Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 48:1 (2024) ► pp.228–251
News from the field

Person marking in Longxi Qiang

| South China Normal University
In Longxi Qiang, a Tibeto-Burman language, the verb agreement system is not marking a syntactic function or semantic role. Previous studies of the Qiang language have argued that person markings reflect the person and number of the agent. My analysis based on a large amount of natural data, however, reveals several different uses of person marking. First, person marking does not always agree with the agent. It can also be used to mark non-agent, such as the possessor, recipient, beneficiary, or patient. Second, the person markings in imperatives differ from those in non-imperatives. Finally, person marking may be omitted in certain contexts.
Keywords: person marking, Longxi Qiang, agent, non-agent
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Person markings in non-imperatives
    • 2.1Possessor
    • 2.2Recipient
    • 2.3Beneficiary
    • 2.4Patient
    • 2.5Person marking in causative constructions
    • 2.6Person marking in coordinative construction
  • 3.Person marking in imperatives
  • 4.Omission of person marking
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 22 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22032.zhe
References (13)
References
Bradley, David. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In David Bradley (ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics No.14: Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, 1–72. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chirkova, Katia. 2012. The Qiangic subgroup from an areal perspective: A case study of languages of Muli. Language and Linguistics 13(1). 133–170.Google Scholar
Huang, Bufan & Zhou Facheng. 2006. Qiangyu yanjiu [Researches on Qiang]. Chengdu: Sichuan Renmin Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Chenglong & Shude Wang. 2007. Puxi Qiangyu de huati pingshu jiegou [Topic-comment constructions in Puxi Qiang]. Language and Linguistics 8(2). 519–551.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume & Alexis Michaud. 2011. Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages: Naxi, Na and Laze. Diachronica 28(4). 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. with Huang, Chenglong. 2003. A grammar of Qiang with annotated texts and glossary. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa. 2006. Describing word order. In Felix Ameka, Alan Dench and Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language. The standing challenge of grammar writing, 269–296. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Guangkun. 1998. Mawo qiangyu yanjiu [Studies on the Mawo dialect of the Qiang language]. Chengdu: Sichuan Nationality Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. Lun dongci de rencheng fanchou. Minzu Yuwen (1). 30–36.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1). 56–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poa, Dory & LaPolla, Randy J. 2007. Minority languages of China. In Osahito Miyaoka & Michael E. Krauss (eds.), The vanishing languages of the Pacific, 337–354. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1981. Qiangyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Qiang language]. Beijing: Nationalities Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Lun zangmian yuzu zhong de Qiangyuzhi yuyan [On Language of the Qiangic branch in Tibeto-Burman]. Language and Linguistics 2(1). 157–181.Google Scholar