Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T21:16:59.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the dating and nature of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Randy J. LaPolla
Randy J. LaPolla
Affiliation:
Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Taiwan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is part of an ongoing investigation into the nature of grammatical relations in the Sino-Tibetan language family. The ultimate goal of this investigation is to develop a hypothesis on the typological nature of word order and grammatical relations in the mother language which gave rise to all of the many languages within the Sino Tibetan language family. As the verb agreement (pronominalization) systems of Tibeto-Burman have been said to be a type of ergative marking, and to have been a part of Proto-Tibeto-Burman grammatical relations, the questions of the dating and nature of the agreement systems in Tibeto-Burman are relevant to the discussion of the nature of grammatical relations in Proto-Sino-Tibetan.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 298 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahrens, Kathleen. 1990. ‘Re-examining the evidence for verbal agreement in Tangut’. Paper presented to the 23rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, University of Texas at Arlington, Oct. 5–7, 1990.Google Scholar
Bin, Bai, Jinbo, Shi, Xun, Lu, and Wende, Gao. 1989. Zhongguo minzu shi yanjiu (Studies on the history of the nationalities of China), 2. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Bauman, James J. 1974. ‘Pronominal verb morphology in Tibeto-Burman’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 1/1: 108–55.Google Scholar
Bauman, James J. 1975(a). ‘Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman’. Ph.D.dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bauman, James J. 1975(b). ‘Pronominal roots in Tibeto-Burman’. Paper presented to the 8th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, 24–26 October 1975, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bauman, James J. 1979. ‘An historical perspective on ergativity in Tibeto-Burman’, In F., Plank (ed.), 1979: 419–33.Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus. Princeton-Cambridge Studies in Chinese Linguistics, II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1983. ‘This and that in Tibeto-Burman/ST’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 7/2: 75–98.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1946. ‘Algonquian’, in Hoijer, Harry et al. ed. Linguistic structures of native America (Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, 6),. New York: 85–129.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins. 1983. ‘The sal languages’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 7/2: 1–32.Google Scholar
Caughley, Ross. 1982. The syntax and morphology of the verb in Chepang. [Pacific Linguistics Series B, No. 84]. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. ‘Ergativity’, in Winifred P., Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Austin: University of Texas Press: 329–94.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1980(a). ‘Morphology and word order reconstruction: problems and prospects’, in Jacek, Fisiak (ed.), Historical morphology (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 17). The Hague: Mouton: 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1980(b). ‘Inverse verb forms in Siberia: evidence from Chukcee, Koryak, and Kamchadal’, Folia Linguistica, 1/1: 61–74.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell; Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cowgill, Warren. 1963. ‘Universals in Indo-European diachronic morphology’, in Joseph H., Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press: 91–113.Google Scholar
Da Gupta, K. 1971. An introduction to the Nocte language. Shillong: North East Frontier Agency.Google Scholar
Qingxia, Dai, Juhuang, Liu, and Ailan, Fu. 1989. ‘Guangyu woguo Zang-Mian yuzu xishu fenlei wenti’ On the problem of genetic subgrouping within the Tibeto-Burman languages of China. Yunnan Minzu Yueyuan Yuebao, 3: 82–92.Google Scholar
Dayley, Jon P. 1981. ‘A Tzutujil grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1980(a). ‘The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 6/1: 83–101.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1980(b). ‘Deictic categories in the Tibeto-Burman verb’. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981(a). ‘An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns’, Language, 57: 629–57.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981(b). ‘Parameters of empathy’, Journal of Linguistic Research (IULC), 1/3.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1983. ‘Tangut and Tibeto-Burman morphology’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 7/2: 100–8.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1987. ‘The Sino-Tibetan languages’, in B., Comrie (ed.) The world's major languages. New York: Oxford University Press: 799–810.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1988. ‘On the origins of the Kuki-Chin agreement prefixes’. Paper presented to the 21st International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. 7–9 October 1988, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1989(a). ‘On the evolution of the Kham agreement paradigm’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 11/2: 51–61.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1989(b). ‘Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman’, BSOAS, LII, 2: 315–33.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity, Language, 55/1: 59–138.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge, London, and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1990(a). ‘An exploration of Proto-Kiranti verbal morphology’. Act Linguistica Hafniensia, 22/2: 27–48.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1990(b). ‘The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system’. MS, Rijks-universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991. ‘Tangut verbal agreement and the patient category in Tibeto-Burman’, BSOAS, LIV, 3, 1991.Google Scholar
John W, Du Bois. 1985. ‘Competing motivations’, in John, Haiman (ed.),Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 343–65.Google Scholar
John W, Du Bois. 1987. ‘The discourse basis of ergativity’, Language 63/4: 805–55.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1987. ‘Grammatical marking of speech act participants in Tibeto-Burman’, Journal of Pragmatics. 11/4: 473–82.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1990. ‘On the evidence for the relationship Kiranti-Rung’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 13/1: 57–78.Google Scholar
Foley, William A and Robert D. Van, Valin Jr., 1977. ‘On the viability of the notion of “subject” in universal grammar’, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. University of California, Berkeley: 293–320.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1987. ‘A contrastive study of the Dolakhali and Kathmandu Newari dialects’. Paper presented to the 20th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada, 21–23 August 1987.Google Scholar
Giridhar, P. P. 1980. Angami grammar. (OIL Grammar Series-6). Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.Google Scholar
Givόn, Talmy. 1980. The drift away from ergativity: diachronic potentials in Sherpa, Folia Linguistica 1/1: 41–60.Google Scholar
Hwang-cherng, Gong. 1989. ‘Case postpositions in Tibeto-Burman languages’. A collection of essays in Tibetan studies, no. 2, 1–10. Taipei: Committee for Research on Tibet.Google Scholar
Grierson, George (ed.). 1909. Linguistic survey of India. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.Google Scholar
Grimes, Joseph E.. (ed.). 1980. Papers on discourse. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin and David E., Watters. 1973. ‘A survey of clause patterns’, in Austin, and Watters, (ed.), Clause, sentence, and discourse patterns in selected languages of Nepal, Part II. (SIL Pub. in Linguistics and Related Fields, no. 40). Kathmandu: SIL and Tribhuvan University Press: 175–249.Google Scholar
Henderson, Eugénie J. A. 1957. ‘Colloquial Chin as a pronominalized language’, BSOAS, xx, 2. 323–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. ‘Emergent grammar’, Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. University of California, Berkeley: 139–5.Google Scholar
Bufan, Huang. 1985. ‘Muyavu gaikuang’ (An overview of the Muya language). Minzu Yuwen. 3: 62–7.Google Scholar
Peng, Jin, Kerang, Tan, Aitang, Qu, and Xiangrong, Lin. 1958. ‘Jiarongyu Suomohua de yuyin he xingtai (xu)’ (The phonology and morphology of the Suomo dialect of Jiarong, part 2). Yuyan Yanjiu 3: 71–108.Google Scholar
Kepping, Ksenia B. 1975. ‘Subject and object agreement in the Tangut verb’. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 2/2: 29–32.Google Scholar
Kepping, Ksenia B. 1979. ‘Elements of ergativity and nominativity in Tangut’, in F., Plank (ed.) 1979: 263–77.Google Scholar
Kepping, Ksenia B. 1981. ‘Agreement of the verb in Tangut’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 6/1: 39–48.Google Scholar
Kepping, Ksenia B. 1982. ‘Once again on the agreement of the Tangut verb’. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 7/1: 39–54.Google Scholar
Kepping, Ksenia B. 1989. ‘Xixiayu de jiegou’ (The structure of the Tangut language), in Bai. Shi., Lu and Gao, (ed.), 1989, 312–26.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A. E. 1985. ‘Toward a typology of ergativity’, in Nichols, and Woodbury, (ed.), 1985: 268–323.Google Scholar
Klimov, G. A. 1984. ‘On the expression of object relations in the ergative system’, in F., Plank (ed.), Objects: towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press: 211–19.Google Scholar
Klimov, G. A. 1986. ‘On the notion of language type’, in Winifred P., Lehmann (ed.). Language typology 1985 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 47). John Benjamins: 105–10.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1976. ‘Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy’, in Charles N., Li (ed.). Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press: 417–44.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kwanten, Luc. 1982. ‘Verbal agreement in Tangut: a conflicting opinion’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 7/1: 55–62.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1986. ‘Topic, focus, and the grammar of spoken French.’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1987. ‘Dulong and Proto-Tibeto-Burman’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 10/1: 1–42.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1988(a) ‘Topicalization and the question of lexical passives in Chinese’, Proceedings of the Third Annual Ohio State University Conference on Chinese Linguistics [13–14 May 1988], (ed.) Marjorie, K. M. Chan and Thomas, Ernst. Indiana University Linguistics Club: 170–88.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1988(b). ‘“Subject” and referent tracking: arguments for a discourse-based grammar of Chinese’, Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Linguistics [Fresno, 14–16 October 1988] vol. I, (ed.) Joseph, Emonds et al. Fresno: Dept. of Linguistics, California State University: 160–73.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1989. ‘Verb agreement, head-marking vs. dependent-marking, and the “deconstruction” of Tibeto-Burman morpho-syntax’, Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [18–20 February 1989], (ed.) Kira, Hall et al. Berkeley: University of California: 356–65.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1990. ‘Grammatical relations in Chinese: synchronic and diachronic considerations.’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1991. ‘The primary object in Tibeto-Burman.’ Paper presented to the 2nd International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics, 9–11 August 1991, Taipei, Taiwan. To appear in Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14/2.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. ‘Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change’, Lingua e Stile, 20: 303–18.Google Scholar
Fanwen, Li. 1989. ‘Xixia xue de chansheng yu fazhan’ (The origin and development of Xixia (Tangut) studies), in Bai, , Shi, , Lu, , and Gao, , (ed.), 1989: 220–26.Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Byd. 1975. ‘Notes on the Kiranti verb (East Nepal)’,Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 2/2: 183–218.Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd. 1988. La langue hayu. Paris: Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Morse, Robert H. 1965. ‘Syntactic frames for the Rvwang (Rawang) verb’. Lingua, 15: 338–69.Google Scholar
Nagano, Yasuhiko. 1983. ‘A historical study of the rGyarong verb system.’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Nagano, Yasuhiko. 1987. ‘Some ergative phenomena in Tibeto-Burman’,The Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, 45: 53–74.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. ‘Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar’, Language, 62: 56–119.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. (forthcoming). The distribution of linguistic types in time and space. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna and Anthony, Woodbury (ed.). 1985. Grammar inside and outside the clause. Cambridge, London and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tatsuo, Nishida. 1964–1966. Seikago no kengyu (Tangut studies). Tokyo: Zauho Kankokai.Google Scholar
Tatsuo., Nishida 1987. ‘A study of the structure of HsiHsia verb phrases’, The Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, 45: 1–.Google Scholar
Plank, Franz (ed.). 1979. Ergativty: towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aitang., Qu 1984. ‘Jiarongyu gaikuang’ (A brief description of the Gyarong language), Minzu Yuwen, 2: 67–.Google Scholar
Guangrong, Ran, Shaoming, Li, and Xiyin., Zhou 1984. Qiangzu shi (The history of the Qiang nationality). Chengdu: Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921/1945. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1955. ‘Classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages’, Word 11/1: 94–.Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1966. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan, Part I. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’, in Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Linguistics Series, no. 22). New Jersey: Humanities Press, Inc.: 112–.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1979. ‘Penutian: an assessment’, in Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, The languages of Native America: historical and comparative assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press: 650–. (cited in Nichols 1986).Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1981. ‘Case marking and the nature of language’, Australian Journal of Linguistics, I: 121–.Google Scholar
Sofronov, Mikhail Viktorovich. 1968. Grammatika tangutskogo yazyka. Moscow.Google Scholar
Stern, Theodore. 1963. ‘A provisional sketch of Sizang (Siyin) Chin’, Asia Major, n.s., 10/2: 22–.Google Scholar
Hongkai., Sun 1982. Dulongyu jianzhi (A sketch of the Dulong language). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Hongkai, Sun. 1983(a). ‘Chuanxi “inzu zoulang” diqu de yuyan (The languages of the ‘ethnic corridor’ region of western Sichuan), Research on the Peoples of the Southwest, no. 1: 429–.Google Scholar
Hongkai., Sun 1983(b). ‘Woguo Zang-Mianyu dongci de rencheng fanchou’ (The person category of verbs in the Tibeto-Burman languages of China). Minzu Yuwen, 2: 17–.Google Scholar
Hongkai, Sun 1985. ‘Liujiang liuyu de minzu yuyan ji qi xishu fen lei’ (The ethnic languages of the Six Rivers area and their genetic affiliations), Minzu Xuebao 3: 99–.Google Scholar
Hongkai, Sun. 1988. ‘Shilun Zhongguo jingnei Zang-Mian yu de puxi fenlei’ (A classification of Tibeto-Burman languages in China), in Eguchi, et al. (ed.), Languages and history in East Asia: a festschrift for Tatsuo Nishida on the occasion of his 60th birthday, vol. I. Kyoto: Shokado. 61–.Google Scholar
Hongkai, Sun. 1991. ‘Cong cihui bijao kan Xiaxiayu yu Zangmian yuzu Qiangyuzhi de guanxi’ (The relationship between Tangut and the Qiang branch of Tibeto-Burman from the point of view of shared lexical items), Minzu Yuwen,2, 1991, 1–.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. ‘Language universals and discourse patterns.’ Paper presented at the West Coast Conference on Linguistics [Fresno, 14– October 1988]. (Not published in Proceedings.)Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 1984(a). ‘The “Rung” languages: a major new Tibeto-Burman subgroup’. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California: 338–.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 1984(b). ‘The “Rung” languages: notes on their morpho-syntax and subgrouping.’ Paper presented to the 17th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, 7– September 1984, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 1985. ‘Pronouns, verb agreement systems, and the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman’, in Thurgood, et al. (ed.), Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan area: the stale of the art. (Pacific Linguistics, Series C, no. 87.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Sueyoshi, Toba. 1980. ‘Participant focus in Khaling narratives’, in Grimes, (ed.), 1980: 157–.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1990. ‘Functionalism, anaphora and syntax.’ Review article of Kuno 1987, Studies in language 14/1: 169–.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1969. Indogermanishe Grammatik, III, 1. Heidelberg:Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 1975. ‘The evolution of a Tibeto-Burman pronominal verb morphology: a case study from Kham (Nepal)’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 2: 45–.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 1978. ‘Speaker-hearer involvement in Kham’, in Grimes, J. E. (ed.), 1980: 1–.Google Scholar
Whistler, Kenneth W. 1985. ‘Focus, perspective, and inverse person marking in Nootkan’, in Nichols, and Woodbury, (ed.), 1985: 227–65.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, Stuart N. 1929. Outlines of Tibeto-Burman linguistic morphology. London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar