Bikram Jora | Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages
Birhor (Birhoɽ) is a Kherwarian Munda language spoken in small enclaves in India, primarily in Hazaribagh, Ranchi,
and Singhbhum districts and other small pockets in Jharkhand state. Birhor has to date been poorly documented, and even the basic
properties of its core grammatical systems remain largely undescribed. All data used in this study come from field notes collected
in several trips dating back to 2015. This paper is a preliminary attempt to identify the basic templatic structures of positive
and negative finite conjugations in Birhor of both monovalent and polyvalent predicates. We discuss here two basic intersecting
inflectional oppositions in the grammar of Birhor: (i) between perfective and imperfective tense-aspect forms (the imperfective
includes imperfective and imperfect forms, and the perfective includes the past, the anterior and the perfect); and (ii) between
monovalent predicates and polyvalent ones. Like all Kherwarian languages, Birhor has a nominative-accusative alignment of argument
indexing and a complex templatic verb structure. It encodes subjects with monovalent stems. Polyvalent predicates encode two
arguments, a first argument/syntactic subject and a second argument/syntactic ‘object’ following a primary object pattern. A
complex array of different templates is thus found across positive and negative conjugations that contrast polyvalent vs.
monovalent imperfective, perfective, and imperative forms. Many different formal templatic patterns are attested within each of
the paradigmatic oppositional sets in Birhor. There are two formal subtypes of monovalent predicates. They contrast in both
positive and negative conjugations, for both the imperfective and the perfective series of inflections. Polyvalent predicates also
contrast the imperfective and the perfective series. Lastly, there are distinct templates for imperative and prohibitive of
monovalent and polyvalent predicates as well.
Adhikary, Ashim Kumar. 1984. Society and world view of the Birhor (Memoir 60). Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India, Ministry of Education and Culture, Government of India.
Anderson, Gregory D. S.2007. The Munda verb: Typological perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anderson, Gregory D. S.2011. Auxiliary verb constructions (and other complex predicate types): A functional-constructional typology. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(11). 795–828.
Anderson, Gregory D. S.2015. Prosody, phonological domains and the structure of roots, stems and words in the Munda languages in a comparative/historical light. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2(2). 163–183.
Anderson, Gregory D. S. & Jora, Bikram. 2018. Negation, TAM and person-indexing interdependencies in the Munda languages: A preliminary report. In Ring, Hiram & Rau, Felix (eds.), Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics (JSEALS Special Publication 3), 36–59. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Anderson, Gregory D. S. & Zide, Norman H.2002. Issues in proto-Munda and proto-Austroasiatic nominal derivation: The Bimoraic Constraint. In Macken, Marlys A. (ed.), Papers from the 10th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 55–74. Tempe: Arizona State University, Southeast Asian Studies Program.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1962. The Menomini language. New Haven: Yale University.
Bodding, Paul Olaf. 1929. Santal grammar for beginners. Dumka: Santal Mission of Northern Churches.
Dahlstrom, Amy. 1993. The syntax of discourse functions in Fox. In Peterson, David A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session on Syntactic Issues in Native American Languages, 11–21. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Dahlstrom, Amy. 1995. Topic, focus, and word order problems in Algonquian (The Belcourt Lectures). Winnipeg: Voices of Rupert’s Land.
Dash, Jagannatha. 1998. Human ecology of foragers. A study of Khariā (Savara), Ujiā (Savara) and Birhor in Similipāl Hills. New Delhi: Commonwealth.
Dryer, Matthew S.1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62(4). 808–845.
Epps, Patience. 2008. A grammar of Hup. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Firdos, Sohel. 2005. Forest degradation, changing workforce structure and population redistribution: The case of Birhors in Jharkhand. Economic and Political Weekly 40(8). 773–778.
Ghosh, Arun. 1994. Santali: A look into Santal morphology. New Delhi: Gyan Pub. House.
Ghosh, Arun. 2008. Santali. In Anderson, Gregory D. S. (ed.), The Munda languages, 11–98. Abingdon: Routledge.
Good, Jeff C.2003. Strong linearity: Three case studies towards a theory of morphosyntactic templatic constructions. Berkeley: UC Berkeley. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Good, Jeff C.2007. Strong linearity, weak linearity, and the typology of templates. In Miestamo, Matti & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), New challenges in typology: Broadening the horizons and redefining the foundations, 11–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Good, Jeff C.2011. The typology of templates. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(10). 731–747.
Grierson, George A. (ed.) 1906. Linguistic survey of India, volume IV: Munda and Dravidian languages. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.
Hyman, Larry M.2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2002, 245–281. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Inkelas, Sharon. 1993. Nimboran position class morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11(4). 559–624.
Kari, James. 1989. Affix positions and zones in the Athapaskan verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 55(4). 424–454.
Kiran, Savita & Peterson, John M.2010. Sadani/Sadri language. (English version of Russian text it appears based on side by side comparison.) ([URL]) (Accessed 2015-06-15.)
Kiran, Savita & Peterson, John M.2011. Sadani/Sadri jazyk (Sadani/Sadri language). In Oranskaja, T. I., Mazurov, Ju. V., Kibrik, A. A., Kulikov, L. I. & Rusakov, A Ju. (eds.) Jayki Mira: Novye indoarijskie jazyki–Languages of the world: New Indo-Aryan languages, 367–379. RAN Institut Jazykoznanija. Moscow: Akademija.
Kumar, Sudhir. 2004. The Birhors of Chotanagpur region (A study in tribal geography). New Delhi: Rajesh Publications.
Lounsbury, Floyd G.1953. Oneida verb morphology. New Haven: Yale University.
Maganga, Clement & Schadeberg, Thilo. 1992. Kinyamwezi: Grammar, texts, vocabulary (East African Languages and Dialects 1). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
McLendon, Sally. 1975. A grammar of Eastern Pomo. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mishra, Ramesh Chandra & Sinha, Durganand & Berry, John Widdup. 1996. Ecology, acculturation and psychological adaptation: A study of adivasis in Bihar. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Mukherjee, Mohua. 2000. The Birhor towards the next millennium: Glimpses of a primitive tribal group at Kodarma in Bihar. Howrah: Sujan Publications.
Muysken, Pieter. 1988. Affix order and interpretation: Quechua. In Everaert, Martin & Evers, Arnold & Huybregts, Riny & Trommelen, Mieke (eds.), Morphology and modularity: In honour of Henk Schultink, 259–279. Dordrecht: Foris.
Neukom, Lukas. 2001. Santali (Languages of the World/Materials 323). München: Lincom Europa.
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2010. Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for templates. Morphology 20(2). 321–341.
Osada, Toshiki. 1993. Field notes on Birhor. In Nara, Tsuyoshi (ed.), A computer-assisted study of South-Asian languages, 30–40. Tokyo: ILCAA.
Ota, A. B. & Sahoo, Trilochan. 2010. The Birhor. Bhubaneswar: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute (SCSTRTI).
Roy, Sarat Chandra. 1925. The Birhors: A little-known jungle tribe of Chota Nagpur. Ranchi: G. E. L. Mission Press.
Sahu, Chaturbhuj. 1995. Birhor tribe: Dimensions of development. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons.
Sarkar, Sangita. 2012. Birhor: A sociolinguistic study of language endangerment. (Manuscript.)