Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 45:4 (2021) ► pp.887–920

The development of perfectivity in Khamti Shan

ORCID logo | Payap University
Khamti Shan features the marking of perfectivity comprised of three clause-final particles, one perfective and two imperfectives, each emerging from the basic verbs, yau¹ ‘finish’, u⁵ ‘live’, and nam⁵ ‘(be) extensive’. While the perfective category is straightforward, the imperfective category shows an unusual bifurcation, the first imperfective marker accommodating continuatives and habituals and the second imperfective marker working exclusively with the nominal predicate construction, clauses of potentiality (hortatives, futures), and the progressive construction. All three particles of perfectivity develop from lexical sources, with the pathways ‘finish’ > completive > perfective and ‘live’ > continuous/progressive > imperfective being well-documented across languages. The pathway ‘extensive’ > imperfective, on the other hand, appears unique to Khamti Shan. I motivate the usage of these perfectivity particles (primarily) with a semantic-cognitive analysis.
Keywords: Tai, Shan, Khamti, perfective, imperfective, aspect, grammaticalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background on Khamti Shan
    • 2.1The language and its speakers
    • 2.2Typological characteristics
    • 2.3Data
  • 3.Lexical underpinnings
  • 4.The perfectivity particles in context
    • 4.1Perfective (pfv)
    • 4.2First Imperfective (ipfv.i)
    • 4.3Second Imperfective (ipfv.ii)
  • 5.Grammaticalization of the perfectivity particles
    • 5.1The yau¹ pathway
    • 5.2The u⁵ pathway
    • 5.3The nam⁵ pathway
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 2 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19001.ing
References (42)
References
Borchers, Dörte. 2016. Marking anteriority, perfect and perfectivity in languages of mainland Southeast Asia – concepts, linguistic area. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), Conceptualizations of time, 243–270. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1998. “Irrealis” as a grammatical category. Anthropological Linguistics 40(2). 257–271.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, J. 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
Chau Khouk Manpoong. 1993. New Tai reader. Chongkham, Arunachal Pradesh: Tai Literature Committee. 21 Volumes. (in Khamti).Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Viveka Velupillai. 2013. The perfect. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL], Accessed on 2019-07-24.)
DeLancey, Scott. 2002. Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Parasession on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian Linguistics, 55–72. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 341–359. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 463–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diller, Anthony V. N. 2006. Thai serial verbs: Cohesion and culture. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. Dixon (eds.), Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology, 160–177. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diller, Anthony V. N., Jerold A. Edmondson & Yongshian Luo (eds.). 2008. The Tai-Kadai languages. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dockum, Rikker. 2014. A tale of two Khamtis: Language classification in Southwestern Tai. SYNC 2014. Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2019a. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, Twenty-second edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. [URL] (Accessed on 2019-05-15).
(eds.). 2019b. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, Twenty-second edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. [URL] (Accessed on 2019-07-17).
Edmondson, Jerold A. 2008. Shan and other northern tier southwest Tai languages of Myanmar and China: Themes and variations. In Anthony V. N. Diller, Jerold A. Edmondson & Yongshian Luo (eds.), The Tai-Kadai languages, 184–206. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Edmondson, Jerold A. & David B. Solnit. 1997a. Introduction. In Jerold A. Edmondson & David B. Solnit (eds.), Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch, 1–27. Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997b. Comparative Shan. In Jerold A. Edmondson & David B. Solnit (eds.), Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch, 337–360. Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2005. Areal linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia. Annual Review of Anthropology 341. 181–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1991. The de dicto domain in language. In Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, vol. 11, 219–251. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Jimmy G. 1976. Notes on Khamti Shan. In Thomas W. Gething, Jimmy G. Harris & Pranee Kullavanijaya (eds.), Tai linguistics in honor of Fang-Kuei Li, 113–141. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inglis, Douglas. 2014. This here thing: Specifying morphemes an³, nai¹, and mai² in Tai Khamti reference-point constructions. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2017a. Myanmar-based Khamti Shan orthography. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 10(1). xlvii–lxi. [URL]
. 2017b. Khamti Shan anti-ergative construction: A Tibeto-Burman influence? Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 40(2). 133–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2005. A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jenny, Mathias. 2001. The aspect system of Thai. In Karen H. Ebert & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Aktionsart and aspectotemporality in non-European languages, 97–140. Zürich: ASAS-Verlag.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Nuttanart Muansuwan. 2005. The syntax of aspect in Thai. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory 231, 335–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusalanda (Sao) & (Sao) Namnaeu. 2013. Tai Khamti-Burmese dictionary. Khamti Shan Literature Committee and SIL International. Namti: Myanmar.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011. Grammaticalization and cognitive grammar. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 79–91. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1972. Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 11, 237–257. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Morey, Stephen D. 2002. The Tai languages of Assam – A grammar and texts. Clayton, VI: Monash University dissertation.Google Scholar
2005a. The Tai languages of Assam: A grammar and texts. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
2005b. Tonal change in the Tai languages of Northeast India. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 28(2). 166–169.Google Scholar
2008. The Tai languages of Assam. In Anthony V. N. Diller, Jerold A. Edmonson & Yongxian Luo (eds.), The Tai-Kadai languages, 207–253. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thiengburanathum, Prang. 2013. Thai motion verbs paj and maa: Where tense and aspect meet. Studies in Language 37(4). 810–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thepkanjana, Kingkarn. 1986. Serial verb constructions in Thai. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 651. 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weidert, Alfons. 1977. Tai Khamti phonology and vocabulary. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Wilaiwan Khanittanan. 1986. Kamti Tai: From an SVO to an SOV language. In Bhadriraju H. Krishnamurti (ed.), South Asian linguistics: Structure, convergence, and diglossia, 174–178. Delhi: Motilal Barnarsidas.Google Scholar