Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 40:2 (2017) ► pp.133–160

Khamti Shan anti-ergative construction

A Tibeto-Burman influence?

 | SIL International
It is widely recognized that Khamti Shan is unique among Tai languages in evidencing a basic (A)OV word order, quite likely due to extensive language contact with Tibeto-Burman languages. Much less recognized in Khamti Shan is that some functional objects take a postposition marker, revealing a striking, but not necessarily unexpected, resemblance to a Tibeto-Burman-like anti-ergative construction. The deictic mai² ‘here’ grammaticalizes an anti-ergative function in which it acts as a marker for certain monotransitive ‘objects’ which are analyzed as pragmatically foregrounded referents in the information structure of the sentence.
Keywords: Tai Khamti, Tibeto-Burman, anti-ergative, grammaticalization, language contact
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Where it all begins: Proximal deictic mai²
  • 3.The anti-ergative construction in Khamti Shan
    • 3.1Preliminaries to the anti-ergative construction
    • 3.2Monotransitive clauses
      • 3.2.1The foregrounded O-mai² V pattern
      • 3.2.2The neutral OV pattern
      • 3.2.3The backgrounded VO pattern
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.17001.ing
References (58)
References
Andrews, Avery D. 2007[1985]. The major functions of the noun phrase. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. I1: Clause Structure, 2nd edn, 132–223. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blansitt, Edward. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 17], 173–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, James R. 1975. A new look at the history and classification of the Tai languages. In Jimmy G. Harris & James R. Chamberlain (eds), Studies in Tai Linguistics in Honor of William J. Gedney, 49–66. Bangkok: Central Institute of English Language.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L. & Rint Sybesma. 1998. On dummy objects and the transitivity of run. In Renée van Bezooijen & Rene Kager (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands, Vol. 151, 81–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1978. Locationals: A study of ‘existential,’ ‘locative,’ and ‘possessive’ sentences. Universals of Human Language, Vol 41: Syntax, 85–126. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. 2017. On the diachronic origins of converbs in Tibeto-Burman and beyond. In Picus Ding & Jamin Pelkey (eds), Sociohistorical Linguistics in Southeast Asia: New Horizons for Tibeto-Burman Studies in Honor of David Bradley, 210–237. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Forms, Function, and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4): 463–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diller, Anthony. 1992. Tai languages in Assam: daughters or ghosts? In Carol J. Compton & John F. Hartmann (eds), Papers on Tai Languages, Linguistics and Literatures: In Honor of William J. Gedney on his 77th Birthday, 5–43. DeKallb, IL: Center for Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Diller, Anthony, Jerold A. Edmondson & Yongshian Luo (eds). 2008. The Tai-Kadai Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dockum, Rikker. 2014. A tale of two Khamtis: Language classification in Southwestern Tai. SYNC 2014. Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Clause types. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol I1: Clause Structure, 224–275. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, Jerold A. 2008. Shan and other northern tier southwest Tai languages of Myanmar and China: Themes and variations. In Anthony Diller, Jerold A. Edmondson & Yongshian Luo (eds), The Tai-Kadai Languages, 184–206. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Edmondson, Jerold A. & David B. Solnit. 1997. Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics & The University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J. 2007. A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1991. The de dicto domain in language. In Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 11: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19], 219–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1991. From postposition to subordinator in Newari. In Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 21: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19], 227–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Object relations and dative case in Dolakha Newari. Studies in Language 21(1): 37–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbials in the World’s Languages. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1990. The dative in Ik and Kanuri. In William Croft, Keith Denning & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Studies in Typology and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language 20], 129–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997a. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Gramaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997b. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The areal dimension of grammaticalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 291–301. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inglis, Douglas. 2014. This here thing: Specifying morphemes an³, nai¹, and mai² in Tai Khamti reference-point constructions. PhD dissertation, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
. 2017. Myanmar-based Khamti Shan orthography. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 10(1): xlvii–lxi.Google Scholar
Janssen, Theo A. J. M. 1995. Deixis from a cognitive point of view. In Ellen Contini-Morava & Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds), Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory, 245–270. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karapurkar, Pushpa. 1976. Kokborok Grammar [CIIL Grammar Series 3]. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1): 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1992. Anti-ergative marking in Tibeto-Burman. LTBA 15(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
1994. Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman languages: Evidence of Sapir’s ‘Drift’. LTBA 17(1): 61–80.Google Scholar
2004. On nominal relational morphology in Tibeto-Burman. In Fung-min Hsu, Ying-chin Lin, Chun-chih Lee, Jackson, T. -S., Hsiu-fung Yang & Dah-an Ho (eds.), Studies on Sino-Tibetan Languages: Papers in Honor of Professor Hwang-cherng Gong on his Seventieth Birthday, 23–74. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2002. The possessive-benefactive connection. Oceanic Linguistics 41(2): 439–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyn, Shan Tieu. 2008. Complements in non-referential contexts: Comparing English and Chinese. Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–15. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1973. The Grammar of Lahu [University of California Publications in Linguistics 75]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 2001. Communicative Organization in Natural Language: The Semantic-communicative Structure of Sentences [Studies in Language Companion Series 57]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morey, Stephen. 2006. Constituent order change in the Tai languages of Assam. Linguistic Typology 10(3): 327–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Transitivity in Cholim Tangsa. Studies in Language 35(3): 676–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Needham, Jack Francis. 1894. Outline Grammar of the Khamti Language: As Spoken by the Khamtis Residing in the Neighborhood of Sadiya. Rangoon, Burma: Superintendent of Governement Printing.Google Scholar
Newman, John (ed.). 1996. The Linguistics of Giving [Tyological Studies in Language 36]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1998. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally. 1992. Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 14), 89–94.Google Scholar
. 2005. Moving for thinking: The pervasiveness of motion imagery in ideation and emotion. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Alina Kwiatkowska (eds), Imagery in Language: Festschrift in Honour of Professor Ronald W. Langacker [Łódź Studies in Language 10], 343–359. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11(3): 451–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 2001. Linguistic outcomes of language contact. In Peter Trudgill, J. Chambers & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 638–668. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Simons, Gary F., M. Paul Lewis & Charles D. Fennig (eds.), 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 16th edn. Dallas, TX: SIL International. <[URL]>
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 141–177. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. 1992. Discourse grounding: The morphosyntax of Mandarin direct objects. Proceedings of the 19th conference of the linguistic association of Canada and the United States (LACUS), 143–152.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 1973. Clause patterns in Kham. In Austin Hale (ed.), Clause, Sentence, and Discourse Patterns in Selected Languages of Nepal, I1: General Approach, 39–202. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1968[1953]. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wilaiwan, Khanittanan. 1986. Kamti Tai: from an SVO to an SOV Language. In B. H. Krishnamurti (ed.), South Asian Linguistics: Structure, Convergence, and Diglossia, 174–178. Delhi: Motilal Barnarsidas.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Inglis, Douglas
2021. The development of perfectivity in Khamti Shan. Studies in Language 45:4 ► pp. 887 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. , DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.