Cover not available
Article published In:
Ethnolinguistic contact across the Indo-Myanmar-Southwestern China mountains
Edited by Alexander R. Coupe, Randy J. LaPolla and Hideo Sawada
[Asian Languages and Linguistics 4:2] 2023
► pp. 251–272

The role of cognitive schemas in linguistic convergence

From nominative-accusative to ergative‑absolutive alignment in Nagamese

ORCID logo | Nanyang Technological University
This article reports on some outcomes of language contact and linguistic convergence involving Tibeto-Burman and Indo-Aryan languages in the Northeast Indian state of Nagaland. The primary focus falls on Nagamese, a lingua franca of the region that is undergoing a change in its morphosyntactic alignment typology. Evidence is presented to demonstrate that cognitive schemas are most likely responsible for the spread of replicated case marking patterns from local Tibeto-Burman languages to Nagamese, and that this has triggered a change in the alignment pattern of Nagamese over the past fifty years. The data presented in the paper are significant for demonstrating how language contact and the replication of cognitive schemas can be plausible drivers of grammatical change, even for something as fundamental to the syntax of a language as its morphosyntactic alignment.
Keywords: Tibeto-Burman, Indo-Aryan, language contact, linguistic convergence, morphosyntactic alignment, linguistic typology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sociolinguistic ecology
  • 3.The role of cognitive schemas in replication
  • 4.Core case marking patterns in the TB languages of Nagaland
  • 5.Ergative case marking in Nagamese
  • 6.Conclusion: The rise of para as an ergative case marker
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/alal.00014.cou
References (40)
References
Bandyopadhyay, Swapon Kumar. (1989). A Tangsa wordlist. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 12(2): 79–91.Google Scholar
Bendix, Edward H. (1974). Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman contact. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 3(1): 42–59.Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. (1972). Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharjya, Dwijen. (2001). The genesis and development of Nagamese: Its social history and linguistic structure. Unpublished PhD dissertation, City University of New York.
Bigge, H. (1969). Reprint. Dispatch from Lieutenant H. Bigge, Assistant Agent, detached to the Naga Hills, to Captain Jenkins, Agent Governor-General, N.E. Frontier, communicated from the Political Secretariat of India to the Secretary to the Asiatic Society. In The Nagas in the Nineteenth Century, Verrier Elwin (ed.), 227–232. Oxford University Press. Original publication in Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1841, Vol X1, Pt, 11: 129–136.Google Scholar
Boruah, Bhimkanto. (1993). Nagamese, the language of Nagaland. Mittal Publications.Google Scholar
Bradley, David. 1980. Phonological convergence between languages in contact: Mon-Khmer structural borrowing in Burmese. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 259–267.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins. (1983). The Sal languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 7(2): 1–32.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins and L. Amon Phom. (1998). Phom phonology and word list. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 21(2): 13–42.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins and Mankai Wangsu. (1998). Wancho phonology and word list. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 21(2): 43–71.Google Scholar
Chakravorty, Birendra Chandra. (1964). British relations with the hill tribes of Assam. Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. (1959). How Chinese logic operates. Anthropological Linguistics 1(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana and Gwen Hyslop. (2011–2012). Special issue on optional ergative marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area Vols. 34.2 and 35.11.Google Scholar
Clark, Thomas Welborne. Reprint. (1989). Introduction to Nepali. Ratna Pustak Bhandar. Original publication in 1963, Heffer.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. (2022). Language contact and linguistic diversity in Nagaland. In Yanthan Yanbeni and Hewasa Lorin (eds.) Critical conversations in Naga society, 9–32. Heritage Publications.Google Scholar
(2018). Grammaticalization processes in South Asian languages. In Narrog, Heiko and Bernd Heine (eds). Grammaticalization from a typological perspective, 189–218. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Mongsen Ao. In Thurgood, Graham and Randy J. LaPolla (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan languages 2nd edn., 277–301. Routledge.Google Scholar
(2011). On core case marking patterns in two Tibeto-Burman languages of Nagaland. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34.21: 21–47.Google Scholar
(2007a). A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007b). Converging patterns of clause linkage in Nagaland. In Miestamo, Matti and Wälchli, Bernhard (eds), New challenges in typology: Broadening the horizons and redefining the foundations. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 1891, 339–361. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. and Kratochvíl, František. (2020). Asia before English. In Bolton, Kingsley, Werner Botha and Andy Kirkpatrick (eds.) Handbook of Asian Englishes, 15–48. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. and S. A. M. Lestrade. (2017). Non-structural case marking in Tibeto-Burman and artificial languages. Linguistic Discovery 15.11: 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fürer Haimendorf, Christoph von. (1939). The naked Nagas. Methuen and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutton, James Henry. (1921a). The Angami Nagas. Macmillan.Google Scholar
. (1921b). The Sema Nagas. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. (2010). Kurtöp case: The pragmatic ergative and beyond. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 33.11: 1–40.Google Scholar
King, C. D. (1880). India: Mission to the Assamese. In The Baptist missionary magazine, Vol. LX, No. 4, 100–102. Franklin Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. (2009). Causes and effects of substratum, superstratum and adstratum influence, with reference to Tibeto-Burman languages. Senri Ethnological Studies 751: 227–237.Google Scholar
Marrison, Geoffrey Edward. (1967). The classification of the Naga languages of north-east India. Vol. I1 (Texts) and Vol. II1 (Appendices). Unpublished PhD dissertation, SOAS, University of London.
McGregor, William A. (2010). Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120(7):1610–1636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, James Phillip. (1926). The Ao Nagas. Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine and Herbert Cuykens. (2013). Towards a typology of shared grammaticalization. In Robbeets and Cuykens (eds.) Shared grammaticalization, with special focus on the Transeurasian languages. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Scott, James C. (2009). The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sreedhar, M. V. (1974). Naga Pidgin: A sociolinguistic study of interlingual communication pattern in Nagaland. Central Institute of Indian Languages.Google Scholar
(1985). Standardized grammar of Naga Pidgin. Central Institute of Indian Languages.Google Scholar
Teo, Amos. (2012). Sumi agentive and topic markers: no and ye . Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 35.11: 49–74.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah and Terence Kaufman. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vansittart, Eden. (1906). Gurkhas: Handbooks for the Indian Army. Office of the Superintendent, Government Printing, India.Google Scholar