Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 47:3 (2023) ► pp.643–682

The history of the polyfunctional 𗗙 jij 1 in Tangut

How did the accusative/genitive syncretism come about?

ORCID logo | Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
This paper focuses on the history of a polyfunctional case marker 𗗙 jij1 in Tangut, an extinct Rgyalrongic language (Sino-Tibetan). This versatile case morpheme is a typological rarity of maximum syncretism among several abstract case functions, including differential object marking, the genitive, and the oblique (which overlaps with the dative). For one thing, accusatives originating from datives or spatial sources are rarely found with additional genitive functions; for another, reported instances of accusative/genitive syncretism seldom include other functions. The principal hypothesis of this paper is that the Tangut 𗗙 jij1 may be the result of multiple grammaticalization processes stemming from a proto-locative source. These processes can be subsumed under two pathways, one leading from an allative to an accusative, with an intermediate oblique stage, and the other from a locative to a genitive. Although both of these development pathways are frequently attested, the Tangut 𗗙 jij1 remains a typological rarity due to their superposition.
Keywords: case syncretism, differential object marking, locative, Tangut, Rgyalrongic languages
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Differential object marking
    • 1.2Sources and grammaticalization of DOM markers
    • 1.3Genitive syncretism
  • 2.Morpho-syntactic profile of Tangut
    • 2.1Transitivity
    • 2.2Status of 𗗙 1139 jij1 in Tangut case system
  • 3.Clausal functions of 𗗙 1139 jij1
    • 3.1Monotransitive verbs: Optional O marking
    • 3.2Ditransitive verbs: Alternating R marking
    • 3.3Auxiliary causative
      • 3.3.1Optional causee marking with 𗗙 1139jij1
      • 3.3.2Optional marking on the oblique argument with 𗗙 1139jij1
      • 3.3.3Alternative causee marking with 𘋩 5447do2
    • 3.4Interim summary
      • 3.4.1Prototypical semantic values of 𗗙 1139jij1 and 𘋩 5447do2
      • 3.4.2Syntactic distribution of 𗗙 1139jij1 and 𘋩 5447do2
  • 4.Cross-Rgyalrongic comparison
    • 4.1Modern West Rgyalrongic: Genitive/oblique =jV
      • 4.1.1Extended intransitive verbs
      • 4.1.2Indirective verbs
    • 4.2Situ Rgyalrong: General locative =j
      • 4.2.1Delimitative adjuncts
      • 4.2.2Oblique
        • 4.2.2.1Extended intransitive verbs
        • 4.2.2.2Indirective verbs
      • 4.2.3Locative =j and possession
        • 4.2.3.1Locational possessive
        • 4.2.3.2Locative pronouns
        • 4.2.3.3‘Double marking’
  • 5.Multi-directional development of the yod postposition
    • 5.1From allative to accusative
      • 5.1.1From allative to oblique in West Rgyalrongic
      • 5.1.2Promotion of oblique to accusative in Tangut
      • 5.1.3Information structure and accusative marking
    • 5.2From locative to genitive
      • 5.2.1Location schema
      • 5.2.2Topic Schema
    • 5.3Beneficiary possessor
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21085.zha
References (85)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andvik, Erik. 2010. A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Tshangla. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 418–435. 2nd edn, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arakawa, Shintaro. 2010. Seika-go no kakuhyōshiki ni tsuite [on the Tangut case markers]. In Hideo Sawada (ed.), Chibetto=Biruma-kei gengo no bunpō genshō 1: Kaku to sono shūhen [Grammatical phenomena of Tibeto-Burman languages 1: Case-marking and related matters], 153–174. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
. 2012. On the Tangut verb prefixes in ‘Tiansheng Code’. In Irina Popova (ed.), Тангуты в Центральной Азии: сборник статей в честь 80-летия профессора. Е.И.Кычанова [Tanguts in Central Asia: a collection of articles marking the 80th anniversary of Prof. E. I. Kychanov], 58–71. Moscow: Oriental Literature.Google Scholar
. 2018. Seikago no sōsū setsuoji ni tsuite [On the “dual” suffix of Tangut]. In Tooru Hayasi, Tomoyuki Kubo, Setsu Fujishiro, Noriko Ohsaki, Yasuhiro Kishida & Mutsumi Sugahara (eds.), Yūrashia sho gengo no tayōsei to dōtai 20 gō kinengō [Diversity and dynamics of Eurasian languages: The 20th commemorative volume], 69–83. Tokyo: Consortium of Studies of Eurasian Languages.Google Scholar
. 2019. Seika-go no shieki ni tsuite [On the causative construction in Tangut] In Takumi Ikeda (ed.), Shina=Chibetto-kei sho gengo no bunpō genshō 2: Shieki no shosō [Aspects of causative construction], 135–147. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2009. Case syncretism. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 219–230. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beaudouin, Mathieu. 2021. Localiser en tangoute: entre continuums et bipartitions. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 116(1): 327–346.Google Scholar
. 2022. Tangut verb agreement: optional or not? Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 45(1): 93–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Accepted. Tangut and Horpa languages: some shared morphosyntactic features. Language and Linguistics.
Blansitt, Edward. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 173–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische universalienforschung: Differentielle objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1991. Differential object marking Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & Shanshan Lü. 2022. A semantic typology of location, existence, possession and copular verbs: Areal patterns of polysemy in Mainland East and Southeast Asia. Linguistics 60(1): 1–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2019. Optional and alternating case marking: Typology and diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass 13(3). Available at: DOI logo (last access 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Object and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. “Optional” “ergativity” in Tibeto-Burman languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2): 9–20.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.). 2000. Changing valency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endalew, Assefa. 2017. Multifunctional Morpheme jə- and -m in Ezha: An Ethio-Semitic Language. Macrolinguistics 6(2): 24–36.Google Scholar
Gates, Jesse P. 2021. A grammar of Mazur Stau. Paris: EHESS PhD dissertation.
Genetti, Carol. 1997. Object relations and dative case in Dolakha Newari. Studies in Language 211(1): 37–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1994. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: functional and typological aspects of inversion. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Voice and Inversion, 3–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gong, Hwang-cherng. 2001. Xīxià yǔ dòngcí de rénchēng hūyìng yǔ yīnyùn zhuǎnhuàn [Personal Agreements and Phonological Alternations in the Tangut Verb]. Language and Linguistics 2(1): 21–67.Google Scholar
. 2003. Tangut. In Randy J. LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 602–620. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gong, Xun. 2017. Verbs stems in Tangut and their orthography. SCRIPTA 91. 29–48.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Grammaticalization of cases. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 458–469. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1977. The Gunnän-Gurage languages. Napoli: Istituto orientale di Napoli.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2019. The historical phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honkasalo, Sami. 2019. A grammar of Eastern Geshiza: A culturally anchored description. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD dissertation.
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2011. Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Pavia: University of Pavia PhD dissertation.
Ikeda, Takumi. 2012. Verbs of Existence in Tangut and Mu-nya. In Nathan W. Hill (ed.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages IV1, 191–210. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2004. Phonologie et morphologie du japhug (rGyalrong). Paris: Université Paris VII – Denis Diderot PhD dissertation.
. 2007. Textes tangoutes I, nouveau recueil sur l’amour parental et la piété filiale (Languages of the World/Text Collections 25). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
. 2009. The origin of vowel alternations in the Tangut verb. Language and Linguistics 10(1): 17–27.Google Scholar
. 2011. The Structure of the Tangut verb. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 39(2): 419–443.Google Scholar
. 2014. Esquisse de phonologie et de morphologie historique du tangoute. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Tangut, Gyalrongic, Kiranti and the nature of person indexation in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan. Linguistics Vanguard. Available at DOI logo (last access 22 March 2022).Google Scholar
. 2021. A grammar of Japhug. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 2003. On the taxonomy of nominal cases in Mongolic. Altai Hakpo 131: 83–90.Google Scholar
Kepping, Ksenija Borisovna. 1975. Subject and Object agreement in the Tangut Verb. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 2(2): 219–231.Google Scholar
. 1985. Тангутский язык: морфология [The Tangut Language: Morphology]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. Object-, animacy- and role-based strategies: A typology of object marking. Studies in Language 30(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotaka, Yuji. 2000. Seikago no kakujoshi ni kansuru tōgoronteki kenkyū [A synthetic study of Tangut case particles]. Hiroshima: Hiroshima University PhD dissertation.
Lai, Yunfan. 2017. Grammaire du khroskyabs de Wobzi. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD dissertation.
. 2018. Relativisation in Wobzi Khroskyabs and how genitivisation enters it. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41(2): 219–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Jiāróngyǔzǔ yǔyán dòngcí de fēnlèi – yǐ Chuòsījiǎ (Lāwùróng) yǔ wéilì [The classification of verbs in Rgyalrongic languages, from a Khroskyabs perspective]. Yǔyánxué lùncóng [Essays on linguistics] 631: 68–95.Google Scholar
Lai, Yunfan, Guillaume Jacques, Xun Gong & Jesse Gates. 2020. Tangut as a West Rgyalrongic language. Folia Linguistica Historica 41(1): 171–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1992. ‘Anti-ergative’ Marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 15(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
2004. On Nominal Relational Morphology in Tibeto-Burman. In Ying-chin Lin, Fang-min Hsu, Chun-chih Lee, Jackson T.-S. Sun, Hsiu-fang Yang & Dah-an Ho (eds.), Studies on Sino-Tibetan languages: Papers in honour of Professor Hwang-cherng Gong on his seventieth birthday, 43–73. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization (Classics in Linguistics 1). Berlin: Language Science Press, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Fanwen. 2008. Xià-Hàn Zìdiǎn [Tangut-Chinese Dictionary]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Lin, Xiangrong. 1993. Jiāróngyǔ yánjiū [A study of the Rgyalrong language]. Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Lin, You-jing. 2016. Jiāróngyǔ Zhuókèjīhuà yǔfǎ biāozhù wénběn [Cogtse Rgyalrong texts: Fully analyzed spontaneous narratives with an updated sketch grammar of the language]. Beijing: Shehui Kexue Wenxian Chubanshe.Google Scholar
. 2017. How grammar encodes space in Cogtse Rgyalrong. Himalayan Linguistics 16(1): 59–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L., Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej L. Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Ronny. 2005. The morpheme yä- in Muher. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 19(1): 40–63.Google Scholar
. 2011. Gurage. In Stefan Weninger (ed.), The Semitic languages: An international handbook, 1220–1257. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2004. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 1141: 1186–1212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagano, Yasuhiko. 2018. Gyarongo bunpō kenkyū [A reference grammar of the rGyalrong language – Bhola dialect]. Tokyo: Kyūko Shoin.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2014. The grammaticalization chain of case functions: Extension and reanalysis of case marking vs. universal of grammaticalization. In Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles, 71–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevskij, Nikolaj Aleksandrovich. 1960. Tангутская филилогия, Исследования и словарь [Tangut Philology, Research and Dictionary]. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura.Google Scholar
Nishida, Tatsuo. 1989 [2012]. Seikago [Tangut]. In Gengogaku Daijiten, vol. 21, 408–429. Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar
Prins, Marielle. 2016. A grammar of rGyalrong Jiǎomùzú (Kyom-kyo) dialects. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent, Guillaume Jacques, Yunfan Lai, Robin J. Ryder, Valentin Thouzeau, Simon J. Greenhill & Johann-Mattis List. 2019. Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. PNAS 116(21): 10317–10322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Jinbo. 2020. Tangut language and manuscripts: An introduction. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Jinbo, Zhenhua Huang & Hongyin Nie. 1993. Lèilín yánjiū [A study on ‘the Forest of Categories’]. Ningxia Renmin Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Simon, Camille. 2016. Morphosyntaxe et sémantique grammaticale du salar et du tibétain de l’Amdo: analyse d’un contact de langues. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD dissertation.
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2): 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solonin, Kirill. 1995. Dvendtsat’ Tsarstv. Neizvstnij Pamyatnik Tangutskoi Literatury [Twelve kingdoms: An unknown monument of Tangut literature]. St. Petersburg: Peterburskoe Vostokovedenie.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1991. Cóng cíhuì bǐjiào kàn xīxiàyǔ yǔ zàmiǎn yǔzú qiāngyǔzhī de guānxì [The relationship between Tangut and the Qiangic branch of Tibeto-Burman from the perspective of vocabulary comparison]. Mínzú yǔwén [Minority Languages of China] 2(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2000. Parallelism in verb morphology of Sidaba Rgyalrong and Lavrung in Rgyarongic. Language and Linguistics 1(1): 161–190.Google Scholar
2007. Morphological causative formation in Shangzhai Horpa. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 2(1): 211–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Qianzi Tian. 2013. Huò’ěr yǔ géxī huà dòngcí duìxié [Verb agreement in Gexi Horpa]. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 7(2): 203–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD dissertation.
Wang, Jingru. 1933. Lùn Sìchuān Qiāngyǔ jí Mǐyàoyǔ yǔ Xīxiàyǔ [The Shishiah and the Ch’iang and Minia Languages in Szŭch’uan Province]. In Xīxià Yánjiū, vol. 21, 278–288. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Ilja A. Seržant. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Shuya. 2020. Le rgyalrong situ de Brag-bar et sa contribution à la typologie de l’expression des relations spatiales: L’orientation et le mouvement associé. Paris: Institut national des langues et des civilisations orientales PhD dissertation
Zhang, Shuya, Guillaume Jacques & Yunfan Lai. 2019. A study of cognates between Gyalrong languages and Old Chinese. Journal of Language Relationship 17(1): 73–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar