Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 40:2 (2017) ► pp.202–242

The role of disambiguation in pragmatic agentivity

Evidence from Khatso

| San Jose State University
Pragmatic agentivity is widespread in the Tibeto-Burman family. Some analyses suggest that its main purpose is to mark the agent in structurally ambiguous clauses, such as those in which agents and patients share the same degree of animacy or where the patient is absent due to zero anaphora. Others question the role of disambiguation, pointing out that it is often superfluous or inconsistent in resolving the agent role and thus likely not the primary purpose. Instead, disambiguation is seen as an outcome of highlighting agency, volition or choice. Exploring the multiple discourse functions of the agent marker in Khatso (Burmese-Ngwi; Yunnan, China), this paper shows that disambiguation is the primary motivation for marking agents, a feature that becomes more important in newer functions. This analysis builds on previous studies and broadens our understanding of the phenomenon in the Tibeto-Burman family.
Keywords: agent marking, optional ergativity, pragmatic agentivity, disambiguation, pseudo-passive, contrastive focus, Khatso, Ngwi, Tibeto-Burman
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language
  • 3.Ablative and instrumental markers
  • 4.Agent marker
  • 5.Other functions
    • 5.1Pseudo-passive
    • 5.2Contrastive focus
    • 5.3Superlative
    • 5.4Conjunction
  • 6.Grammaticalization
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.16006.don
References (38)
References
Bisang, Walter. 2009. On the evolution of complexity: Sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, 34–49. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L. 2001. The role of text collection and elicitation in linguistic fieldwork. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic Fieldwork, 152–165. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L. & Gwendolyn Hyslop. 2011. Introduction to special issue on optional case marking in Tibeto-Burman. LTBA 341: 1–7.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. 2011. On core case marking patterns in two Tibeto-Burman languages of Nagaland. LTBA 341: 21–47.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. “Optional” “Ergativity” in Tibeto-Burman languages. LTBA 341: 9–20.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 551: 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donlay, Chris. 2014. The pragmatic agent marker in Khatso. Paper presented at the 46th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Kunming, China, October 17, 2014.
. 2015. A functional grammar of Khatso. PhD dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 631: 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Representing discourse. Ms, University of California at Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Gerner, Matthias. 2013. A Grammar of Nuosu. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gil, David. 2004. Riau Indonesian sama: Explorations in macrofunctionality. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 58], 371–426. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 58], 3–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2004. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19], 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Chun. 2009. Mengguzu jianshi (Concise history of Mongolians). Kunming: Yunnan Renmin Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2010. Kurtöp case: The pragmatic ergative and beyond. LTBA 331: 1–40.Google Scholar
Jenny, Mathias & San San Hnin Tun. 2013. Differential subject marking in Burmese. Studies in Language 371: 693–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1993. Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 631: 759–813.Google Scholar
1995. ‘Ergative’ marking in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New Horizons in Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax, 189–228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.) 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 17th edn. Dallas, TX: SIL International. <[URL]>
Lidz, Liberty. 2011. Agentive marking in Yongning Na (Mosuo). LTBA 341: 49–72.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2006. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 1161: 393–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 31: 480–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morey, Stephen. 2012. The Singpho agentive–functions and meanings. LTBA 351: 1–14.Google Scholar
Moseley, Christopher (ed.). 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. <[URL]>
Mu, Shihua. 2002. Kazhuoyu yanjiu (A study of Kazhuo). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel. 2014. The system of information packaging in colloquial Burmese. PhD dissertation, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Peterson, David A. 2011. Core participant marking in Khumi. LTBA 341: 73–100.Google Scholar
Sawada, Hideo. 2012. Optional marking of NPs with core case functions: P and A in Lhaovo. LTBA 351: 15–34.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2000. and-languages and with-languages. Linguistic Typology 41: 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012. Ergative marking in Nyagrong-Minyag (Xinlong, Sichuan). LTBA 351: 35–48.Google Scholar
Teo, Amos. 2012. Sumi agentive and topic markers: no and ye . LTBA 351: 49–74.Google Scholar
Tonghaixian Xingmengxiang 2010 nian tongji nianjian (Tonghai County Xingmeng Village 2010 Statistical Yearbook. Xingmeng: Tonghaixian Xingmengxiang Tongjizhan.
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1991. The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. LTBA 141: 93–107.Google Scholar
Willis, Christina M. 2011. Optional case marking in Darma (Tibeto-Burman) LTBA 341: 101–131.Google Scholar
Zeisler, Bettina. 2012. Practical issues of pragmatic case marking variations in the Kenhat varieties of Ladakh. LTBA 351: 75–106.Google Scholar