Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 43:2 (2020) ► pp.256–291

Verb classes in Horpa

A study of Balang Geshiza and Poxiu Stau

 | University of Helsinki | Nazarbayev University
Based on argument indexation properties, this paper offers a model of four verb classes for Geshiza and Stau, two closely related and endangered Horpa lects spoken in Sichuan. Despite increased awareness and interest in Horpa, no exhaustive classification of verbs from the viewpoint of argument indexation has been offered. Even though argument indexation itself has been discussed in previous scholarship, the striking diversity of argument indexation patterns has not been addressed. It is shown that both Geshiza and Stau, the two lects chosen as the sample for this study, share the same verb classes, even though the class assignment of individual cognate verbs occasionally varies. The paper also describes how semantic and animacy features inherent in verbs, most prominently compatibility with human S and P arguments resulting in compatibility with speech act participants, play a crucial role in verb class assignment. Establishing a framework for Horpa verb classes helps in the ongoing descriptive work of these languages. In addition, it offers new material for typological studies of argument indexation.
Keywords: Horpa, Geshiza, Stau, argument indexation, verb agreement
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Goals of the paper and source materials
    • 1.2Structure and conventions
  • 2.Morphosyntactic preliminaries
    • 2.1Argument indexation suffixes
    • 2.2Hierarchical alignment and inverse marking
      • 2.2.1Formal properties of the inverse prefix
    • 2.3Argument indexation suffixes and vowel fusion
  • 3.Overview of the verb classes
  • 4.Verb classes
    • 4.1Verb class 1
      • Class 1a
      • Class 1b
    • 4.2Verb class 2
      • Class 2a
      • Class 2b
    • 4.3Verb class 3
      • Class 3a
      • Class 3b
    • 4.4Verb class 4
  • 5.Variation and Irregularities
    • 5.1Verbs borrowed from Tibetan in Stau
    • 5.2Different transitivity value
    • 5.3Different class assignment inside either transitive or intransitive classes
    • 5.4Lect-internal variation: Grammatical and pragmatic factors
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 4 January 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.19013.hon
References (28)
References
Boro, Krishna. 2019. Argument indexation in Hakhun Tangsa. Himalayan Linguistics 18(1): 180–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2017. Hierarchical and accusative alignment of verbal person marking in Trans-Himalayan. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 4(1): 85–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duo’erji. 1997. Daofuyu Geshizahua Yanjiu [A study of Geshiza variety of the Daofu language]. Beijing: China Tibet Studies Press.Google Scholar
Gates, Jesse P. 2017. Verbal triplication morphology in Stau (Mazi dialect). Transactions of the Philological Society 115(1): 14–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gates, Jesse P. & 'ja' dpal. manuscript. Argument indexation in Stau from a cross-dialectal perspective. [URL]
Gates, Jesse P. & Kim Won Ho. 2018. Vowel harmony in Stau. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41(2): 263–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gao, Yang. 2015. Description de la langue menya: phonologie et syntaxe. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Gong, Xun. 2014. The personal agreement system of Zbu Rgyalrong (Ngyaltsu variety). Transactions of the Philological Society 112(1): 44–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honkasalo, Sami. 2019. A grammar of Geshiza: A culturally anchored description. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2010. The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong. Language and Linguistics 11(1): 127–157.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume & Anton Antonov. 2014. Direct/inverse systems. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(7): 301–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The direction(s) of analogical change in direct/inverse systems. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 257–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, Anton Antonov, Lai Yunfan & Lobsang Nima. 2014. Person marking in Stau. Himalayan Linguistics 13(1): 82–92.Google Scholar
. 2017. Stau (Ergong, Horpa). In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (2nd edition), 597–613. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Konnerth, Linda Anna. 2016. The Proto-Tibeto-Burman *gV- nominalizing prefix. LTBA 9(1): 3–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
La, Yunfan. 2015. The person agreement system of Wobzi Lavrung (Rgyalrongic, Tibeto-Burman). Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3): 271–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, Yunfan. 2017. Grammaire du khroskyabs de Wobzi. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Shirai, Satoko. 2014. Reduplication and nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. Papers from the Second International Conference on Asian Geolinguistics, 24–25 May 2014, Bangkok, Thailand, 105–115.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1998. On nominal and verbal person marking. Linguistic Typology 2(1): 1–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Alignment of verbal person marking. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL]
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2000. Stem alternations in Puxi verb inflection: Toward validating the Gyalrongic subgroup in Qiangic. Language and Linguistics 1(2): 211–232.Google Scholar
2015. Heshui xian Sashiduo jiarongyu dongci rencheng fanchou de tedian [Remarkable features in the verb agreement system of Sastod Rgyalrong in Khrochu County]. Language and Linguistics 16(5): 731–749.Google Scholar
2019. The ancestry of Horpa: Further morphological evidence. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 291: 24–43.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Shi Danluo. 2002. Caodeng jiarongyu rentong tengdi xiangguan de yufa xianxiang [Empathy hierarchy in Caodeng rGyalrong grammar]. Language and Linguistics 3(1): 79–99.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Tian Qianzi. 2013. Huo’eryu Gexihua Dongci Duixie [Verb agreement in Gexi Horpa]. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 7(2): 221–241.Google Scholar
Tunzhi (Sonam Lhundrop). 2017. Language vitality and glottonyms in the Ethnic Corridor: The Stau language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2451: 147–168.Google Scholar
Vanderveen, Chantel. 2015. A phonology of Stau. Langley, Canada: Trinity Western University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gates, Jesse P.
2023. Kinship terms in Stau. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 46:2 ► pp. 265 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.