3.2 Part: Partitive in general Ex. Part: Extended Partitives D: With Diectic elements COMI: With Comitataives Cont: Container in general Ex. Cont: Extended Container N-A: Non-agentive Temp: Temporal Container Y: YES (GEN used) N: No (GEN not used) H: +Human

Cont

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Action Relation

Agentive

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y N Y Y

Ex. Cont N-A

Temp

N N N N Y Y N

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

GENITIVE CASE

107

Angika Bhojpuri Maithili Magahi Asamiya Bangla Oriya

Relation

GENITIVE CASE

5.5 Conclusion It can be observed from the above that the genitive case marker is used in these languages to create a link between a salient object and a generic object. The link with the salient object makes the generic object definite. Langacker marks that it is by virtue of its salience that an object is chosen as a ­reference point. He describes the salient object by pointing out that “the reference point has a particular salience, either intrinsic or contextually determined” (Langacker, 1993, p. 6). Generally, the objects on the higher level on the animacy hierarchy scale are taken as more salient compared to those at the lower end of the scale, though this pattern is not always followed, as can be seen in sentences 5.27  & 5.28. The saliency of the object depends on the conceptualizer. He/she chooses the salient object depending on the context. So, at times, the inanimate object becomes the reference point for the animate object. It was observed in this chapter that the genitive marker is used to create a reference point in various relations such ownership, kinship, etc. It is also used with the experiential construction in Asamiya and Bangla. Further, it is used with agents where the agent works as a modifier along with the nominalized verb. Here too the agent becomes the reference point for the object. It is also used as a base for other cases to occur in Group 2 languages. The genitive case is used as a base where the TR is at a proximal distance to the LM, but it is not within the LM. According to Masica (1991) these are Layer II affixes (mentioned in § 6.4). Layer II becomes the mediator between Layer III and the root. He also mentions that in most of the instances, a genitive marker is used for this purpose. Nikolaeva and Spencer (2013) note that case markers of various cases are often added to the oblique form. The oblique form is often formed by adding the genitive to the base. They state that “it is problematic to treat the oblique stem itself as the genitive form because then a number of cases would involve double case marking” (2009, p. 196). However, they also note that the genitive may be “reanalyzed as a stem form, without necessarily losing its original function as a genitive form” (2009, p. 197). It may be that in Asamiya and Bangla the genitive case marker is in the process of grammaticalization. In some forms of the genitive construction, the function of the genitive is clearly visible, while in others the function of the genitive seems to be absent. This works like a linker, creating a link between the base form and the postpositions (like the use of the genitive marker in Bangla with comparison: § 3.11). But such a view requires diachronic dimensions in the analysis of the meaning of the genitive marker, which is beyond the scope of the present study. It was observed that, among all the languages under study, Bangla has the widest range of usage of the genitive marker, followed by Asamiya. The use of the genitive marker is quite restricted in Odia. It was also observed that in the Agentive use of the genitive, the genitive marker modifies the TR, but

108

GENITIVE CASE

if the genitive marker is replaced by an objective case marker then also the TR gets modified. The absence of any case marker can also lead to modification of the TR. Thus, it can be said that the genitive marker is used not only to modify or make the TR definite, but also to mark agentivity. In such sentences the genitive marks the relation between the agent and the nominalized verb. When the genitive marker is used to mark the agent then the agent loses its agenthood (control over the event). In Asamiya the agenthood (control over the event/action) is marked by the agentive marker, while the genitive marker is used to mark loss of control of the agent. Asamiya has a different agentive case marker so it does not use genitive agent marking, while in all other respects the use of the genitive marker in Asamiya is similar to that of Bangla (except with the ablative, where Bangla uses it only with + human).

109

Chapter 6 SOME ISLAND CASES

6.1 Introduction This chapter deals with cases which are limited to one language or one group. These cases are unique either in their features or their existence. The types of cases which are discussed in this chapter are the Agentive (Agt), Comparative (Compar) and Simulative (Simu) cases of Asamiya and Odia, and the /-rɑ/ marker of Group 1 languages. Asamiya has a different case marker for Agentive which is not found in the other languages studied here. The other languages share the Comparative and Simulative case marker with either ablative or instrumental case markers, but Asamiya and Odia have a different marker for these relations. Group 1 languages have an affix marker /-rɑ/, which receives little mention in linguistic research. Due to its uneven distribution it is difficult to categorize it into a certain class of case. This affix is discussed in detail in § 6.4.

6.2 Agentive Palancar notes that: In the most common case, Agent is the role of the participant instigating and bearing control upon a given action… In the prototypical case the Agent participant is construed as a human being and additionally, it may be thought to have acted intentionally and volitionally. (2002, p. 11) The same concept has been elaborated by Luraghi (2003, p. 30): “Typical features of Agents are intentionality and control. Intentionality implies animacy; the same implication, however, is not so clear in the case of control.” Canonically, in all these languages the arguments A and S are almost always unmarked (for Nominative), but for Asamiya the agent gets marked for the agentive case. The marker is either /e/ or /i/. Many linguists prefer to 110

SOME ISLAND CASES

define an agent as a doer with the intention to do: “An actor or a cause becomes an agent only if the feature [+intent] is licensed” (Kallulli, 2006, p. 272). This definition also stands true for Asamiya agents, but the agent here should be taken in a broader aspect. In this language the agents are all those animate nominal or pronominal entities that perform some action. It can be said that doers are agents. It does not matter much whether the action has been done with the intention of doing it or not; what matters is the control of the agent over the action. The action should be volitional and hence the actor should have the capacity to control it. This can be witnessed in examples 6.2–6.5, which show the actions done intentionally. Kakati (1941), in describing Asamiya case markings, states that Asamiya uses /-e/ as the agentive marker, which changes into /-i/ after a noun ending with /-ɑ/, /-ɑ:/ or /–u/. Masica, discussing Layer II case markers, states for Asamiya: “the Agentive (sometimes called “Nominative”) –e/i, which apparently represents a fusion of the old instrumental –ena with the old Magadhi Nominative in –e. It now functions as an agglutinative suffix on Layer II” (Masica 1991, p. 233). Kakati also focuses on the fact that the agentive marker in Asamiya helps in differentiating between the subject and the object, which he elaborates with the following examples (Kakati 1941, p. 285). 6.1

mɑnuh mɑre man dies Man dies.

6.2

mɑnuh-e man-Agt Man beats.

mɑre beats

Kakati also notes that the marking is “dropped when the subject is related to an intransitive verb except when special emphasis is laid upon it” (Kakati, 1941, p. 285). However, I found the use of the agentive marker to be equally distributed for both intransitive and transitive verbs. 6.3

mɑnuh-ɟon-e siwori mɑn-Clf-Agt shout The man shouted.

utʰil rise

6.4

sɑtro-bor-e xikkʰjok-zon-ɔk student-Plu-Agt teacher-Clf-Obj The students met the teacher.

6.5

kukur-tu-e bʰuki dog-Clf-Agt bark The dog barked.

log with

pɑle met

ut̪ʰil rose

It can be seen that in example 6.3 the man is the agent of the action shout, which cannot be done unintentionally – thus, the action is intentional. In example 6.7 the boy hears something; that action may be unintentional. It may be that he wanted to hear the dog bark so he heard it intentionally, or 111

SOME ISLAND CASES

he may have heard it just by chance. But in both sentences the agent has the capacity to control the action. If he wants he can try not to hear the barking (for example, by putting cotton-wool in his ear), hence the agentive marker is used. The following examples show actions that were not done intentionally, yet the actor could have stopped himself/herself from doing the action as they are within the agent’s control. 6.6

mo-i lɑɟ I-Agt shame I was ashamed.

pɑlu felt

6.7

lorɑ-ɟon-e kukur-to-e bʰoki boy-Clf-Agt dog-Clf-Agt bark The boy heard the dog bark.

tʰokɑ happen

xunile heard

Sentences 6.6 and 6.7 can be contrasted with sentence 6.8, wherein the subject is not the agent – it has no control over the action. This is expressed by the genitive construction instead of the agentive (discussed in § 5.3.6.). 6.8

mo-r lɑɟ I-Gen shame I felt ashamed.

lɑgilə do

The agentive and the genitive construction of Asamiya can be compared with Hindi, which also marks agentivity. Hindi uses the ergative when the subject has control over the event. When the subject is the patient, it uses the objective case. There is not only a change in the case marking, but also in the verb. In example 6.9 the verb shows a controlling predicate, whereas sentence 6.10 uses a non-controlling predicate. 6.9

lərka ko kutta ka bʰãukna sunai dija boy Obj dog Gen barking listen gave The boy heard the dog barking.

6.10

lərka ne kutta ko bʰãukte boy Erg dog Obj barking The boy heard the dog barking.

suna listen

When the sentence carries a stative verb which does not refer to any action done but tells of a physical or psychological state, then the subject does not host the agentive case in Asamiya, as no action is being done. This can be witnessed in the following sentences: 6.11

mɑjɑ i tini-o-ke Maya these three-Emp-Obj Maya knows these three.

6.12

burhɑ mɑnuh-kʰini toun-ɔt old man-Clf stown-Loc The old men live in towns.

sini know

112

t̪ʰɑke live

pɑi is

SOME ISLAND CASES

6.13

rɑm meerɑ-r xoite Ram Meera-Gen with Ram is sitting with Meera.

bohi sit

ɑse is

It should also be noted that the agent in this language should be the real doer of the action. This means it should have the capacity to perform the action, hence it should be volitional and have control over the action [+ Control]. Non-animate objects are supposed to lack this control so the agentive case cannot be used with them, as can be seen in the following Asamiya examples (6.14, 6.15 & 6.16). 6.14

bol-tu ghuri ɑse bɑll-Clf roll gone The ball is rolling.

6.15

kitɑp-kʰon kuɳjɑ-e porile book-Clf well-Agt fell The book fell in the well.

6.16

zuɑkɑli boroxun yesterday rɑin It rained yesterday.

disil gɑve

But the agentive case can be used with the verbs described (Animate Verb, IV) in Chapter 4 (§ 4.3.2), which take the objective case with inanimate objects. So the agentive case can be used with arguments of such verbs in Asamiya. 6.17

bɔl-tu-e mu-k ball-Clf-Agt I-Obj The ball hit me.

kʰundiele hit

6.1

bɛt-e bɔl-tu mɑrile bat-Agt ball-Clf hit The bat hit the ball.

It can be noted that in Bangla the genitive marker works as an agentive marker to show the agent of the work and its control over the action and its output. It makes the possessed entity definite. However, it is semantically different from the agentive case in Asamiya. The Asamiya agentive case does not work as the modifier, hence it does not make the TR definite. It also does not create a reference point for the TR by attaching the LM to it, like the genitive case. The examples and arguments stated above give the following basic characteristics of the agentive case in Asamiya: • The agentive case is marked with the agent when it is in control of the action, though the action performed may be intentional or unintentional. • As inanimate objects lack control over the action, the agentive case is not marked with them.

113

SOME ISLAND CASES

• With some exceptional verbs (Animate verbs and IV) the arguments of the verbs behave like animate objects so the agentive case can be marked with such arguments.

6.3 Comparative The comparative case was discussed in length in § 3.11. However, Asamiya and Odia are dealt with here as these languages have different case markers for comparison, unlike other languages which use the same marker for comparison and ablative or instrumental case marking. In Asamiya /koi/ follows the locative marker /-ɔt̪/ to show both similarity and contrast (as described in § 3.11). But when the marker /koi/ is used to show similarity or used like a simile, then the locative marker does not precede it: then, /koi/ follows /nisinɑ/, which means similar. /nisina/ and /koi/ come together to mean ‘same like’ and are used for the simulative case (see examples 6.21 & 6.22). 6.19

kukur mekuri-t̪-koi bʰɑl dog cat-Loc-Compar good Dog is better than cat (The dogs are better than the cats).

6.20

loɾɑ-boɾ zuwɑli-boɾ-ɔt̪uwɑl boy-Plu girl-Plu-Loc-Compar Boys are taller than girls.

6.21

rɑznit̪ik-xɔkɔl-e ɔbʰinet̪ɑ-r nisinɑ-koi ɔbʰinɔi politician-all-Agt actor-Gen same-Compar acting Politicians know to act like actors.

6.22

t̪omɑ-lok-e kesuw-ɑr nisinɑ-koi bəɟɔbɔhɑr nɔ kɔribɑ you-people-Agt baby-Gen same-Compar behaviour Neg do You people don’t behave like a child (You people should not behave like the children).

okʰɔ tall korilo do

zɑne know

Odia uses two comparative markers for the two types of comparison: similarity and contrast. The /pori/ marker is used to show similarity between two objects. sət̪əsistɔ innocent

ɔte aux

6.23

mu cʰoto pilɑ pori I small baby Simu I am innocent like a child.

6.24

nɔd̪i-r pɑɳi sɔmud̪ru pɑɳi pori nuhe river-Gen water sea water Simu Neg Water of river is not like sea water (The water of a river is not like the water of the sea).

The marker /t̪ʰɑru/ is used with humans to mark inequality. This marker is also used to mark the ablative case in Odia. For non-humans the marker is /t̪ʰu/. 114

SOME ISLAND CASES

6.25

rɑɟ mohən-t̪ʰɑru besi Raj Mohan-Compar more Raj is taller than Mohan.

ləmbɑ tall

6.26

rupɑ t̪ɑ-t̪ʰɑru besi Rupa (s)he-Compar more Rupa is better than him/her.

bʰɔlɔ good

6.27

poili kɑu-t̪ʰu mit̪ʰɑ gɑe cuckoo crow-Compar sweet sing The cuckoo sings sweeter than the crow.

6.28

seu kɔd̪ɔli-t̪ʰu mit̪ʰɑ apple banana-Compar sweet Apple is sweeter than banana.

6.4  Oblique or objective All the languages of Group 1 use /-rɑ/ or /–rə/ with a pronominal when followed by a postposition. Their distribution varies from language to language, as described below: 6.29

ekɑ-ek həm-ər nəɟər uk-rɑ per pərel suddenly I-Gen sight (s)he-Gen Loc fell Suddenly my eyes fell on him/she (suddenly I saw him/her).

(Bho)

6.30

hɔm t̪o-rɑ se ɟɑd̪e I you-Obl Abl more I am stronger than you.

(Ang)

mɑɟɔbut̪ strong

cʰio Aux

Maithili has two sets of pronouns, honorific and non-honorific, which choose the affix. When a postposition follows any pronoun (singular or plural), it is preceded by an affix which gets attached to the pronoun. When the pronoun is non-honorific then the attachment is /-rɑ/, and with honorific pronouns the attachment is /-kɑ/. 6.31

o hʊn-ka səb kẽ mədəd (s)he (s)he.Hon-Obl all Obj help (S)he will help him/her (+ honorific).

6.32

ok-ra lel həm i (s)he –Obl Ben I this I did this work for him/her.

6.33

ok-ra dunu ke peʈ me dərd cʰəi (Mai) (s)he-Obl two Gen stomach Loc pain Aux There is pain in those two’s stomach (Both of them have pain in their stomach).

kam work

keləun did

kərtʰinh do

(Mai)

(Mai)

In Magahi, /-rɑ/ is used with singular pronouns when followed by a postposition. When the pronoun is followed by a plural marker /-ni/ the /-rɑ/ marker is not used. 115

SOME ISLAND CASES

6.34

siːt̪ɑ həm-rɑ lɑ ego sita me-Obl Ben one Sita sang a song for me.

6.35

həm t̪oh-ni ləgi mit̪ʰɑi ləiləi I you-Plu Ben sweet brought I brought sweets for you all.

gɑnɑ song

gəlkəi: sing

(Mag)

he Aux

(Mag)

Verma (2003) marks this affix as an oblique form of the genitive. /hɑmar/ genitive ‘my’, and its oblique form ‘/hɑmarɑ/’, which is used with postpositions to obtain various periphrastic case functions such as / hɑmar se/ ‘from me’, /hamara la/ ‘for me’ … . (Verma, 2003, p. 508). However, she notes that the genitive in plurals is marked by the postposition /ke/. She does not give any justification behind marking /-rɑ/ as an oblique form of the genitive. The genitive is marked by /-ər/ and /-ke/ (as described in § 5.2). The marker /-rɑ/ does not show the semantic feature of the genitive though it functions like a Layer II marker which paves way for Layer III to occur (for Layers II and III, see Masica, 1991), like the genitive marker of Bangla (described below in example 6.91). Moreover, the /-rɑ/ is homophonous with the objective marker (described in § 4.2) in this language. However, Verma (2003) notes that when the pronoun is in the objective case then the construction is hamara ke, but more often /ke/ in such constructions is not used. In Bhojpuri /ke/ is obligatory in the objective case with both nouns and pronouns. Bhojpuri also has two sets of pronouns, honorific and non-­ honorific, and, like Maithili, the two sets choose different affixes which are put before the postpositions. The affix /-kɑ/ is added to the base form of honorific pronouns before postpositions. When the pronoun is non-honorific, the affix /-rɑ/ precedes the postposition. Like Magahi, the pronouns in Bhojpuri are made plural by the suffix /-ni/, and when the plural marker appears /-rɑ/ does not appear. But the plural is often formed in this language with lexical items such as ‘login’ and ‘səb’. When these lexical items are used then the /-rɑ/ form follows the pronoun, which is followed by ‘login’ or ‘səb’, which further follows the postposition. Maithili and Magahi do not generally use /ke/ and /-rɑ/ together like in the Bhojpuri sentence 6.37. Due to this uneven distribution the affix looks very complicated. 6.36

həm un-kɑ ke lɑt̪ʰə I (s)he-Obl(Hon) Obj kick I kicked him/her (+Honorific).

6.37

həm t̪oh-rɑ ke pʰul d̪ehlək you I-Obl Obj flower gave I gave you (-Honorific) the flower.

6.38

həm t̪oh-rɑ login per gussɑ I you-Obl people Loc angry I am angry with you all (-Honorific).

116

mɑrni hit

(Bho)

bɑni is

SOME ISLAND CASES

Angika also follows same pattern as Bhojpuri. The affix /-rɑ/ is used with pronouns when the pronouns are followed by postpositions. It also has a variation /-rə/. 6.39 həm-rɑ sɑ ɑ:r bulɑl nɑi ɟɑj cʰɑi I-Obl Inst more walk Neg go aux I cannot walk any more. 6.40 həmme t̪o-rɑ sɑb lɑ mitʰ̻ɑe lɑilio I you-Obl all Ben sweet brought I brought sweets for you all.

It is difficult to categorize this affix according to its semantics. It may be taken as a Layer I affix, though Masica (1991) notes that the Eastern IndoAryan languages lack Layer I case markers. He categorizes the agentive case marker of Asamiya and the genitive marker of Bangla under Layer II. Layer I affixes are those which, according to Masica, “attach directly to the base” (1991, p. 234). The difference between Layer I and Layer II markers is that Layer II gets attached at the end of the phrase, which is not true for the Layer I affix. The /rɑ/ marking also gets attached to the individual pronouns rather than getting attached at the end of the phrase (see example 6.41). 6.41 o həm-ra a to-ra (s)he I-Obl and you-Obl (S)he has seen us together.

səŋ Compr

d̪ekʰ lene cʰəu see take Aux

(Mai)

Moreover, Masica explains that such “primary” affixes are “often characterized, despite all the levelling, by declensional differences and by singular/ plural differences” (Masica, 1991, p. 234). In Magahi it can be seen that the affix is dropped when the pronoun takes the plural affix. This /-rɑ/ has been termed as the ‘oblique form’ in the literature (Grierson, 1903; Yadav, 1997; Verma, 2003). This can be compared with the Hindi oblique form. In Hindi, the forms of the direct and the oblique singular are identical. For masculine nouns, the form of the direct plural coincides with that of the oblique singular. Here, the /-rɑ/ affix coincides with the objective case marker used with the pronominals. Moreover, the oblique form generally does not add to the semantics of the phrase. The postpositions occur for that purpose. Here too it can be marked that when the postpositions follow /-rɑ/, then /-rɑ/ does not stand for the objective case. It is the postposition which states the case relation. But levelling this affix just as an oblique case does not help to explain the affix as “the term oblique is used for all cases apart from the basic case” (Haspelmath, 2009, p. 508). The /rɑ/ affix can also be analysed as a Suffixaufnahme construction (Payne, 1995; Kracht, 2002b). Payne puts the Hindi oblique case as an instance of Suffixaufnahme construction. He states that the Hindi oblique

117

SOME ISLAND CASES

is an interesting combination of morphological and phrasal marking. The direct and oblique case endings in Hindi can be clearly shown to be morphological; i.e., they are internal to the word that is marked. For example, when two nouns are conjoined, both must be separately marked for direct or oblique case. (1995, p. 285) In the Group 1 languages where /-ra/ is used, when two nouns occur together in the same object position, then both of them are separately marked by the suffix /-ra/ (e.g. 6.41). But, like Hindi, these languages do not have agreement with number or gender so they do not affect the whole phrase. Suffixaufnahme has also been taken as an agreement with case: “One phenomenon is agreeing postpositions in Hindi, and possessor/­ possessum agreement in general” (Kracht, 2002b, p. 5). Hence, it may not be called a combination of morphological and phrasal marking. Payne marks that “The languages and dialects where Suffixaufnahme is not found are essentially those belonging to the Eastern Indie group (Bengali, Assamese, Bhojpuri, Maithili, and Odia)” (Payne, 1995, p. 285). Kracht notes that Suffixaufnahme is not to be equated with double case: “We say a language has double case the moment that it allows for a word to carry two case markers” (Kracht, 2002b, p. 5). The /-rɑ/ can also be termed a Formative affix, as “Formative” is often used to mark a form with minimal assumptions about meaning. The formative has been defined as an element which is recurrent but cannot be identified with any particular morph (Bauer & Bennett, 2003). As it cannot be identified with any particular morph, its semantics are hard to find. The affix in discussion here shares these features of the Formative affix. This affix is also recurrent, and it similarly cannot be identified with any particular morph. Realization models (Stump, 1993, 2001) discuss case syncretism. Case syncretism is when a single form is used for two or more case functions. In many languages of the world it was seen that two cases are realized through different markers for one set (singulars or nominals) but realized through the same marker for another set (plurals or pronominals) (see, e.g., Dryer & Haspelmath, 2013). “Syncretism of a core case with a non-core case seems to be an allied phenomenon” (Baerman & Brown, 2013, p. 5). Here we find that the same affix that is used for the objective case (accusative–dative), which is a core case, is being used before the postpositions with pronominals. The realization models states that these types of affixes do not have fixed feature content but they occupy a place as an inflectional category. Parallels between case markers and clause linkage markers have also been discussed in the literature (Ohori, 1995; Genetti, 1986). In such instances, one marker works as both the case marker and the clause

118

SOME ISLAND CASES

linkage  marker. Moravcsik (1972), in a cross-linguistic study, found that there are many languages where the marker for dative was also used as a complimentizer. It can be seen that the affix used to mark the objective case (accusative–dative) is not used as a clause linkage marker but it is used as a linker. There are “general tendencies in the extension from case markers to linkage markers” (Ohori, 1995, p. 696). Here the affix, like the clause linkage marker, is not working as a linker between two clauses, but it is working as a linker between the pronominal root and the postposition. This affix can even be compared with the genitive case marker in Asamiya and Bangla. In these two languages the genitive marker almost always precedes postpositions. Here, the affix /-rɑ/ does the same, though its scope is limited to the pronominals. In all three instances (Asamiya, Bangla and Group 1 languages) an affix which is used to mark a case relation (genitive in Asamiya and Bangla; objective in Group 1 languages) is used for creating a link between the host and the postposition. The occurrences of this type of affix may find its reason in the origin and development of the languages, which is beyond the scope of this study.

6.5 Conclusion This chapter looked at the various cases which are realized in some EIA languages but are not uniformly distributed among all the languages. It is interesting to note that all these languages are derived from Magadhi Prakrit and are very closely related geographically and typologically, yet some of their unique features are not shared by all languages of the eastern group. Asamiya marks the agentive case which is not present in the other languages studied here. However, agenthood is marked in the other languages by using the genitive marker at times (see § 5.3.7 for details) or by using other markers (e.g. /-e/ in Bangla; see § 2.2). It was also shown that Odia has both comparative and simulative markers. The comparative marker differentiates between animate and inanimate objects, which is not observed in the other languages of this group. This chapter also discussed the problem of the /-rɑ/ suffix, which is used in Group 1 languages. It is difficult to give a specific term to this suffix. In Maithili and Magahi the affix does not precede the postposition /ke/. The postposition /ke/ is not used with pronominals. The suffix /-rɑ/ serves the purpose of the objective case with pronominals. But in Angika and Bhojpuri the affix is followed by the objective postposition. So, it can be said that in Angika and Bhojpuri the affix does not function as an objective case marker, but in Maithili and Magahi it does work like an objective case marker. In Angika and Bhojpuri, the affix can be taken as an oblique case; but in Maithili and Magahi, the affix functions both as an oblique marker and also as an objective case marker.

119

Chapter 7 CONCLUSION

7.1 Introduction In this chapter, the readers will find a summarization of the findings of the present research work. The chapter gives a brief outline of the case system of Eastern Indo-Aryan languages. This chapter collates the findings of the previous chapters, each of which is dedicated to detailed descriptions of various case relations. Here, I describe in brief the various case markers used to mark different case relations in seven EIA languages (§ 7.2). I also describe some of the essential features which affect the case system of these languages, such as animacy features (§ 7.3), and I discuss the semantic features (§ 7.4) of the cases. I have made semantic maps to explain the semantic complexities of some of the case relations.

7.2  Case and markers It is always challenging to distinguish case relations on the basis of case markers, as one marker is often used to mark various case relations. In this section, I attempt to list the various canonical case relations, which are marked in these languages (Table 7.1). Group 1 languages mark eight case relations, though it uses only five different markers to mark these cases. All Group 2 languages behave differently. Asamiya marks the maximum number of cases, which is ten; however, it uses nine case markers. Odia marks nine cases and uses seven different markers to do so. Bangla marks eight cases. Bangla has six case markers, the least number of markers in the group. The polysemy network is denser in Group 1 languages in comparison to Group 2 languages. In Table 7.1, boxes are marked by the same shade of grey to highlight the fact that these boxes have the same case markers to mark different case relations. Group 1 languages share one of the markers of the objective case with the genitive case, which is marked by a lighter shade of grey. Similarly, Asamiya and Bangla share the same marker for both ablative and perlative cases, which is marked by the lightest shade of grey in the table.

120

Table 7.1  Case markers of EIA languages Languages Case markers ABL

INST

PATH

OBJ

BEN

GEN

COMP

SIMU

AGT

Angika Bhojpuri Maithili Magahi Asamiya

mə, pər me, pər me, pər me, pər -ɔt̪

sə se sə̃ se porɑ

sə se sə̃ se -re/ -d̪i/ d̪ɑrɑ

sə se sə̃ se -re/ - d̪i

-rɑ/ kə -rɑ/ ke -rɑ/ ke -rɑ/ ke -ək

lə kʰɑt̪ir le/ lel lɑ/ ləgi loi/ kɑrone

-ɑr/ kə -ɑr/ ke -ər/ ke -ər/ ke -ɔr

sə se sə̃ se -koi

nisinɑ-koi

-e/ -i

Bangla Odia

-t̪e -re

t̪ʰeke t̪ʰɑru

d̪ie/ d̪ɑrɑ

d̪ie

-re/ d̪wɑrɑ

d̪ie

ke ku

ɟonne pɑĩ

-r -r

t̪ʰeke/ ceje t̪ʰɑru, t̪ʰu

pori

-e

CONCLUSION

121

LOC

CONCLUSION

Some languages use one marker to mark more than one case relation, like the use of the markers /se/, /sə/ or /sə̃/ in Group 1 languages, used to mark ablative, instrumental, path and comparison. In Table 7.1 this is given in the darkest shade of grey. Other languages, like Asamiya, have various markers for these different case relations. Asamiya has different markers for ablative, instrumental, comparative and simulative. It should also be noted that some of these languages mark some case relations while others do not. In Table 7.1, it can be seen that only Asamiya marks agents while other ­languages do not do, though they mark agents occasionally through the genitive marker (see § 5.3.7). Similarly, it can be seen that Odia has a perlative marker which the other languages do not have. Moreover, it can also be seen that some of the case markers which are shared by the various case relations follow a specific pattern (discussed in detail in § 7.4); for example, for comparison, all the languages use the same marker which is used for the ablative case, except Asamiya (which has a different marker). It should also be noted that some of the markers across the EIA languages share phonological similarities (e.g. genitive marker and objective marker), which gives a clue as to the common origin and development of these markers. This feature opens scope for a diachronic study in this area. In Group 1 languages, all the markers are similar for the genitive marker and objective cases. In Group 2 languages, only the instrumental marker for animate is the same across the three languages. Phonological similarities and differences seem to be the result of diachrony, which could be an exciting area for future study.

7.3  Animacy features As seen in the previous chapters, animacy plays a significant role in choosing the cases and their markers in these languages. However, not much work has been done on the relation between animacy and case marking in Eastern Indo-Aryan languages. This may be because “animacy, or the distinction between animate and inanimate entities, is so pervasive in the grammars of human languages that it tends to be taken for granted and become invisible” (Dahl & Fraurud, 1996, p. 47). What should be marked as animate and what should be marked as inanimate is often debatable: On top of its highly interactional nature with other categories comes the fact that the notion animacy itself is also not clear-cut. It is certainly not the case that the linguistic manifestation of animacy follows the biological dimension of animacy. (de Swart, Lamers & Lestrade, 2008, p. 135) It is perceived that despite strong preferences for a particular animacy value of nouns, speakers may conceptualize nouns differently from this preferred value in different contexts. So, it was seen that a ‘doll’, though 122

CONCLUSION

inanimate, may be perceived as animate (see example 4.25 in § 4.3.2); in another sentence, it can be seen that a ‘thing’ (e.g. 4.27 in § 4.3.2) which is inanimate is perceived as animate. Both examples are context bound. “Despite strong preferences for a certain animacy value of nouns, speakers may conceptualize nouns differently from this (the) preferred value in different contexts” (de Swart et al., 2008, p. 135). In the current study, I have followed the hierarchy scale of animacy, wherein “animacy is often characterized as a three-step scale: human > animals (animate) > inanimate” (de Swart et al. 2008, p. 132). Many studies (e.g., Lazard, 1998; Aissen, 2003) have shown that in many languages the object higher on the animacy or definiteness hierarchy tends to be case marked, while those which are lower on the hierarchy scale are left unmarked. In Hindi, it was seen that animate objects get marked for the accusative/dative case, while inanimates are marked only when they are definite (Mohanan, 1990). In Eastern Indo-Aryan languages, too, it can be seen that only animate objects get marked for the objective case along with definite inanimate objects (discussed in Chapter 4), although there are some exceptions with some verbs (Animate verbs and Impingement verbs; see § 4.3.2). Sometimes when an inanimate object is conceived as an animate object, then the objective marker may be used. Mithun (1991) argues that case marking on animate objects is due to affectedness. According to him, animate arguments attract patient marking, as it is easier to perceive animate beings as affected compared to inanimates. This can be one reason for the use of the objective case with animate objects. Animacy also plays a role in the agentive case in Asamiya. The agentive case is mainly used with animates (as discussed in Chapter 6). The relation between the agentive case and animacy has often been observed as the relation between animacy and the thematic role. Moreover, conceptually it makes sense to relate animacy to agentivity. Agents are, more often than not, in control of the actions performed by them. An inanimate object cannot take control of the action as inanimate objects cannot manipulate action. Van Valin and LaPolla (1997) show that roles, which are agent-like, are normally animate or human. A difference in case marking due to animacy is also marked in the locative case of Group 2 languages. The Group 2 languages use the genitive case with animates instead of the locative to mark location in the context of an animate body (§ 2.2.2). It is a common phenomenon among languages to use different markers for marking the locative case for animate and inanimate objects (see, e.g., Malchukov, 2008; de Swart et al., 2008; Aristar, 1997; Dixon, 1977): “Cross-linguistically locative case marking is most often used on NPs expressing locations, which tend to be inanimate” (de Swart et al. 2008, p. 134). Aristar (1997) shows that in many languages a locative case on an animate entity requires additional morphology, which is not used with inanimate entity. Such instances of additional morphology to mark the locative 123

CONCLUSION

case marker is not found in Group 2 languages. Instead, these languages use the genitive to mark location for animate objects. However, with the use of the deictic element, the locative marker can also be used with animate objects since the genitive marker is obligatory with deictic elements. The following structure is used in Asamiya and Bangla with deictic elements: Noun + GEN deictic element +LOC. In Odia the noun does not host genitive before the deictic element (§ 2.2.2). In Bangla, along with the instrumental marker, an additional morphology of an objective case marker is used to mark the instrumental case in animate entities. The objective case marker precedes the instrumental case marker in animate entities. However, it is not used with inanimate objects for the instrumental case (as discussed in § 3.4). All three Group 2 languages have different markers for the instrumental case for animate and inanimate objects. This supports the argument that instruments are inherently taken as inanimate objects (Narrog, 2009), which are used by the animate objects to perform some action. In Bangla, the instrumental marker follows the objective marker, which inherently marks the animate objects (see Chapter  4). The use of the objective case before the instrumental case with animate objects gives license to the instrumental case, which is otherwise a case for inanimate objects, to occur with animate objects. Group 2 languages more often distinguish between animate and inanimate objects through cases than the Group 1 languages do. Group 1 languages only distinguish cases on the basis of animacy through the objective case. However, Group 2 languages, along with the objective case, also mark the difference between animate and inanimate objects through different case markers for locative, ablative, instrumental and genitive. In Table 7.2, those case relations are listed which distinguish the host based on animacy. It can be seen that, in some languages, cases differentiate between animacy using different markers or no markers; in other languages, differences of animacy are not marked through case markers. The agentive case of Asamiya distinguishes between animate and inanimate objects; however, it has not been put in the table because no other language has an agentive case marker except Asamiya. So, it can be seen that the five cases marked in the table differentiate the object on the basis of animacy, in one or more than one language. The animacy feature is strongest in the Objective case marking. Objective case marking, in all the above-mentioned languages, differentiates object marking on the basis of animacy. This is a common feature in Indo-Aryan languages. The objective case is inherently taken as a case of the animate entity (with some exceptions discussed in ­chapter 4). It is followed by the locative and the instrumental case. These two cases are inherently taken as cases for inanimate objects. In all three languages of Group 2, these two cases differentiate on the basis of animacy. Location is inherently inanimate, and so is instrument. However, in some languages, such as the Group 1 languages, there is no difference in location and instrumental marking based on animacy. 124

Table 7.2  Animacy differentiating case marking Languages

Case markers

+A

125

GRP 1

mə, pər

Asamiya Bangla Oriya

-ɔr -r -r

Abbreviations +A = Animate -A = Inanimate N = No marker used

ABL -A

+A

INST -A

sə, se, sə̃ -ɔt̪ -t̪e -re

Gen + porɑ Gen + t̪ʰeke t̪ʰɑru

+A

OBJ -A

sə, se, sə̃ porɑ t̪ʰeke

d̪ɑrɑ d̪ɑrɑ/ ke d̪ie d̪wɑrɑ

-re/ -d̪i d̪ie -re

GEN

+A

-A

+A

-rɑ/ ke

N

-ər/ ke

-ək ke ku

N N N

-ɔr -r -r

-A

N

CONCLUSION

LOC

CONCLUSION

7.4  Semantic features 7.4.1 Features In § 7.2, it was discussed that there are various markers which are used for more than one case relation. I claim that when one marker is being used to mark more than one case relation, they are mostly instances of polysemy and not of homophony. I provide two arguments in support of this claim. Firstly, the standard cross-linguistic distribution suggests that they are interrelated. It is common, cross-linguistically, for some case relations to share the same case markers (e.g. instrumental and perlative). While some crosslinguistic case relations can be easily grouped together as being marked by one marker, it is not so common for other case relations to be grouped together (e.g. perlative and genitive) as they rarely share a case marker. Thus, it is more common cross-linguistically to find some groups of cases, consisting of two or more case relations (e.g. instrumental and perlative), being marked by one marker than other groups (e.g. perlative and genitive) being realized by one marker. Table 7.1 shows that there is a pattern in the distribution of the common case markers. Six of the seven languages (i.e. all except Odia) share a common marker between the instrumental and the perlative cases. Again, it can be seen that the marker is shared between the ablative and the comparative cases in all of the languages except Asamiya. However, some of the markers which are shared among the case relations are language-specific as well, such as the use of the same marker /-re/ in Odia for inanimate location and inanimate instrument. Such usages can also be justified as polysemous usage of a marker. This can be done by referring to the CF, which states that when the different case relations are marked by the same markers, these cases are conceptually connected. This is seen in the Odia instance where the inanimate location and inanimate instrument share the same marker. The following example shows the use of Odia marker /-re/. 7.1

hɔnumɑn tɑnko lɑnɟɔ-re lɔŋkɑ-re Hanuman his tail-Inst Lanka-Loc Hanuman put fire in Lanka with his tail.

niɑ fire

lɑgɑi put

d̪ele gave

The semantics of inanimate location and inanimate instrument overlap in many languages. Sentences like I went in/by a car can take either the instrumental marking or the locative marking in Hindi. The use of the either of the cases depends on the choice of the speaker or the pragmatic conditions – i.e. whether s/he wants to mark the car as a location or as an instrument. 7.2a

məe gɑri se I car Inst I went by a car.

gəjɑ went

126

CONCLUSION

7.2b

məe gɑri me I car Loc I went in a car.

gəjɑ went

But in some languages, like Bangla, the use of case marking for such constructions is restricted. Such sentences cannot take an instrumental case marker. Thus, the car can never be an instrument (i.e. can never take instrumental marking) in the above sentence in Bangla. It can only be the object of location in this sentence as only locative marker can be used here. 7.3

ɑmi gɑri-t̪e I car-Loc I went in a car.

gelɑm went

7.4

ɑmi I

gelɑm* went

gɑri-d̪ie car-Inst

The above examples show that in one language such constructions can use both the instrumental and the locative marking, while in another language, only one of the case markings can be used for such constructions. In one language, there is a clear-cut semantic division between the locative and the instrumental case, while in the other the semantic range of the locative and the instrumental overlap. In Odia, too, the semantic range of the locative and the instrumental overlaps. So, in Odia, we do not know whether to mark the case in this sentence as locative or instrumental. Therefore, it can be argued that in Odia both the inanimate location and the inanimate instrument come under the scope of one case relation and, hence, are realized by one marker. The common marker for instrumental and locative case in Odia supports my second argument. When one common case marker is used for one or more than one case relation(s) in a sentence, at times it becomes difficult to demarcate the case relations. However, the task becomes easy if we consider different usages of one case marker to be related. Experiential constructions (e.g. I felt sad) in Bangla take the genitive marking, while in Hindi they take the objective (dative-accusative) marking. So, when we have a common marking for genitive and objective, as in Magahi, it becomes difficult to mark the case and justify it unless the different usages of the same marker are taken as instances of polysemy. This suggests that there is no distinct boundary between two case relations marked by the same marker. My claim also finds support in CF, which suggests that when the same markers mark different case relations, these cases are conceptually connected in the speaker’s mind. 7.4.2  Semantic maps “A semantic map is a geometrical representation of functions in conceptual/ semantic space that are linked by connecting lines and thus constitute a 127

CONCLUSION

network” (Haspelmath, 2003, p. 213). Semantic maps are best suited for comparing functions: The structure of a semantic map is an empirical result obtained by first identifying and generalizing over a number of comparable meanings across languages and then studying which meanings are directly related to each other in terms of synchronic polyfunctionality or diachronic change. (Boye, 2010, p. 9) Semantic maps help in showing the connection between two functions of a term which are conceptually connected. They have also been defined as a way to “visually represent cross-linguistic regularity in semantic structure” (Cysouw, Haspelmath, & Malchukov, 2010, p. 1). The term ‘semantic map’ is often used as a cover term for various similar concepts. However, some linguists maintain the difference and use terms like ‘mental map’ (Anderson, 1986), ‘implicational map’ (Haspelmath 1997), ‘conceptual space’ (Croft, 2000) and ‘semantic map’ (Cristofaro, 2010, Auwera & Plungian, 1998 & Haspelmath, 2000). The term ‘cognitive map’ (Kortmann, 1997) has also been used for a similar purpose. This term was used to reflect the idea that the universal configuration of functions on the map directly corresponds to the cognitive structuring of meaning: “Formally, a (graph-based) semantic map is a graph in which vertices (nodes) represent semantic functions or uses, and edges (links) connect closely related semantic functions” (Regier, Khetarpal & Majid 2013, p. 90). The nodes of the network are the various functions, and the connecting lines show the closeness between them. However, lines are not always necessary: “Lines are only informative if either (1) specific connections need to be excluded despite relative spatial adjacency, or, (2) some of the connections between items on the map are unidirectional” (Narrog & Ito 2007, p. 279) Semantic maps have proved to be helpful in representing various linguistic structures, but they have also been criticized by many linguists, especially those working in the Cognitive Framework (Janda, 2009; Langacker, 2006; and others). One argument against semantic maps is that they show the distances between the units but do not reveal anything about their meaning (Langacker, 2006). Janda (2009) expresses the same view when she states that she finds semantic maps to be discrete rather than continuous. The Cognitive Framework approach believes that different meanings of an entity are in continuous relation rather than discrete. Semantic maps cannot mark this continuity in the meaning, which presents a problem to cognitive linguists. Langacker (2006) is concerned about continuity and discreteness in linguistic models, and explains these models (Langacker 2006: 147). Janda (2009) explains how semantic maps show only discrete relations and not continuous ones. A semantic map ignores 128

CONCLUSION

the meanings that motivate points of usage (Janda, 2009). Semantic maps cannot be fully trusted for semantic study from the cognitive perspective, as argued by Haspelmath when he states that “semantic maps only show the relative closeness or distance of relations, not the exact nature of the relations within semantic space. So semantic maps cannot replace, but they can supplement them and constrain them in various ways” (Haspelmath, 2000, p. 20). Another essential point marked by Janda (2009) is that similar functions may not always be comparable across languages because two (or more) concepts can have a different status in different languages. Moreover, a concept can be expressed by a grammatical category in one language, but be expressed only lexically in another language, which becomes difficult to plot in the semantic map. There can even be problems when one concept in two languages is marked lexically, but they have different parameters. For example, location can be marked differently in different languages. As can be seen in Chapter 2, location is marked by one locative marker in Group 2 languages but by two markers in Group 1 languages. It therefore is difficult to compare the locative markers for both groups. Moreover, it becomes equally difficult to compare the other uses of the locative marker other than the location for these groups. The semantic map “can also be seen as a powerful tool of discovering universal semantic structures that characterize the human language ­capacity” (Haspelmath, 2000, p. 20). Though the semantic map has its limitations, it is quite helpful for cross-linguistic study: “Semantic maps are a powerful methodological tool for cross-linguistic and diachronic semantic studies, but they are also highly relevant for semantics itself” (Haspelmath, 2000, p. 26). Semantic maps can help us to visualize complex data and find a pattern across several languages. At the level of a given language, a semantic map makes it possible to see how individual grams overlap in their functions in a given domain. “Semantic maps are both more coherent than mere lists of sub-meanings” (Haspelmath, 2003, p. 213), and more detailed than the positing of general abstract meanings. It is because of these advantages that the semantic map has been used for the present work. It was observed in the earlier chapters that cases in these languages can be hosted by both concrete and abstract objects – for example, the locative case is used to mark both a concrete location like a table or a house, and an abstract location like memory or valour. It is also apparent that one case relation can be used for different semantics. For example, the genitive case, along with marking ownership, can convey information about the location of the TR. Moreover, one marker of a case relation can mark more than one case relation. In this section semantic maps are presented. Figure 7.1 shows the various use of one marker in the seven languages. In Figure 7.2, the scope of the case marker is shown. In some languages, the scope of the i­ nstrumental/ ablative marker is broader in comparison to the other languages. In  Figure 7.3 the various semantics of one case (genitive) are plotted. 129

CONCLUSION

INSTRUMENT ODI

ALL INST

PERT

PATH

ALL EXCEPT ODI GRP 1

GRP 2 SOURCE ABL

BAN, ODI

GRP 1 COMPARISON

ASA

COMP

Figure 7.1  Scope of instrumental marker in Group 1 languages.

The semantics are written in the boxes in the middle: Instrument, Path, Source and Comparison. The case relations which mark these semantics are written in the other boxes: INST, PERL, ABL and COMP. The arrows join the case related to the semantics it marks. INST (or can be called ABL) in Group 1 is used to mark all four semantics. Instrument and Path are marked by INST in all the languages except in Odia. PERL is used to mark Path in Odia. Similarly, ABL is used to mark Source in all of the Group 2 languages. Comparison is also marked by ABL in Odia and Bangla. However, in Asamiya it is marked by a different marker: COMP. The biggest circle in Figure 7.1 shows that in Group 1 languages, one marker covers the maximum semantic space; that space is marked by two markers in Bangla and three markers in Asamiya and Odia. It can also be seen that Path is most commonly marked by the marker which marks the Instrument. Among these seven languages, six of them do this. Only one language (Odia) has a different marker for Path. Similarly Comparison is marked in the six languages by the same marker which marks the Source. Only Asamiya has a different marker for it. Figure 7.2 is a modified form of Figure 7.1 and shows the scope of the various markers. In Figure 7.1, the semantic space covered by the markers is shown. It can be seen that one marker of Group 1 languages covers more area than the parallel marker of the other languages. The largest circle denotes the semantic space covered by the instrumental marker of the Group 1 languages. It shows that this marker covers the maximum semantic space compared to the instrumental marker of other languages. The elongated circle shows the scope of the instrumental marker in Asamiya and Bangla. It includes both the instrument and the path. The smallest circle

130

CONCLUSION

INSTRUMENT ODI

ALL INST

PERT

PATH

ALL EXCEPT ODI GRP 1

SOURCE

GRP 1 COMPARISON

ASA, BAN &ODI BAN, ODI ASA

ABL COMP

Figure 7.2   Comparison of scope of instrumental marker in Group 1 & 2 languages.

stands for the markers in Odia. In Asamiya and Bangla, the scope of instrumental case is narrower than that for Group 1 languages, but it is broader than that of Odia. In Odia, the instrumental marker only marks the instrumental case. The smallest size of the circle denotes the smallest area covered by the instrumental marker in the language. It is also observed that a case relation may canonically show a particular relationship but its semantics can often go beyond that particular relationship. For example, a genitive case can mark a location when used with Ownership, Partitive and Container (see Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion). Ownership of the TR by the LM can state (though not always) the location of the TR where the LM becomes the reference point. Similarly, the part–whole relation (Partitives) and containment (Container) can also specify the location of the TR. The semantics of Ownership, Partitives and Container can lead to the use of the genitive marker with the Source, Companion, Intended Goal and Deixis. These usages always mark the location. In Figure 7.3, it can be seen that the genitive marker can be used for various semantics, some of which lead to the marking of location. The features written in bold are marked by the genitive in all the languages under study, so they may be marked as core meanings of the genitive case for these languages. The others are at the periphery, which are marked in only some of these languages (as discussed in Chapter 5). When the genitive case is used with Ownership, Partitive and Container and their extended uses, either temporal or spatial location is marked, which can be seen in Figure 7.3. The lined area inside the box marks various locations.

131

CONCLUSION Locaon Agent

GEN

Relation

Nominalized Events

Source

Companion

Ownership

Partitive

Intended Goal

Container

With Deixis

Figure 7.3  Scope of genitive case marker

Most of the cases directly give the sense of location in most of the EIA languages. In Figure 7.3 it can be seen that the genitive marks location in some of its usages. Similarly, instrumental cases mark locations when they behave as a Partial Patient (discussed in § 3.3). The instrument is located in/ near the patient. The instrumental marker in such constructions, other than marking the instrument, also give information about the location of the instrument. The following example is from Chapter 3: 3.15b

gilɑs pɑni se bʰərəl glass water Inst fill Glass is filled with water.

həi aux

(Mag)

(For more such examples, see § 3.3.) In the above sentence, water is stated to be in the glass. The instrument is marking the location of the water, which is the glass. The locative and the ablative also mark locations of various kinds (as discussed in Chapter 2). It can be seen that among the ten cases listed in Table 7.1, seven cases mark the location of the TR. The cases and the semantics of the various locations that they mark are listed in the Table 7.3. The location of the TR being marked by various case markers can be understood through the semantic map presented in Figure 7.4. The following map shows the various cases which mark the different locations of the TR. The arrows show how these cases are connected while marking location. This can be understood by considering an imaginary TR. When the TR is in the static position it is marked by the locative case. When the TR starts moving, it gets separated from its original location. This location was earlier marked by the locative case, but now this location becomes the source point from where the TR starts its journey, this source point is marked by the ablative case. Then, the location through which the TR travels (path) is marked by either the perlative case (in Odia) or the instrumental case (in all other languages except Odia). The goal the TR reaches or intends to reach is marked by the benefactive case. The TR becomes part of the goal or it 132

CONCLUSION

Table 7.3  Semantics of location marked by various cases Cases

Different semantics of locations

Languages

Locative

Location of TR

Ablative

Source location of TR

Instrumental

Location of the instrument Location of a moving TR Location of a moving TR Location of the goal/intended location of the TR Location of a TR as a part of LM location of TR when it is owned Location of TR when it is contained in LM

In all languages (Inanimate in Asamiya & Bangla) In all languages (Inanimate in Bangla) In all languages In all languages except Odia Odia In all languages except Asamiya & Bangla In all languages In all languages In all languages

Perlative Benefactive Genitive

Instrumental

Locative

Static Location

Genitive

Ablative

Dynamic Location

Benefactive

Perlative

Figure 7.4  Location marking by different cases

gets located in the goal-area. This goal-area is marked by the genitive case. Goal-area here refers to the static location where the TR is kept. This static location can even be marked by the instrumental case or the locative case. Thus, it can be seen how the different cases mark different locations of the TR. These cases are interrelated when they share a common semantics which can be understood from the following examples. In all three sentences, the location of the water is mentioned. We know from these three sentences that there is water in the glass, though all three use different case relations to show the relation between the glass and the water. 7.5

glɑs-e ɟɔl ɑcʰe glass-Loc water Aux There is water in the glass.

133

CONCLUSION

7.6

glɑs-er ɟɔl kʰeo nɑ glass-Gen water drink Neg Don’t drink the water in glass.

7.7

glɑs ɟɔl d̪ie bʰɔrɑ glass water Inst filled Glass is filled with the water.

7.4.3  Semantics of cases A static location is generally marked in these languages by the locative case marker. Group 2 languages have one locative marker to show the nearness of the TR to the LM, which can be called a General Spatial Term (GST). It does not specify any particular direction unless combined with a deictic element. Group 1 languages seem to have two locative markers. However, the second one is a new emergence in the language. The marker pər used to mark peripheral location is the grammaticalized form of the deixis upər (see § 2.3). The other locative marker me is used as a marker for both an enclosed location as well as a GST. The two locatives function differently. Hence, they have been marked as Level I and Level II markers (§ 2.3). A dynamic location is basically marked by the Instrumental-Ablative case marker in Group 1 languages. In Asamiya, Bangla and Odia, the source of separation is marked by the ablative case marker. While Asamiya and Bangla use the instrumental case marker to mark the path, Odia uses the perlative case marker. As discussed in Chapter 3, the instrumental case in these languages can be used with various types of instruments (e.g. Core Agent, Partial Patient and Second Agent). As the instrumental case and the ablative case are marked by the same marker in Group 1 languages, in some instances their distributions overlap. Moreover, in these languages the same INST-ABL marker is also used to mark various other semantics (e.g. comparison, reciprocal relation). The INST-ABL marker in Group 1 has a broader range than the INST of Group 1 languages, where INST is used only to mark instruments of various types. All these languages use the benefactive case to mark the TR when it is in the beneficiary position, while the objective case marker is used when the TR is in the object position but not is the beneficiary. The objective case in these languages does not essentially discriminate between the arguments of the verb, but it does differentiate between animacy. It is the only case which distinguishes between animacy across the EIA languages. It marks animate objects, definite objects and the objects which are used with Animate verbs and Impingement verbs (see § 4.6). In Chapter 4 (§ 4.6) I present a hierarchy scale to show how the use of the objective case depends on animacy, definiteness and the use of the verb. The genitive case marker is used in all these languages to modify an object or to make it definite. However, it can also be used as an agentive case 134

CONCLUSION

marker in all these languages, except Asamiya and Odia. The use of the genitive is widest in Bangla. In Asamiya and Bangla, it is used for experiential constructions too, which is not found in the other languages of the group. The genitive marker in these two languages is also used before postpositions (see § 5.3). Unlike all these languages, Odia can drop the genitive marker when both the TR and the LM are inanimate. Use of the genitive marker can also mark a location in these languages, except in Odia. This study has showed that though all these languages belong to the same group, they exhibit some uncommon features – for example, no other language in the group has an exclusive agentive marker except Asamiya. Moreover, Asamiya has two different case markers for comparative and simulative cases, which again are not found in any of the other languages studied here. Other languages mark the comparative case with the ablative marker. It is worth exploring why all these languages except Asamiya use the common marker for the ablative case and the comparative case. Six of the seven languages share the same marker for both the ablative and the comparative case. This is an instance of polysemy as their meanings are connected (as described in Chapter 2).

7.5  Future research This study leads to some interesting research questions for future study. Some of these are discussed in the following paragraphs. This book already discusses the polysemy of the various case markers. However, it would be interesting to study the polysemy of the EIA languages in further detail, and with a diachronic perspective. This research paves the way for studies on the diachronic aspect of the various polysemous usages of the case markers. Some case markers are used to mark two or more case relations. In such instances it becomes difficult to state whether they are instances of homophony or polysemy, as in the use of same marker /-re/ in Odia for inanimate location and inanimate instrument. In both the instances the marker is used with the inanimate TR, so it can be suggested that /-re/ is an instance of polysemy as there is some connection of inanimacy attached to the marker. However, further study is required to develop this argument; diachronic study of these markers may lead to an answer. The effect of grammaticalization on various markers of the EIA languages is another aspect worth exploring. The genitive case marker in Asamiya and Bangla is generally used before the postpositions. Similarly, in Group 1 languages the objective/oblique case precedes postpositions with pronominals. This may be the reason for grammaticalization, since grammaticalization may at times lead to the loss of the original meaning as a lexical form changes into a grammatical form. As was discussed in Chapter 2 (§ 2.2.1), /pər/ is a grammaticalized form of /upər/, which is still in the process of gramaticalization. 135

CONCLUSION

Asamiya has an exclusive agentive marker, comparative marker and simulative marker, while the other languages do not. This could be an interesting issue for exploration from the areal and typological perspectives. Similarly, Odia has a different case marker for path, which, again, does not exist in the other languages. Whether these are the result of some internal development in the language or the effect of contact with neigbouring languages needs to be considered.

7.6 Conclusion In this book, I have discussed the various case relations and case markers of EIA languages. The case markers for each of the case relations were identified and their functions were described. It was seen that some of the case markers, other than marking case relations, also carry animacy and index marking features. The present study showed that the case relations are ­language-specific. However, they are often described under cover terms so that they can be compared and contrasted with the other languages. For example, the scope of the instrumental case in Bangla varies from that of Odia; in Bangla the instrumental case covers the semantics of Path, whereas Odia has a different marker for Path. Path (perlative) is a different case relation in Odia; but in Bangla a common marker marks both the instrument and the path, so it could be said that both come under the scope of one case relation in Bangla but not in Odia. The case markers of the EIA language are polysemous in nature. Different case relations can at times point towards the same semantics (§ 7.4.2), and the same markers can at times mark different case relations. Some of the features found in the case markers were common across the languages while others were language-specific. I identified the following features of the case markers of the EIA languages: • It was observed that eight case relations are marked in all these EIA languages, with Asamiya as an exception. • Asamiya, Bangla and Odia do not have different sets of case markers for nouns and pronouns; Angika, Bhojpuri, Maithili and Magahi do have different case markers for nouns and pronouns, mainly for objective and genitive cases. The case marking for Maithili and Bhojpuri pronouns also varies depending on the honorificity of the pronoun. • A suffix precedes the occurrence of the postposition in most of these languages. • In Asamiya, Bangla and Odia the case markers vary depending on the animacy of the host. Almost all the case relations in these languages have two different sets of case markers and, depending on the animacy feature of the host, a particular case marker is used. • All seven languages mark animate objects with the objective case but drop it when the object is inanimate. 136

CONCLUSION

• When the inanimate object is to be marked definite or it is part of an argument of the Animate Verb (see § 4.2.2) or Impingement Verb (see § 4.2.2), the objective case marking is used (which is otherwise dropped with the inanimate objects) with the inanimate object. • An Animate Verb is a verb which subcategorize for animate objects in their causative form e.g. to feed, to make someone wear cloth etc. (as these actions are supposed to be done on animate objects). • An Impingement Verb (IV) is a verb which involves power, force and contact between the agent and the object and leaves the object physically affected, e.g. to hit, to kick, to punch, etc. • In Angika, Bhojpuri, Maithili and Magahi, one marker is used to mark four case relations; in the three other languages, one marker at the most is used to mark two relations. • The use of one marker to mark more than one case relation makes the difference in the case relations blur in most of the instances. Different case relations marked by the same marker show that all the case relations marked by the same marker are part of the same semantic continuum in that language.

137

APPENDIX Questionnaire for Noun Cases (Specially designed for Indo-Aryan Languages)

For Pronouns: A(a) + Human Case

1.Nom/ Agent

2.Acc

3.Dat

4.Loc

(a)Abstract

(b)Physical

Noun

Pronoun

(i)Singular

(ii)Plural

(iii)Singular

(iv)Plural

The boy kicked his brother.लड़के ने अपने भाई को लात मारी The boy gave a flower to the girl. लड़के ने लड़की को फू ल दिया The boy brought sweets for his brother. लड़का अपने भाई के लिए मिठाई लाया Raju has valour in him. राजू में हिम्मत है

Boys kicked the balls. लड़कों ने गेंदों को लात मारी

I/You/ (S)he kicked the it. मैंने उसे लात मारी

We/You/ They kicked them. हमने उन्हें लात मारी

Boys gave flowers to the girl(s). लड़कों ने लड़कियों को फू ल दिये Boys brought sweets for their brothers. लड़के अपने भाईयों के लिए मिठाई लाये Boys have valour in them. लड़कों में हिम्मत है Nation relies on farmers. किसानों पर देश निर्भर है Children sat on the mothers. बच्चे माँओं के उपर बैठ गये

I/You/ (S)he gave a flower to the girl. तुमने मुझे फू ल दिया I/You/ (S) he brought sweets for you. वह तुम्हारे लिए मिठाई लाया I/You/ (S)he valour in me/ you/. मुझ में हिम्मत है Do not trust me. मुझ पे भरोसा मत करो

We/You/ They gave a flower to the girl. हमने उन्हें फू ल दिया

Washerman has debt on him. धोबी के उपर/ पर कर्जा है The child sat on the mother. बच्चा माँ के उपर बैठ गया

138

The child sat on her. बच्चा उसके उपर बैठ गया

We/You/ They brought sweets for you. हम तुम लोगों के लिए मिठाई लाये We/You/They have valour in us/you/them. हम में हिम्मत है I am angry on you people. मैं तुम लोगों पे/से गुस्सा हूं Children sat on them. बच्चे उनके उपर बैठ गये

APPENDIX

+ Human Case

Noun

Pronoun

(i)Singular

(ii)Plural

(iii)Singular

(iv)Plural

The student took the book from the teacher. छात्र ने शिक्षक से किताब ली King fought in the war with (as Inst) the soldier. राजा ने सिपाही से युद्ध लड़वाया The boy went to market with mother. लड़का माँ के साथ बाजार गया

Boy took books from the teachers. छात्र ने शिक्षकों से किताबें ली

The student took the book from him. छात्र ने उससे किताब ली

The student took the books from them. छात्र ने उनसे किताबें लीं

King fought in the war with soldiers. राजा सिपाहियों (की मदद) से युद्ध लड़ा Boys went to see film with friends. लड़के दोस्तों के साथ फ़िल्म देखने गये

King made me fight in the war. राजा ने मुझे युद्ध में लड़वाया

King fought in the war with us/you/them. राजा ने हमसे युद्ध लड़वाया We went to see film with friends. हम दोस्तों के साथ फ़िल्म देखने गये

8.Poss

This is the boy’s bag. यह उस लड़के का बस्ता हैं

These are the boys’ bags. यह उन लड़कों के बस्ते हैं

9.Semi

Raj is angry like Mohan. राज मोहन की तरह गुस्सा है

10.Comp

Raj is taller than Mohan. राज मोहन से लम्बा है

Politicians know acting like actors. मंत्रीयों को अभिनेतायों की तरह अभिनय करना आता है Boys are taller than girls. लड़के लड़कियों से लम्बे होते हैं

I/You/ (S) he went to market with mother. मैं माँ के साथ बाजार गया This is my/ Your/His/ Her bag. यह मेरा/ तुम्हारा/ उसका बस्ता है I am/You are/(S)he is innocent like a baby. वह छोटे बच्चे की तरह मासूम है Rupa is better than her. रूपा उससे अच्छी है

We are more powerful than you. हम तुमसे ज्यादा ताकतवर हैं

5.Abl

6.Inst

7.Comit

This is our/ Your/Their bag. यह हमारा/ तुम लोगों का / उनका बस्ता है You people don’t act like a baby. तुमलोग बच्चों की तरह मत करो.

A(b) -Human + animate Case

1.Nom/ Agent

Noun

Pronoun

(i)Singular

(ii)Plural

(iii)Singular

(iv)Plural

The dog ate the bone. कु त्ते ने हड्डी खायी

Dogs ate the bones. कु त्तों ने हड्डियां खाईं

It ate the bone. उस ने हड्डी खायी

They ate the bone. उन सब ने हड्डियां खाईं

139

APPENDIX

-Human + animate Case

2.Acc

3.Dat

4.Loc (a)Physical (b)Abstract

5.Abl

6.Inst

7.Comit

8.Poss 9.Semi

10.Comp

Noun

Pronoun

(i)Singular

(ii)Plural

(iii)Singular

(iv)Plural

Lion ate the goat. शेर ने बकरी को खा लिया Lioness hunted for the lion. शेरनी ने शेर के लिये शिकार किया

Lion ate the goats. शेर ने बकरियों को खा लिया Lionesses hunted for the lions. शेरनियों ने शेरों के लिये शिकार किये Children sat on the horses. बच्चे घोड़ों के उपर/ पे बैठ गये Dogs have the habit of barking. कु त्तों में भौंकने की आदत होती है Apples fell down from the trees. पेड़ों से सेब गिरे The child made the dogs bite me. बच्चे ने मुझे कु त्तों से कटवा दिया Birds went with the net. चिड़ियाँ जालों के साथ उड़ गईं Dogs’ bone. कु त्तों की हड्डियाँ

It ate it. शेर ने उसे \ उसको खा लिया

Lion ate them. शेर ने उनको खा लिया

Lioness hunted for it. शेरनी ने उसके लिये शिकार किया

Lioness hunted for them. शेरनी ने उनके लिये शिकार किया

The child sat on it. बच्चा उस के उपर/ पे बैठ गया It has the habit of barking. उसमें भौंकने की आदत है The cat fell down from there. बिल्ली वहाँ से गिरी The child made it bite me. बच्चे ने मुझे उससे कटवा दिया The bird went with it. चिड़िया उसके साथ उड़ गई Its bone. उसकी हड्डी

Children sat on them. बच्चे उनके उपर/ उन पे बैठ गये They have the habit of barking. उनमें भौंकने की आदत है Apples fell down from them (trees). उनसे सेब गिरे The child made them bite me. बच्चे ने मुझे उनसे कटवा दिया Birds went with them. चिड़ियाँ उनके साथ उड़ गईं Their bone. उनकी हड्डी

Tigers are not like cats. बाघ बिल्लियों की तरह नहीं होते Dogs are better than cats. कु त्ते बिल्लियों से अच्छे होते हैं

This dog is like it. यह कु त्ता उसकी तरह है It is sweeter than that one. यह उससे प्यारा है

Lions are like them. शेर उनकी तरह है

The child sat on the horse. बच्चा घोड़े के उपर/ पे बैठ गया This dog is in the habit of barking. इस कु त्ते में भौंकने की आदत है The cat fell down from the tree. बिल्ली पेड़ से गिरी The child made the dog bite me. बच्चे ने मुझे कु त्ते से कटवा दिया The bird went with the net. चिड़िया जाल के साथ उड़ गई Dog’s bone (ambiguous). कु त्ते की हड्डी This dog is like a cat. यह कु त्ता बिल्ली की तरह है The cuckoo sings sweeter than the crow. कोयल कौए से मीठा गाती है

140

They are better than them. यह उनसे अच्छे हैं

APPENDIX

A (c) INANIMATE Case

Nom/ Agent Acc Dat

Loc

Abl

Inst

Comit

Poss Semi

Comp

Noun

Pronoun

(i)Singular

(ii)Plural

(iii)Singular

(iv)Plural

The bat hit the ball. बल्ले ने गेंद को मारा Lion ate the bone. शेर ने हड्डी खायी He fought to save the forest. वह जंगल को बचाने के लिये लड़ा

Bats hit the balls. बल्लों ने गेंदों को मारा Lions ate the bone. शेरों ने हड्डियां खायी He fought to save the forests. वह जंगलों को बचाने के लिये लड़ा Boys sat on the chairs. लड़के कु र्सियों पर बैठे There are vegetables in the bags. थैलों में सब्जियां हैं Money is asked from the houses. घरों से पैसे माँगे जाते हैं Boys cut the apples with knives. लड़कों ने छु रियों से सेब काटे The shoes are free with the clothes. कपड़ों के साथ जूते फ्री मिल रहे हैं Cars’ wheel. गाड़ियों के चक्के The water of river is not like the sea. नदियों का पानी सागरों के पानी की तरह नहीं होता है I like yellow better than the green. मुझे हरे से अच्छा पीला लगता है

It hit the ball. उसने गेंद को मारा

They hit the balls. उन सब ने गेंदों को मारा Lion ate those. शेर ने वह सब खाया Ravi fought for them. रवि वह सब (गहने) बचाने के लिये लड़ा.

The boy sat on the chair. लड़का कु र्सी पर बैठा There are vegetable in the bag. थैले में सब्जी है The cat fell down from the roof. बिल्ली छत से गिर गई The boy cut the apple with a knife. लड़के ने चाकू से सेब काटा I want to eat rice with fish. मैं चावल के साथ मछली खाना चाहती हूँ Car’s wheel. गाड़ी का चक्का The water of Ganga is not like Yamuna. गंगा का पानी यमुना की तरह नहीं है The apple is sweeter than the banana. सेब के ले से मीठा है

141

Lion ate it. शेर ने वह खाया Ravi fought/ was ready for it. रवि वह (इज्ज़त) बचाने के / उसके (लड़ने) लिये तैयार था. The boy sat on it. लड़का उस पर बैठा It has vegetable in it. उस में सब्जी है

The boy cut the apple with it. लड़के ने उससे सेब काटा This is free with it. इस के साथ यह फ्री है

Boys sat on them. लड़के उन सब पर बैठे They have vegetables in them. उनमें सब्जियां है Coins fell down from them (boxes). पैसे उन (डिब्बों) से गिरे The boy cut the apples with them. लड़के ने उनसे सेब काटा These are free with them. इन के साथ यह फ्री है

Its wheel. उसका चक्का The water of Ganga is not like it. गंगा का पानी उसकी तरह नहीं है

Their wheel. उनके चक्के The water of Ganga is not like them. गंगा का पानी उनकी तरह नहीं है

This papaya is more ripen than that one. यह पपीता उससे ज्यादा पका हुआ है

These are better than those. वे उनसे अच्छे हैं

The kite fell from there. पतंग वहाँ से गिरी

APPENDIX

B 1. Minu sang a song for us.    मीनू ने हमारे लिये एक गाना गाया 2. It rained yesterday.    कल बारीश हुई 3. The ball is rolling.     गेंद लुड़क रही है 4. The man screamed.    आदमी चिल्लाया 5. The old man coughed     बूढ़ा आदमी ख़ासा 6. The boys followed the girls.    लड़कों ने लड़कियों का पीछा किया 7. The students met the teacher.    छात्र शिक्षक से मिले 8. The thief stole money from the old lady.  चोर ने बूढ़ी औरत से पैसा चुराया 9. The boy heard the dog barking.   लड़के ने कु त्ते को भौंकते सुना 10. The old lady taught the girl to cook.   बूढ़ी औरत ने लड़की को खाना       बनाना सिखाया 11. He often listens to the music.    वह अक्सर गाना सुनता है 12. The mother made the boys drink milk.  माँ ने बच्चों को दुध पिलाया 13. Dogs have the habit of barking.   कु त्तों को भौंकने की आदत होती है

C 4. 1 He expected her.    वह उसका इन्तज़ार कर रहा था 15. She will help them.     वह उन लोगों का मदद करे गी 16. I got ashamed.     मुझे शर्म आई/ मैं शर्मींदा हुआ 17. The baby is hungry.     बच्चा भूखा है 18. The mother dressed her daughter   माँ ने अपनी बेटी को तैयार किया 19. The girl thought about her grandmother yesterday.  कल लड़की ने अपनी दादी       के बारे मे सोचा 20. The girl knew the boy.     वह लड़की उस लड़के को जानती थी 21. The boy liked his new toy.     लड़के को अपना नया खिलौना अच्छा लगा 22. The man feared the tiger.     आदमी को शेर से डर लगा 23. The tiger frightened the man.     शेर ने आदमी को डराया  24. The dog smelled the boy.     कु त्ते ने लड़के को सूंघा  25. The boy looked at the girl.     लड़के ने लड़की को देखा 26. The boy asked for money from his mother.   लड़के ने अपनी माँ से पैसे माग ं े 27. The woman shouted at the children.    औरत बच्चों पर चिल्लायी 28. The boy pushed the girl (into the water).   लड़के ने लड़की को पानी में धक्का दे दिया 29. Ruby heard my father’s scolding me.    रुबी ने मेरे पापा को मुझे डाटते हुए सुन लिया 30. Without you I can’t do this work.    तुम्हारे बिना मैं यह काम नहीं कर सकता 31. Due (reason) to you I have to do this.   तुम्हारे लिये मैंने यह किया 32. Due (for) to you I have to do this.    तुम्हारे लिये मुझे यह करना पड़ा  33. I have to talk to him every day.    मुझे उससे रोज़ बात करनी पड़ती है 34. I saw him.      मैंने उसे देखा 35. I saw him stealing.     मैंने उसे चोरी करते देखा 142

APPENDIX

36. Maya knows three of them.     माँया उन तीनों को जानती है 7. We will fight with them in the field.    हम उनसे खेत मे लड़ेंग े 3 38. I sold the book to Padma.     मैंने पदमा को किताब बेच दी 39. He has seen you and me together.    उसने तुम्हें और मुझे साथ देख लिया है 40. He and I went to Patna.     वह और मैं पटना गये 41. Maya saw him and his sister in Delhi yesterday.  माया ने उसे और उसकी बहन को कल दिल्ली मे देखा 42. Raju saw Maya not her sister.     राजू ने माया को देखा उसकी बहन को नहीं 43. A man loyal to him wouldn’t do this to him.  वह आदमी जो उससे/उसका वफ़ादार है वह उसके साथ ऐसा नहीं करे गा 44. This man is close/loyal to him.    यह आदमी उसका वफ़ादार/ विश्वसनीय है 45. It is useful for me/this will be of some use to me.  यह मेरे काम का है/ यह मेरे काम में  आयेगा 46. Mother fed milk to the baby.     माँ ने बच्चे को दुध पिलाया 47. Mother made the baby drink milk through the maid.  माँ ने बच्चे को आया से दूध पिलवाया 48. Walking any more is not possible for/by me.   मुझसे और चला नहीं जाता/ मैं और चल नहीं सकती 49. We gave books and clothes to the children.   हमने बच्चों को किताबें और कपड़े दिए 50. They both have pain in their stomach.   उन दोनों के पेट में दर्द है 51. Daily after waking up he goes for a walk.   हर रोज़ सुबह उठकर वह टहलने जाता है 52. Stealing the jewellary.     गहने चोरी करना/ गहनों की चोरी करना 53. Stealing of the jewellary.     गहनों की चोरी होना 54. Raj was bitten badly.     राज को बहुत मार पड़ी

D 5. My arm is hurting.     मेरे हाथ में दर्द है 5 56. The old people live in towns.    बुढ़े लोग गावों में रहते हैं 57. The boy left the village.    वह लड़का गाँव से चला गया 58. The children sat down on the bench.  बच्चे बेंच पर बैठे 59. The children sat on the floor.   बच्चे ज़मीन पर बैठे 60. The men climbed (up) the tree.   वह अदमी पेड़ पर चढ़ा 61. The girl tore the page from the book.   लड़की ने किताब से एक पन्ना फाड़ा 62. The man took the money from his friend.  आदमी ने अपने दोस्त से पैसा लिया 63. The men carried the boxes to the market.  आदमी ने डिब्बों को बाज़ार पहुंचाया 64. The man poured water into the glass.   आदमी ने गिलास मे पानी डाला 65. The women wiped dirt off the table.   औरत ने मेज़ से धूल पोंछी 66. He goes through the bridge.    वह पुल के उपर से जाता है 67. He lives opposite the station.    वह स्टेशन के सामने रहता है 143

APPENDIX

8. I want to leave tomorrow.    मैं कल जाना चाहती हूँ 6 69. He is in school.     वह स्कू ल में है 70. The letter is lying on the table.   खत मेज़ पर पड़ा है 71. I will buy the book in Delhi.    मैं दिल्ली में/ से यह किताब खरीदूग ं ी 72. I will buy the book online.    मैं ऑनलाइन यह किताब खरीदूग ं ी 73. A bridge over the Ganga has broken.   गांगा के उपर का एक पुल टू ट गया है 74. You should meet me in two days.   तुम मुझसे दो दिन में/ के अन्दर मिलो 75. Diwali is within a month.    एक महीने में दिवाली है 76. I ran towards him.     मैं उसकी तरफ़ दौड़ी 77. I ran to get him.      मैं उसको पकड़ने के लिये दौड़ी 78. I ran because of him.     मैं उसकी वजह से दौड़ी   79. We will share it between us.    हम यह आपस में बांट लेंगे 80. There is lots of fun between friends.   दोस्तों के बीच बहुत मज़े होते हैं 81. I kept the letter between pages of the book.  मैंने खत को किताबों के पन्नों के बीच मे रखा था 82. The dog barked at the boy.    कु त्ता बच्चा पे भौंका 83. He was fetching water from the well.   वह कु आँ से पानी भर रहा था 84. Among dogs black one is the most dangerous one.  कु त्तों में काला कु त्ता सबसे खतरनाक होता है 85. You cannot be trusted upon/you are not trustworthy. तुम लोगों पे भरोसा नहीं किया जा सकता/ तुम भरोसा करने लायक नहीं हो

E 6. The man built a house out of wood.    आदमी ने लकड़ी से घर बनाया 8 87. The boy broke the window with a stone.   लड़के ने पत्थर से खिड़की तोड़ दी 88. The man killed his enemy with a gun.   आदमी ने बंदक ू से अपने दुश्मन को मार दिया 89. The boy beat the snake with a stick.    लड़के ने सांप को लाठी से मारा 90. The man tied the horse with a rope to the tree.  आदमी ने घोड़े को रस्सी से पेड़ के साथ बांधा 91. The woman covered the boy with a blanket.   औरत ने बच्चे को कम्बल ओढाया 92. The girl filled the glass with water.    लड़की ने गिलास को पानी से भरा 93. I got wet with sweat.      मैं पसीने से भीग गया 94. Father collected the things thrown by the child.  पापा ने बच्चे की फें की हुई चीजों को इकट्ठा किया 95. The girl was cleaning the room by the maid.   लड़की नौकरानी से कमरा साफ़ करवा रही थी 96. The bottle of oil was broken by me.    मुझसे तेल की शीशी टु ट गयी 97. Fish is liked by the Bengalis.     बंगाली लोगों को मछली पसन्द होती है / बंगाली लोग मछली पसन्द करते हैं 98. Make the garden clean by the gardeners.   माली से बाग साफ़ करवाओ 99. I am tired of this rain.      मैं इस बारिश से थक चुकी हूँ 144

APPENDIX

F 100. That Raj won the race came as no surprise.   यह बात की राज ने रे स जीती, ये आश्चर्यजनक नहीं थी 101. Raj’s winning the race is no surprise.    राज का रे स मे जीतना कोइ आश्चर्य की बात नहीं 102.  I saw Rima’s butterfly catching.    मैंने रीमा का तितली पकड़ना देखा 103.  I saw Rima catching butterfly.    मैंने रीमा को तितली पकड़ते देखा 104. I did not like Rima buying the dress.   रीमा का कपड़ा खरीदना मुझे अच्छा नहीं लगा 105. His reading the book loudly disturbed my sleep.  उसके जोर से किताब पढ़ने से मेरी नींद खराब हो गई 106. I know that the girl will chase the cat.   मुझे पता है कि वह लड़की बिल्ली का पीछा करे गी 107. Does your telling lie to me suit you?    तुम्हारा मुझसे झूठ बोलना क्या तुम्हें शोभा देता है 108.  My headache has increased.     मेरा सिरदर्द बढ़ गया है 109. I got angry seeing him.    मैं उसे देखकर गुस्सा गया/ मुझे उसे देखकर गुस्सा आया 110.  My anger disappeared seeing him.   उसे देखकर मेरा गुस्सा ठंडा हो गया 111. After bathing I like to dance.    नहाने के बाद मुझे नाचना अच्छा लगता है 112. I want that the girl should chase the cat.  मैं चाहती हूँ कि वह लड़की उस बिल्ली का पीछा करे 113. Many people fear to fly.   बहूतों को उड़ने का डर होता है//उड़ने से डर लगता है 114. One man had two sons and one daughter.  एक आदमी के दो बेटें और एक बेटी थी

G 115. Maya always walks with her husband.   माया हमेशा अपने पति के साथ चलती है  116. Ravi always plays with his younger brother.   रवि हमेशा अपने भाई के साथ खेलता है 117. I like to dance with you.     मैं तुम्हारे साथ नाचना पसंद करती हूं/ मुझे तुम्हारे साथ नाचना अच्छा लगता है 118. Raj plays football better than you.    राज तुमसे अच्छा फ़ु ट्बाल खेलता है 119.  Raj plays football the best.     राज सबसे अच्छा फ़ु ट्बाल खेलता है 120.  The water of Ganga is the coldest.    गंगा का पानी सब से ठंडा है 121.  I got filled with the chapatti.     रोटी से ही मेरा पेट भर गया 122. Chapatti will not do, rice is needed.    रोटी से काम नहीं चलेगा, चावल चाहिए 123. My breakfast can be completed with the chapatti.  रोटी से मेरा नास्ता हो जाएगा 145

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbi, Anvita. (1994). Semantic Universals in Indian Languages. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study. Abbi, Anvita. (2001). A Manual of Linguistic Field Work and Structures of Indian Languages. Munchen: Lincom Europa. Abbi, Anvita. (2011). Body Divisions in Great Andamanese: Possessive Classification, the Semantics of Inherency and Grammaticalization. Studies in Language 35 (4), 739–792. Retrieved from www.andamanese.net/Abbi-SIL_paper.pdf. Accessed Sep. 9 2014. Abraham, Werner. (2006). Datives: Structural vs. Inherent – Abstract vs. Morphological – Autonomous vs. Combinatory – Universally vs. Languagespecifically Configured? In Daniel Hole, André Meinunger and Werner Abraham (Eds.) Datives and Other Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure, pp. 3–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ahmed, T. K. (2007). Ablative, Sociative and Instrumental Case Markers. In Conference of Language and Technology, Peshawar. Retrieved from http://ling. uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/tafseer/ahmed-case.pdf. Accessed Aug. 20 2014. Ahmed, T. K. (2009). Spatial Expressions and Case in South Asian Languages. Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS). Retrieved from https://ojs. ub.uni-konstanz.de/jsal/dissertations/diss-ahmed.pdf. Accessed Jan. 13 2021. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2013). Possession and Ownership: A Cross Linguistic Perspective. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y, and Dixon, R.M.W., (Eds.), Possession and Ownership: a cross-linguistic typology. Explorations in Linguistic Typology (1–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://researchonline. jcu.edu.au/24368/ Accessed Jul. 2 2016. Aikhenvald, Alexandra & Dixon, Robert M. W. eds. (2001) Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford University Press. Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17, 673–711. Aissen, J. (2003). Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435–483. Allen, W. S. (1964). Transitivity and Possession. Language 40, 337–343. Anderson, J. M. (1971a). On Case Grammar. London: Croom Helm. Anderson, J. M. (1971b). The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

146

B ibliography

Anderson, Lloyd B. (1986). Evidentials, Paths of Change, and Mental Maps: Typologically Regular Asymmetries. In: Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Encoding of Epistemology (273–312). Norwood: Ablex. Anderson, Stephen R. & Keenan, Edward L. (1985). Deixis. In: T. Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3 (259–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Angika: Report (2009). Ethnologue 16th edition. Retrieved from http://archive.­ ethnologue.com/16/show_language.asp?code=anp. Accessed Aug. 20 2014. Arad, M. (1998). VP structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Doctoral dissertation, UCL. Ariel, M. (1999). Cognitive Universals and Linguistic Conventions: The Case of Resumptive Pronouns. Studies in Language 23, 217–269. Aristar, A.R., 1997. Marking and Hierarchy Types and the Grammaticalization of Case Markers. Studies in Language 21, 313–368. Aurnague, M., Hickmann, M. & Vieu, L. eds. (2007). The Categorization of Spatial Entities in Language and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bach, Emmon (1986). The Algebra of Events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5–16. Baerman, Matthew, & Brown, Dunstan. (2013). Case Syncretism. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved from http://wals.info/chapter/28. Accessed Jul. 27 2015. Baker, Colin. (1992). Attitudes and Language. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Baten, K., & Verbeke, S. (2015). The Acquisition of the Ergative Case in Hindi as a Foreign Language. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory (71–108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bauer, K.W., & Bennett, J.S. (2003). Alumni Perceptions used to Assess Undergraduate Research Experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(2), 210–230. Bayer, Josef. (2004). Non-Nominative Subjects in Comparison. In Peri Bhaskararao and K.V. Subbarao (Eds.) Non-Nominative Subjects, (49–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Beames, John. (1970). A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Indo-Aryan Languages of India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Bender, B. W. (1998). Markedness and Iconicity: Some Questions. In Anna Siewierska and Jae Jung Song (Eds.), Case, Typology, and Grammar: In honour of Barry J. Blake, (57–70). Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata, eds. (2004). Non-nominative Subjects. Vols. 1 & 2, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bhattacharya, Tanmoy., & Simpson, Andrew. (2007). Argument Prominence and the Nature of Superiority Violations. In Reuland, Eric J., Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Giorgos Spathas (Eds.), Argument Structure (175–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bhatta, V.P. (1988–89). Theory of Karaka. Bulletin of the Deccan College PostGraduate and Research Institute, Vol. 47/48, pp. 15–22.

147

B ibliography

Bickel, Balthasar. (2001). The Syntax of Experiencers in the Himalayas. In. Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (Eds.) Non-nominative Subjects Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bickel, Balthasar. (2008). On the Scope of the Referential Hierarchy in the Typology of Grammatical Relations. In: Corbett, Greville G. and Michael Noonan (Eds.), Case and Grammatical Relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, (191– 210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bickel, Balthasar & Yadava, Y. P.. (2000). A Fresh Look at Grammatical Relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110, 343–373. Bickel, B., Zakharko, T., Bierkandt, L. & Witzlack-Makarevich, A. (2014). Semantic Role Clustering: An Empirical Assessment of Semantic Role Types in Non-default Case Assignment. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation ‘Foundations of Language’, 38, 3, Jan 2014: 485–511. Blake, Barry. (1987). Australian Aboriginal grammar. London: Croom Helm. Blake, Barry. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bossong, Georg. (1983–1984). Animacy and Markedness in Universal Grammar. 39 Glossologia 2–3:7–20. Retrieved from www.rose.uzh.ch/seminar/personen/ bossong/Bossong_39.pdf Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning How to Structure Space for Language: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language, Speech, and Communication. Language and Space (385–436). The MIT Press. Bowerman, M. & Choi, S. (1996). The Origins of Children’s Spatial Semantic Categories: Cognitive vs. Linguistic Determinants. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (145–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowerman, M. & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping Meanings for Language: Universal and Language-Specific in the Acquisition of Spatial Semantic Categories. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development (475–511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowerman, M. and Choi, S. (2003). Space under Construction: Language Specific Spatial Categorization in First Language Acquisition. In D. Gentner and S. GoldinMeadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition (387–428). Cambridge: MIT Press. Bowerman, M. & Pederson, E. (1992). Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Topological Spatial Relationships. Paper presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco, CA. Boye, Kasper. (2010). Semantic Maps and the Identification of Cross-linguistic Generic Categories: Evidentiality and its Relation to Epistemic Modality. Linguistic Discovery 8 (1), 4–22. Retrieved from http://journals.dartmouth.edu/ cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/1/xmlpage/1/issue/34 Accessed Feb. 2 2014. Brown, P. (1994). The INs and ONs of Tzeltal Locative Expressions: The Semantics of Static Descriptions of Location. Linguistics 32, 743–790. Butt, M. (2005). Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butt, M. & Ahmed, T. K. (2005). Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butt, M & Ahmed, T. K. (2007). Non-canonical Argument Marking: Beyond Volitionality, Specificity and Animacy. Workshop on Case, Word Order and Prominence in Argument Structure, Nijmegen. Retrieved from http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/ home/tafseer/nijmegen07-hnd.pdf. Accessed Mar. 18 2013.

148

B ibliography

Butt, M & Ahmed, T. K. (2010). The Redevelopment of Indo-Aryan Case Systems from a Lexical Semantic Perspective. Morphology 21 (3–4), 545–572. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11525-010-9175-0 Accessed Aug. 20 2014 Butt, Miriam & Ahmed, Tafseer. (2011). The Redevelopment of Indo-Aryan Case Systems from a Lexical Semantic Perspective. Morphology 21(3), 545–572. Butt, M. & King, T. H. (1991). Semantic Case in Urdu. In Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 31–45. Retrieved from www. ling.uni-konstanz.de/typo3temp/secure_downloads/82196/0/1c30496d63f687e5 42236b4ba3665c2c8f0645fa/cls91-semantic-case.pdf. Accessed Jan. 13 2021. Butt, M. & King, T. H. (1993). Object Specificity and Agreement in Hindi/Urdu. In Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 80–103. Butt, M. & King, T. H.. (1995). The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Butt, M. & King, T. H. (2001). A Reexamination of the Accusative to Ergative Shift in Indo-Aryan. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Eds.) Time Over Matter: Diachronic Perspectives on Morphosyntax (105–141). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Butt, M. & King, T. H.. (2003). Case Systems: Beyond Structural Distinctions. In Ellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister (Eds.) New Perspectives on Case Theory (53–87). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Butt, M. & King, T. H. (2005). The Status of Case. In Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan (Eds.), Clause Structure in South Asian Languages (1–40). Berlin: Springer Verlag. Retrieved from http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/butt/ main/papers/butt-king.pdf. Accessed Mar. 18 2013. Cardona, G. (1970). Some Principles of Panini’s Grammar. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 1 (1), 40–74. Cardona, G., & Jain, D. eds. (2003). The Indo-Aryan Languages. London and New York: Routledge. Cardona, G., & Jain, D. eds. (2014). The Indo-Aryan Languages. Routledge: London and New York. Census of India (2001). Data on Language. Retrieved from http://censusindia.gov. in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/data_on_language.html. Accessed Mar. 18 2011. Census of India. (2011). Abstract of Speakers’ Strength of Languages and Mother Tongues. 6–11. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner. Retrieved from https://censusindia.gov.in/2011Census/Language2011/Statement-1.pdf Chatterji, S. K. (1926). The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language. New Delhi: Rupa and Co. Chomsky, Noam A. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chui, Kawai. (2009). Linguistic and Imagistic Representations of Motion Events. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1767–1777. Retrieved from http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu. tw/bitstream/140.119/31634/1/Linguistic+and+imagistic+representations+of+ motion+events.pdf. Accessed Mar. 18 2013. Cienki, Alan. (1995). The Semantics of Possessive and Spatial Constructions in Russian and Bulgarian: A Comparative Analysis in Cognitive Grammar. SEEJ 39 (1): 73–114. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/308693?__redirected. Accessed Apr. 2 2012.

149

B ibliography

Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and Image Schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1–31. Clausner, T. C., and Croft, W. (1997) Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors. Cognitive Science 21(3):247–282. Comrie, B. (ed.)(1986). On Delimiting Cases. In R. D. Brecht & J. S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (86–105). Columbus: Slavica. Comrie, B. (ed.) (1987).The World’s Major Languages. London: Croom Helm. Comrie, B. (1988). Linguistic Typology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 17, 145– 159. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2155909?origin=JSTOR-pdf. Accessed Jun. 18 2013. Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell. Comrie, B. (1991). Form and Function in Identifying Cases. In F. Plank (Ed.) Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection [Emperical Approaches to Language Typology 9] (41–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Comrie, B. (2003). Oblique-case Subjects in Tsez. In P. Bhaskararao & K.V. Subbarao (Eds.), Non-nominative Subjects (113–127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Comrie, B. (2005). Alignment of Case Marking. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.), The World Atlas of Language Structures (398–405). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook, W. (1979). Case Grammar: Development of the Matrix Model. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Corbett, G.G. & Noonan. M. ed. (2008). Case and Grammatical Relations: Studies in Honour of Benard Comrie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Creissels, D. (2009). Spatial Cases. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, (609–625). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cristofaro, S. (2010). Semantic Maps and Mental Representation. Linguistic Discovery, 8, 35–52. Croft, William. (1988). Agreement vs. Case Marking in Direct Objects. In Barlow, M. and Ferguson, C. A., (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions (159–180). Stanford: CSLI. Croft, William. (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. (Longman Linguistics Library). London: Longman. Croft, William & Esther, J.W. (2000). Construal Operations in Linguistics and Artificial Intelligence. In Liliana Albertazzi, (Ed.) Meaning and Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Approach (57–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Croft, William & Poole, Keith T. (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Croft, William & Poole, Keith T. (2008). Inferring Universals from Grammatical Variation: Multidimensional Scaling for Typological Analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34(1), 1–37. Crowley, T. (1998). An Erromangan (Sye) Grammar. Oceanic Linguistics Publication, 27. Honolulu: University of Hawai Press. Cruse, D. (2009). Polysemy and Related Phenomena from a Cognitive Linguistic Viewpoint. In Dizier, Patrick and Viegas, Evelyn (Eds.), Computational Lexical Semantics (33–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

150

B ibliography

Cysouw, M., Haspelmath, M., & Malchukov, A. (2010). Introduction to the Special Issue “Semantic Maps: Methods and Applications”. Linguistic Discovery 8, 1–3. Dahl, O. (2008). Animacy and Egophoricity: Grammar, Ontology and Phylogeny. Lingua, 118(2), 141–150. Dahl, O. and Fraurud, K., (1996). Animacy in Grammar and Discourse. In Fretheim, T. and Gundel, J. (Eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility (47–64). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Dalai, U.P. (2001). The Genesis of Oriya Dative Case. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30(2), 189–207. Das, G. (1982). Descriptive Morphology of Oriya. Santiniketan: Visva-Bharati Research Publications Committee. Dasgupta, Probal. (2003). Bangla. In Cardona, G. & Jain, D. (Eds.), The Indo-Aryan Languages (351–390). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Dasgupta, Probal (2004). Some Non-nominative Subjects in Bangla. In Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (Eds.), Non-nominative Subjects, Vol- I (129–140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Dixon, R.M.W. (1977). A Grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R.M.W. (1979). Ergativity. Language 55, 59–88. Dixon, R.M.W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin. eds. (2013).The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved from http://wals.info/chapter/28. Accessed Jan. 8 2021. Emeneau, M. B. (1956). India as a Linguistic Area. Language 32(1), 3–16. Emeneau, M. B. (1974). India as a Linguistic Area Revisited. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 3(1), 92–131. Engelenhoven, Aone. (2010). Deixis. In Patrick Colm Hogan (ed.), Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences (247–248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1990). Domains and Connections. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 151–174. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science 22(2), 133–187. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.. (1999). Metonymy and Conceptual Integration. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. A volume in the series Human Cognitive Processing, (77–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Feist, M. I. (2000). On In and On: An Investigation into the Linguistic Encoding of Spatial Scenes. (PhD dissertation, Northwestern University). Retrieved from http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232/thesis.pdf. Feist, M. I. (2008). Space between Languages. Cognitive Science 32, 1177–1199. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/03640210802152335/ pdf. Accessed Feb. 20 2017. Feist, M. I. (2010). Inside In and On: Typological and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, Cognition, and Space (95–114). London: Equinox. Feist, M. I. & Gentner, D. (2000). On In and On: An Investigation into the Linguistic Encoding of Spatial Scenes. (PhD dissertation, Northwestern University). Retrieved from http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232/thesis.pdf. Accessed Mar. 18 2017.

151

B ibliography

Feist, M. I. & Gentner, D. (2003). Factors involved in the use of in and on. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (390–395). Retrieved from http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2003/ pdfs/89.pdf. Accessed Mar. 18 2017. Ferguson, C. A., (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI. Fillmore, Charles J. (1968). The Case for Case. In: Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (1–88). New York: Reinhart & Winston. Fillmore, Charles J. (1975). An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1975), 123–131. Fillmore, Charles J. (1977). Scenes-and-Frames Semantics. In Antonio Zampolli (ed.), Linguistic Structures Processing (55–79). North Holland. Fillmore, Charles J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm (111–138). Hanshin, Seoul: Linguistics Society of Korea. Fillmore, Charles J. (2003). Valency and semantic roles: the concept of deep structure case. In Vilmos Agel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jurgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds), Dependenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgen¨ossischen Forschung (457–475). Walter de Gruyter. Geeraerts, Dirk. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Genetti, Carol. (1986). The Grammaticalization of the Newari Verb Tol. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 9, 53–69. Goswami, G. & Tamuli, J. (1971). The Case-suffixes in Assamese. Indian Linguistics, 32(2), 139–147. Goswami, G. & Tamuli, J. (2003). Asamiya. In Cardona G & Jain D (Eds.), The Indo-Aryan Languages (391–443). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Grierson, G.A. (1903). Linguistic Survey of India. Vol- V. Reprint. Delhi 1968: Motilal Banarasidass. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward. Haspelmath, Marin. (1997). From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbials in the World's Languages. München: Lincom. Haspelmath, Marin. (2000). The Relevance of Extravagance: A Reply to Bart Geurts. Linguistics 38: 789–798. Haspelmath, M. (2001). The European Linguistic Area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath (Ed.), Language Typology and Language Universals. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft) (pp. 1492–1510). Berlin: de Gruyter. Haspelmath, M. (2003). The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and Cross-linguistic Comparison. In: Tomasello, Michael (ed.) The New Psychology of Language, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 211–242. Haspelmath, M. (2005). Argument Marking in Ditransitive Alignment Types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1):1–21. Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against Markedness (and What to Replace it With). Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 25–70. Haspelmath, M. (2009). Terminology of Case. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), Handbook of Case (509–517). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

152

B ibliography

Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. eds (1993): More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations. In Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria. (Eds.), Causation and Transitivity (87–120) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. eds (1997). Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. eds (2000). The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and Cross-linguistic Comparison. In: Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The New Psychology of Language, 2, 1–30. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://wwwstaff.eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/ SemMaps.pdf. Accessed Mar. 18 2017. Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. eds. (2003). The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and Cross-linguistic Comparison. In Tomasello, Michael (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Vol. 2. (211–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. eds. (2005). The World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistics/research/past-research/the-world-atlas-of-­ language-structures-wals.html Hedblom, M.M., Kutz, O., Peñaloza, R. et al. (2019). Image Schema Combinations and Complex Events. Künstl Intell 33, 279–291. Retrieved from https://link. springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13218-019-00605-1 Heine, Bernd, & Kuteva, Tania 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd., & Kuteva, Tania. (2004). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. New York, Cambridge University Press. Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hunnemeyer, F.. (1991). Grammaticalization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herskovits, Annette H. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hock, Hans Heinrich. (1991). Oblique Subjects in Sanskrit?. In M. K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan (Eds.), Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages (119–139), Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Hook, Peter. Edwin. (1979). Hindi Structures: Intermediate Level. Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan. Hook, Peter Edwin. (1990). A Note on Expressions of Involuntary Experience in the Shina of Skardu. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 53: 77–82. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2008). Grammaticalization. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jackendoff, Ray. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray. (1996). The Architecture of the Linguistic-spatial Interface. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (1–30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Janda, Laura A. (1988). Pragmatic vs Semantic Uses of Case. In Maclead, Lynn, Larson, Gary, and Breniari, Diane (Eds.), Papers from the 24th Annual Regional

153

B ibliography

Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Part one: The General Session, 187– 202. Retrieved from http://ansatte.uit.no/laura.janda/mypubs/Pragmatic%20 vs%20Semantic%20Uses%20of%20Case.pdf. Accessed Oct. 22 2013. Janda, Laura A. (1993). Geography of Case Semantics; The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Mouton de Gruyter Berlin· New York. Janda, Laura A. (1999). Peircean Semiotics and Cognitive Linguistics: A Case Study of the Russian Genitive. In Shapiro, Michael (Ed.), The Peirce Seminar Papers: Essays in Semiotic Analysis 4, 441–466. Retrieved from http://ansatte.uit.no/ laura.janda/mypubs/peircean%20semiotics%20and%20cognitive%20linguistics.pdf. Accessed Mar. 18 2017. Janda, Laura A (2000). A Cognitive Model of the Russian Accusative Case. In Proceedings of International Conference: Cognitive Modeling, (20–43). Retrieved from http://ansatte.uit.no/laura.janda/mypubs/russian%20acc.pdf. Accessed Mar. 18 2017. Janda, Laura A. (2009). What is the Role of Semantic Maps in Cognitive Linguistics?. In Piotr Stalmaszczyk and Wieslaw Oleksy, (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Language and Linguistic Data. Studies in Honor of Barbara LewandowskaTomaszczyk (105–124). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishers. Retrieved from http://ansatte.uit.no/laura.janda/mypubs/semantic%20maps.PDF. Accessed Mar. 18 2017. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jorgensen, Fredrik., & Lonning, J.T. (2008) A Minimal Recursion Semantic Analysis of Locatives. Computational Linguistics 35(2), 229–270. Retrieved from www. aclweb.org/anthology/J09-2004.pdf. Accessed Jan. 13 2021. Jussi, Ylikoski., Katja, Västi, & Seppo, Kittilä. (2011). Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kachru, Yamuna. (1978). On Ergativity in Selected South Asian Languages. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8, 111–127. Kallulli, Dalina. (2006). Unaccusatives with Dative Causers and Experiencers: A Unified Account. In D. Hole, A. Meinunger and W. Abraham (Eds.), Datives and Other Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure, (271–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kakati, Bani Kanta. (1941). Assamese: Its Formation and Development. Assam: Government of Assam in the Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies. Retrieved from http://enajori.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Assamese-ItsFormation-and-Development.pdf. Accessed Oct. 22 2013. Katre, S. M. (1968). Problems of Reconstruction in Indo-Aryan. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study. Keenan, E.L. (1976). Remarkable Subjects in Malagasy. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (247 – 301). New York: Academic Press. Keenan, Edward L. (1985). Relative Clauses. In: Shopen, Timothy (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description Vol. 2: Complex Constructions (141–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kelling, Carmen. (2001). Agentivity and Suffix Selection. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Eds.), On-Line Proceedings of the LFG’01 Conference (147–162). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/group/­ cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/6/pdfs/lfg01.pdf. Accessed Jan. 13 2021. Kennedy, Christopher. (2007). Vagueness and Grammar: The Semantics of Relative and Absolute Gradable Predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 1–45.

154

B ibliography

Kilby, D. (1981). On Case Markers. Lingua 54, 101–133. Kiparsky, Paul & Staal, Frits. (1969). Syntactic and Semantic Relations in Panini. Foundations of Language 5, 83–117. Klaiman, M. H. (1981). Toward a Universal Semantics of Indirect Subject Constructions. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (123–135). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ce41/de0b69665deb9de 2579531fae5e4a01d0454.pdf?_ga=2.32260669.2063652566.161012646234893802.1602432864. Accessed Jan. 13 2021. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria  (2008). Approaching Lexical Typology. In  Vanhove, Martine (Ed.), From Polysemy to Semantic Change: Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations (3–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kortmann, Bernd. (1997). Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kovaca, Eva (2011). Polysemy in Traditional vs. Cognitive Linguistics. Eger Journal of English Studies XI, 3–19. Retrieved from http://anglisztika.ektf.hu/new/­ content/tudomany/ejes/ejesdokumentumok/2011/Kovacs_2011.pdf. Accessed Oct. 22 2013. Kracht, Marcus. (2002a). On the Semantics of Locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 157–232. Kracht, Marcus. (2002b). Suffixaufnahme. Unpublished Manuscript. Retrieved from http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/mkracht/html/suffixaufnahme.pdf. Accessed Oct. 22 2013. Kumar, Ritesh., Lahiri, Bornini., & Alok, Deepak (2011). Challenges in Developing LRs for Non-Scheduled Languages: A Case of Magahi. In Proceedings of 5th Language & Technology Conference: Human Language Technologies as a Challenge for Computer Science and Linguistics (60–64). Polland: Fundacja Uniwersytetu im. Kurzon, Dennis., & Silvia, Adler. (2008). Adpositions: Pragmatic, Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kuteva,Tania. (2001). Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kyburg, A. & Morreau, M. (2000). Fitting Words: Vague Language in Context. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(6), 577–597. Lahiri, Bornini (2011). Case Marking of Asamiya in Comparison with Bangla for Animate and Inanimate Objects. In Proceedings of the 3rd Students' Conference of Linguistics in India (SCONLI-3), (87–92). Delhi: Parimal Publications. Lahiri, Bornini (2012). Ablative and Instrumental Markers in Some of the EIA Languages. In Proceedings of the 5th Students' Conference of Linguistics in India (SCONLI-5), (43–51). Hyderabad: Pothi.com. Lahiri, Bornini (2013). A Typological Study of Local Cases of EIA Languages. Journal of Universal Language 14(1) 85–115. Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark. (1980). The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual System. Cognitive Science 4, 195–208. Retrieved from http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4/pdf. Accessed Jan. 3 2014.

155

B ibliography

Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “Where” in Spatial Language and Spatial Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 217–265. Retrieved from http://www2.denizyuret.com/bib/landau/landau1993and/MLandau.pdf. Accessed Oct. 22 2013. Langacker, Ronald W. (1986). An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science 10, 1–40. Retrieved from www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/se367/10/langacker_ intro-cog-grammar-cogSci86.pdf. Accessed Oct. 2 2012. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1993). Reference-point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (1): 1–38. Langacker, Ronald W. (1995). Possession and Possessive Constructions. In J. R. Taylor & R. E. Mac Laury (Eds.), Language and Cognitive Construal of the World (51–79). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (2000). A Dynamic Usage-based Model. In Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.).Usage-Based Models of Language (1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Langacker, Ronald W. (2003). Dynamicity, Fictivity, and Scanning: The Imaginative Basis of Logic and Linguistic Meaning. Korean Linguistics 18: 1–64. Langacker, Ronald W. (2006). Cognitive Grammar; Introduction to Concept, Image, and Symbol. In Dirk Geeraerts, Rene Dirven and John R. Taylor (Eds.). Cognitive Linguistics Research (29–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. (2007). Constructing the Meanings of Personal Pronouns. In Radden, G, Klaus-Michael K, Thomas Berg and Peter Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction, (171–187). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Langacker, Ronald W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazard, Gilbert. (1984). Actance Variations and Categories of the Object. In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations (267–292). London: Academic Press. Lazard, G., (1998). Actancy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, Lehmann, Christian., & Shin, Young-Min. (2005). The Functional Domain of Concomitance: A Typological Study of Instrumental and Comitative Relations. In Lehmann, Christian (Ed.), Typological studies in participation (9–102). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Retrieved from www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/StudTyp6.pdf. Accessed Oct. 22 2013. Lehmann, Christian, Shin, Yong-Min & Verhoeven, Elisabeth. (2000). Direkte und indirekte partizipation. Zur Typologie der sprachlichen Repräsentation konzeptueller Relationen. Munich: Lincom Europa. Levin, B. (1979). Instrumental With and the Control Relation in English. Unpublished MSc Thesis. MIT. Retrieved from https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/ 1721.1/6328. Accessed Jan. 3 2014. Levin, B. (1999). Objecthood: An Event Structure Perspective. In  Proceedings of CLS 35, volume 1: The Main Session, Chicago Linguistic Society (223–247). Chicago: University of Chicago. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/ cls99.pdf. Accessed Jan. 3 2014.

156

B ibliography

Levin, B. & Grafmiller, J.. (2013). Do you always fear what frightens you? In T.H. King and V. de Paiva, (Eds.), From Quirky Case to Representing Space: Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen (21–32). Stanford: CSLI On-line Publications. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/Online/ azfest-final.pdf. Accessed Oct. 22 2013. Levinson, Stephen C. (1996). Frames of Reference and Molyneux’s Question: Crosslinguistic Evidence. In: P. Bloom et al. (eds.). Language and Space (109–169). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Levinson, Stephen C. (2003) Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen, & Wilkins, David P. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen, & Meira, S. (2003). ‘Natural Concepts’ in the Spatial Topological Domain - Adpositional Meanings in Crosslinguistic Perspective: An Exercise in Semantic Typology. Language, 79(3), 485–516. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/4489463. Accessed Jan. 3 2014. Levinson, Stephen., & Wilkins, David P. (2006). Grammars of Space; Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lindner, S. (1981). A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of Verb-Particle Constructions with ‘Up’ and ‘out’. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Longacre, Robert E. (1976). An Anatomy of Speech Notions. Michigan: Peter de Ridder Press. Luraghi, Silvia. (1987). Patterns of Case Syncretism in Indo-European Languages. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Giuliano (Eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (355–371). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Luraghi, Silvia. (2001). The Development of Local Particles and Adverbs in Anatolian as a Grammaticalization Process. Diachronica, XVIII(1): 31–58. Retrieved from http://attach.matita.net/silvialuraghi/file/Particle.pdf. Accessed Jan. 3 2014. Luraghi, Silvia. (2003). On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Luraghi, Silvia. (2009b). A Model for Representing Polysemy: The Italian Preposition da. In  “Actes du Colloque” Autour de la préposition  (pp. 167–178). Retrieved from https://attach.matita.net/silvialuraghi/file/Italian%20da.pdf. Accessed Jan. 13 2021. Luraghi, Silvia. (2009a). The Evolution of Local Cases and their Grammatical Equivalent in Greek and Latin. In Barðdal, Johanna and Chelliah, Shobhana (Eds.), The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case (283–306). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Luraghi, Silvia. (2013). The Mapping of Space onto the Domain of Benefaction: Beneficiaries that are not Recipients and their Sources. Presented at Association for Linguistic Typology 10th Biennial Conference (ALT 10). Leipzig, Germany. Lyons, John. (1967). A Note on Possessive, Existential and Locative Sentences. Foundations of Language 3: 390–396. MacKenzie, J. Lachlan. (Sep., 1978), Ablative-Locative Transfers and Their Relevance for the Theory of Case-Grammar. Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 14(2): 129–156.

157

B ibliography

Mahapatra, Bijay P. (2007). A Synchronic Grammar of Oriya (Standard Spoken and Written). Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Malchukov, Andrej L. (2017). Case. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Retrieved from https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/97801993 84655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-247. Accessed Sep. 9 2020. Malchukov, Andrej L. (2008). Animacy and Asymmetries in Differential Case Marking. Lingua 118, 203–221. Retrieved from www.keel.ut.ee/sites/default/ files/www_ut/4-malchukov.pdf. Accessed Jan. 3 2014. Maling, Joan. (2001). Dative: The Heterogeneity of the Mapping among Morphological Case, Grammatical Functions, and Thematic Roles. Lingua (Special Issue on the Effects of Morphological Case) 111, 419–464. Mandler, J. M. (1992). How to Build a Baby II: Conceptual Primitives. Psychological Review, 99, 587–604. Mandler, J. M. (2004). The Foundations of Mind: Origins of Conceptual Thought. New York: Oxford University Press. Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Masica, C.P. (1976). Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Masica, C.P. (1991).The Indo-Aryan Languages.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maslova, Elena. (2003). A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Mislne, W.S. (1993). A Practical Bengali Grammar. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Mishra, Haripriya. (1975). Historical Oriya Morphology. Varanasi: Bharata Manisha. Mithun, M., (1991). Active/Agentive Case Marking and its Motivations. Language 67, 510–546. Mitkovska, Liljana. (2004). The Conceptual Network of the Possessive na-construction in Macedonian. The Slavic and East European Language Resource Center 5 (1–22). Retrieved from https://slaviccenters.duke.edu/sites/slaviccenters.duke. edu/files/media_items_files/5mitkovska.original.pdf. Accessed Jan. 13 2021. Mohanan, T., (1990). Arguments in Hindi. PhD dissertation, Stanford: Stanford University. Mohanty, P. (1986). Aspects of Oriya Language: Phonology and Morphology. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Berhampur: Berhampur University. Mohanty, P. (1987). An Argument for Three Cases in Oriya. International journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 36(2): 286–299. Moravcsik, Edith A. (1972). Some Cross-linguistic Generalizations about Intensifier Constructions. CLS 8, 271–277. Naess, Ashild. (2006). Case Semantics and the Agent-Patient Opposition. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (Eds.), Case, Valency and Transitivity, (309–328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Naess, Ashild. (2007). Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Narrog, Heiko (2009). A Diachronic Dimension in Maps of Case Functions. Linguistic Discovery 8(1): 233–255.

158

B ibliography

Narrog, Heiko, & Ito, Shinya. (2007). Re-constructing Semantic Maps: The Comitative-Instrumental Area. Language Typology and Universals. 60(4): 273–292. Nichols, Johanna. (1988). On Alienable and Inalienable Possession. In William Shipley (Ed.), In Honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference in Native American Linguistics (557–609). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Nikiforidou, Kiki. (1991). The Meanings of Genitive: A Case Study in Semantic Structure and Semantic Change. Cognitive Linguistics 2: 149–205. Nikolaeva, Irina., & Andrew, Spencer. (2010). The Possession-Modification Scale: A Universal of Nominal Morphosyntax. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.611.158&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed Jan. 13 2021. Nikolaeva, Irina., & Spencer, Andrew. (2013) Possession and Modification – A Perspective from Canonical Typology. In: D. Brown, M. Chumakina, & G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax (207–238). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nilsen, D.L.F. (1973). The Instrumental Case in English. Mouton: The Hague. Noonan, M.P. (2003). Chantyal. In G. Thurgood and R.J. Lapolla (Eds.), The SinoTibetan Languages (315–335). London: Routledge. Oakley, Todd. (2007). Image Schema. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens, (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, (214–235). New York: Oxford University Press. Ohori, Toshio. (1995). Remarks on Suspended Clauses: A Contribution to Japanese Phraseology. In Shibatani, M and Thompson, S. (Eds.), Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics (201–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ojutkangas, Krista. (2006). Spatial Axes in Language and Conceptualization: The Case of Bidirectional Constructions. In Helasvuo and Campbell, Lyle (Eds). Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish (21–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Olsen, Sturla. (2010). Lacking in Latvian: Case Variation from a Cognitive and Constructional Perspective. In Barðdal, Johanna and Chelliah, Shobhana (Eds.), The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case (181–202). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Onishi, Masayuki. (2001). Non-canonically Marked Subjects and Objects: Parameters and Properties. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (Eds.), Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects (1–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ostler, Nicholas. (1979). Case-linking: A Theory of Case and Verb Diathesis, Applied to Classical Sanskrit. Cambridge: MIT. Palancar, E. L. (2002). The Origin of Agent Markers. Vol 5 of Studia typological. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Pattanayak, Debi Prasanna. (1966). A Controlled Historical Reconstruction of Oriya, Assamese, Bengali and Hindi. The Hague: Mouton. Pattanayak, Debi Prasanna. (1969). Oriya and Assamese. In Sebeok, T. (Ed.) Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 5: Linguistics in South Asia, 122–147. Payne, John. (1995). Inflecting Postpositions in Indic and Kashmiri. In Plank, Frans (Ed.), Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme (283–300). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Plank, Frans. (ed). (1979). Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press.

159

B ibliography

Plank, Frans. (1995). Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pray, Bruce. (1976). From Passive to Ergative in Indo-Aryan. In Mahindra K. Verma (Ed.), The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages (195–211). Madison: University of Wisconsin. Primus, Beatrice. (1999). Cases and Thematic Roles: Ergative, Accusative and Active. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Ramachandran, Subhadra. (2001). Oriya. In Jane Gary and Carl Rubino (Eds.), Facts About the World’s Languages: An Encyclopedia of the World’s Major Languages, Past and Present (528–530). New York / Dublin: H.W: Wilson Company. Ramscar, M., Matlock, T., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Time, Motion, and Meaning: The Experiential Basis of Abstract Thought. In Mix, Smith and Gasser, Michael (Eds.), The Spatial Foundations of Language and Cognition (67–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ray, T. S. (2003). Oriya. In Cardona G & Jain D (Eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages (444–476). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Regier, Terry., Khetarpal, Naveen., & Majid, Asifa. (2013). Inferring Semantic Maps. Linguistic Typology, 17(1), 89–105. Riemer, Nick (2005). The Semantics of Polysemy; Reading Meaning in English and Warlpiri. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rohrer, T. (2007): Embodiment and Experientialism. In: Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (25–47). New York: Oxford University Press, Rosch, E. (1977). Human Categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in Crosslinguistic Psychology (1–49). London: Academic Press. Rothmayr, Antonia. (2009). The Structure of Stative Verbs. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Saksena, Anuradha. (1980). The Affected Agent. Language 56 (4), 812–826. Saksena, Anuradha. (1982). Contact in Causation. Language 58 (4), 820–831. Schlesinger, I. M. (1979). Cognitive Structures and Deep Structures: The Case of the Instrumental. Journal of Linguistics 15: 307–324. Schlesinger, I. M. (1989), Instruments as Agents: On the Nature of Semantic Relations, Journal of Linguistics 25(1): 189–210. Sen, Subhadra Kumar. (1973). Proto-New Indo-Aryan. Calcutta: Eastern Publishers. Siddheshwar, Verma. (1973). G. A. Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India; A Summary. Part- II. Hoshiarpur: V.V.R.I Press. Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. In Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages (112–171). Canberra:.Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Linguistic Series 22. Silverstein, M. (1981). Case Marking and the Nature of Language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 227–244. Smith, M. (1987). The Semantics of Dative and Accusative in German: An Investigation in Cognitive Grammar. PhD thesis submitted at University of California, San Diego, Linguistics Department. Sorensen, Knud. (1957). Latin Influence on English Syntax. TCLC 11, 131–155. Spanoghe, Annie-Marie. (2001). (In)alienability and (in)determination in Portuguese. In Irène Baron, Michael Herslund & Finn Sørensen (Eds.), Dimensions of Possession (Typological Studies in Language 47) (227–242). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

160

B ibliography

Spencer, A. & Otoguro, R. (2003). A Realizational Approach to Case. In T. Holloway King & M. Butt (Eds.), Proceedings of LFG ’03, (387–401). Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/8/pdfs/ lfg03.pdf. Accessed Aug. 20 2015. Spencer, A. & Otoguro, R. (2005a). Limits to Case – A Critical Survey of the Notion. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, 119–145. Oxford: Elsevier. Spencer, A. & Otoguro, R. (2005b). Case in Hindi. In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (Eds.), Proceedings of LFG ’05 (429—446). CSLI Publications. Retrieved from http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/10/lfg05.html. Accessed Jan. 3 2014. Stassen, Leon. (1997). Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stolz, Thomas. (2001). To be with X is to have X: Comitatives, Instrumentals, Locative And Predicative Possession. Linguistics 39(2): 321–350. Stump, Gregory. (1993). How Peculiar is Evaluative Morphology? Journal of Linguistics 29(1), 1–36. Stump, Gregory. (2001). Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Swart, Peter, Lamers, M., & Lestrade, S. (2008). Animacy, Argument Structure, and Argument Encoding. Lingua 118, 131–140. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384107000307. Accessed Dec. 4 2017. Tamura, Suzuko. (2000). The Ainu Language. ICHEL Linguistic Studies, 2. Tokyo: Sanseido. Talmy, L. (1983). How Language Structures Space. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial Orientation: Theory Research and Application. New York: Plenum Press. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Language Typology and Syntactic Description (pp. 57–149). 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth C, & Heine, Bernd. eds. (1991). Approaches to Grammaticalization. vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Tyler, Andrea, & Evans, Vyvyan. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvyan. (2001). Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over. Language 77(4): 724–765. Retrieved from www. jstor.org/stable/3086846?origin=JSTOR-pdf. Accessed Mar. 13 2012. Tyler, Andrea, Kim, Yiyoung, & Takada, Mari. eds. (2008). Language in the Context of Use: Discourse and Cognitive Approaches to Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Van der Auwera, John., & Plungian, Vladimir A, (1998). Modality’s Semantic Map. Linguistic Typology 2(1): 125–139. Van Valin, R & Lapolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verma, Manindra K., ed. (1976). The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages. Madison: University of Wisconsin, South Asian Studies. Verma, Manindra K. (2003a). Bhojpuri. In Cardona G & Jain D (Eds.), The IndoAryan Languages (515–537). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Verma, Manindra K. and Mohanan, K.P.. ed. (1990). Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

161

B ibliography

Verma, Sheela. (1985). The Structure of the Magahi Verb. Delhi: Manohar. Verma, Sheela (2003b). Magahi. In G. Cardona & D. Jain (Eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages (498–514). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing House. Wali, K., & Koul, O. (1997). Kashmiri: A Cognitive-Descriptive Grammar. London: Routledge. Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Human Emotions: Universal or Culture-Specific? American Anthropologist, New Series, 88 (3), 584–594. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/679478 Wierzbicka, A. (1980). The Case for Surface Case. Ann Arbor: Karoma Wierzbicka, A. (1981). Case Marking and Human Nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 43–80. Wierzbicka, A. (1983).The Semantics of Case Marking. Studies in Language 7: 247–275. Yadav, Ramawatar. (1997). A Reference Grammar to Maithili. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Punblishers Pvt Ltd. Yadav, Ramavatar (2003). Maithili. In Cardona G & Jain D (Eds.), The Indo-Aryan Languages (477–497). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Yadava, Yogendra P. (2004). Non-nominative Subjects in Maithili. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (Eds.), Non-nominative Subjects Vol- II (253–264). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Young, Michael. (2012). Cognitive Mapping Meets Semantic Networks. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40(3) 395–414. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/174312?origin=JSTOR-pdf. Accessed Jan. 3 2014. Zúñiga, F., & Kittilä, Seppo. (2010). Benefactives and Malefactives. Typological Perspectives and Case Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

162

INDEX

ablative case 2, 6, 18, 31–36, 38, 39, 43, 55, 56, 58–60, 89, 90, 114, 122, 132, 134, 135 abstract case 7 accusative languages 9, 61 affix 3, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, 21, 24, 64, 65, 80, 83, 108, 110, 115–119 agent 2, 7, 9, 15, 16, 26, 27, 32, 42–44, 47–52, 54, 58–62, 67, 71, 72, 75–80, 90, 99, 101, 104, 105, 108–113, 122, 131, 133, 134, 137–139 agenthood 69, 109, 119 agentive 15, 16, 26, 27, 42, 50–52, 61, 65, 85, 99, 101, 104, 105, 107–114, 117, 119, 123, 124, 134–136 Angika 3, 4, 8, 19–21, 23, 27, 31, 32, 35, 38, 53, 63, 65, 79, 81, 87, 107, 117, 119, 121, 136, 137 animacy hierarchy 68–70, 88, 89, 92, 108 animacy 2, 31, 61, 65, 66, 68–70, 81, 87–89, 92, 108, 110, 120, 122–125, 134–136 animate 2, 9, 20, 24, 26, 30–32, 42, 44, 47–50, 52, 57–60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 77–82, 88–90, 94, 108, 111, 113, 114, 119, 122–125, 134, 136, 137 antecedent 90 asamiya 4, 5, 15, 24–27, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 44, 48–50, 54, 56, 64–66, 71, 76, 80, 81, 86, 87, 89, 90, 97, 99–101, 104, 106–114, 119–126, 130, 133–136 Australian language 37

89, 90, 96, 97, 99–101, 106–109, 113, 116, 119–121, 124, 125, 127, 130, 133–136 benefactive case 2, 61–81, 90, 132, 134 Bhojpuri 3, 4, 8, 9, 19–21, 23, 27, 31, 33, 35, 63–65, 79, 81, 87, 90, 106, 107, 116–119, 121, 136, 137

Bangla 3–5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 24–27, 31–33, 35, 37, 40, 41, 44, 49–53, 56–60, 64–66, 70, 71, 80–82, 86, 87,

dative construction 15, 16 deictic element 18, 23–28, 30, 34, 35, 96, 97, 124, 134

case filter 21 case marker 1–3, 7, 8, 10, 13–16, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39, 42, 52, 55, 58–60, 66, 69–71, 78, 81, 83, 85, 90, 92, 97, 100, 101, 106, 108–110, 114, 117–122, 124–127, 129, 131, 132, 134–136 case relation 1–3, 7, 8, 10, 27, 35, 37, 58–60, 62, 65, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124, 126, 127, 129–131, 135–137 case syncretism 27, 43, 60, 64, 118 causative 47–49, 66, 68, 137 causee 47, 48 classifier 15, 66, 92 clause linkage markers 118, 119 clitics 3, 15 cognitive framework 1, 2, 8, 11–14, 128 comitative case 8, 57, 58, 97 comparative case 56, 57, 60, 114, 126, 135 complex verb constructions 100, 101 conceptual continuum 8, 58, 59 conceptualizer 84, 93, 103, 108 conjunct verbs 100 container schema 98, 99

163

I ndex

deixis 18, 30, 34, 36, 131, 132, 134 direction 12, 27, 28, 95, 128, 134 discourse space 12, 13 discriminatory approach 9 Dravidian language 37

Magadhi Prakrit 3, 119 Magahi 3, 4, 8, 19–21, 23, 24, 27, 31, 35, 63, 65, 78, 79, 81, 87, 107, 115, 116, 119, 121, 127, 136, 137 Maithili 3, 4, 8, 14, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 31, 35, 63, 65, 79, 81, 87, 97, 104, 106, 107, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, 136, 137 motion 12, 18, 30–32

Eastern Indo-Aryan 1–4, 15, 37, 41, 117, 120, 122, 123 ergative languages 9, 61 ergative–absolutive language 9 event chain 43, 47, 48, 55, 91 experiencer 15, 16, 51, 72, 74, 75, 77, 99, 101, 104

non-agentive construction 16, 50 non-canonical subject 15 objective case 2, 61–72, 76, 78, 81, 82, 100, 104, 108, 112, 113, 116–120, 122–124, 134, 136, 137 oblique case 9, 14, 16, 117–119, 135 oblique subject marking 15 Odia 3–5, 9, 24–27, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 40, 41, 44, 49, 54, 60, 64–67, 80, 81, 86, 87, 89, 95–97, 106, 108, 110, 114, 118–122, 124, 126, 127, 130–136

formative affix 118 General Spatial Terms 27, 39, 45 genitival construction 20, 26 genitive case 2, 7, 83–109, 113, 119, 120, 123, 129, 131, 132, 134–136 grammaticalization 2, 23, 108, 135 grammatical relation 8, 61 Hindi 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 47, 66, 68, 101, 112, 117, 118, 123, 126, 127 homophonous 26, 27, 44, 58, 116 image schema 11, 12, 85, 98 impingement verbs 67, 68, 71, 81, 82, 123, 134, 137 inanimate 2, 20, 30, 42, 44, 47, 49, 57–60, 65, 66, 68–71, 75, 76, 79, 81, 82, 87–89, 92, 94, 95, 108, 113, 119, 122–127, 133, 135–137 Indo-Aryan 1–4, 6, 14, 15, 37, 41, 48, 50, 117, 120, 122–124, 138 instrument 7, 35, 37, 42–51, 53, 55, 58–60, 70, 71, 78, 124, 126, 127, 130–133, 135, 136 instrumental case 2, 35, 42–60, 70, 71, 110, 114, 124, 127, 131–134, 136 intransitive verb 9, 48, 111 Karaka theory 6, 7 kinship terms 91 landmark 12, 18, 62 linkage marker 118, 119 local cases 2, 17–19, 31, 39–41 locative case 2, 8, 9, 14, 19, 23, 38–40, 45, 70, 71, 106, 123, 127, 129, 132–134 locus 18, 52, 83, 103, 105

partitive 85, 94–96, 105–107, 131, 132 passive 16, 42, 50, 52–54, 58–60, 62, 72, 101 path 3, 12, 13, 17–19, 30, 31, 34–37, 40, 41, 43, 55, 56, 59–60, 62, 93, 121, 122, 130–132, 134, 136 patient 7, 9, 16, 38, 42, 43, 45, 47, 51, 53, 58–62, 68, 70, 72–74, 77–79, 99, 112, 123, 132, 134 perlative case 2, 40, 58, 120, 126, 132, 134 polysemous 2, 3, 13, 126, 135, 136 polysemy network 13, 17, 28, 58, 120 possessive case 83 possessor 26, 83, 85, 89, 103–105, 118 postposition 2, 9, 14, 19, 48, 49, 57, 63, 65, 80, 85, 108, 115–119, 135, 136 pseudo-partitive 85 realization models 118 reference-point model 84 Sambandh 7 schematic path 13 semantic map 2, 3, 6, 120, 127–129, 132 semantic role 7, 9, 15, 65, 72 simulative case 56, 110, 114, 135

164

I ndex

subsequent 6, 7, 55, 90, 91 suffixaufnahme construction 117

transitive clause 61 transitive verb 9, 54, 69, 72, 111

trajector 12, 13, 18, 22, 24, 27, 29, 32, 34–36, 38, 39, 41, 45, 62, 83, 85, 87, 88, 96, 98, 101–106, 108, 113, 129, 131, 133–135

vibhakti 7 viewing frame 12, 13 volitionality 100

165