Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 23:2 (2022) ► pp.349–369

From ‘two’ to a comitative-instrumental case marker

A regional innovation in the Gansu-Qinghai linguistic area

| Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
This paper examines the comitative and instrumental case markers in the Chinese dialects and Altaic languages spoken in the Gansu-Qinghai Linguistic Area (GQLA) and finds a noteworthy phenomenon: one of the frequently used comitative-instrumental markers originated from the numeral ‘two’, a rare source for comitatives. The numeral ‘two’ is grammaticalized under the process of {‘two’ (appositive) > coordinator > comitative > instrumental}. This paper argues that the marker ‘two’ in Chinese dialects did not have an Altaic origin and was then borrowed for Chinese, as Dwyer (1992) suggested. The fact that the comitative-instrumental markers in both Altaic (especially Mongolic) languages and Chinese dialects come from the numeral ‘two’ with comitative-instrumental syncretism reflects a regional innovation in GQLA.
Keywords: comitative-instrumental case marker, grammaticalization, origin, regional innovation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The comitative-instrumental case markers in the Chinese dialects and Altaic languages in GQLA
    • 2.1Chinese dialects
    • 2.2Altaic languages
  • 3.From ‘two’ to a comitative-instrumental marker
  • 4.Where did the comitative-instrumental markers come from?
    • 4.1 Dwyer (1992)
    • 4.2From Chinese to Altaic
    • 4.3Another possibility
  • 5.Regional innovation
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 29 April 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00109.zho
References (45)
References
Birtalan, Ágnes. 2003. Oirat. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 210–228. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bläsing, Uwe. 2003. Kalmuck. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 229–247. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buhe & Liu, Zhaoxiong. 2008. Bao’an yu jianzhi [Description on Bonan]. In Sun, Hongkai (ed.), Zhongguo shaoshuminzu yuyan jianzhi congshu (Juan liu) [Collection of descriptions of Chinese minority languages (vol. 6)]. Beijing: Nationalities Press.Google Scholar
Dede, Keith. 2007. The origin of the anti-ergative [xa] in Huangshui Chinese. Language and Linguistics 8(4). 863–881.Google Scholar
Dwyer, Arienne M. 1992. Altaic elements in the Línxià dialect: Contact-induced change on the Yellow River plateau. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 20(1). 160–179.Google Scholar
1995. From the Northwest China sprachbund: Xúnhuà Chinese dialect data. Yuen Ren Society Treasury of Chinese dialect data 11. 143–182.Google Scholar
Fried, Robert Wayne. 2010. A grammar of Bao’an Tu, a Mongolic language of Northwest China. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Georg, Stefan. 2003. Mongghul. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 286–306. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2003. Ordos. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 193–209. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janhunen, Juha A. 2003. Khamnigan Mongol. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed)., The Mongolic languages, 83–101. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha A. & Peltomaa, Marja & Sandman, Erika & Dongzhou, Xiawu. 2008. Wutun (Languages of the World 466). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha A. 2012a. Mongolian (London Oriental and African Language Library 19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012b. Non-borrowed non-cognate parallels in bound morphology: Aspects of the phenomenon of shared drift with Eurasian examples. In Lars, Johanson & Robbeets, Martine (eds.), Copies versus cognates in bound morphology, 23–46. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jiang, Lansheng. 2012. Hanyu lian-jie ci de laiyuan ji qi yufahua de lujing he leixing [Sources, paths, and types of the grammaticalization of Chinese conjunction-prepositions]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 2012(4). 291–308.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars & Csató, Éva Á. (eds.). 1998. The Turkic languages. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kim, Stephen S. 2003. Santa. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 346–363. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ma, Wei. 2013. Sala yu xingtai yanjiu [Studies on Salar morphology]. Beijing: Minzu University of China. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Narrog, Heiko. 2008. Varieties of instrumental. In Malchukov, Andrej L. & Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 593–600. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nugteren, Hans. 2003. Shira Yughur. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 265–285. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sandman, Erika. 2016. A grammar of Wutun. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Sandman, Erika & Simon, Camille. 2016. Tibetan as a “model language” in the Amdo sprachbund: Evidence from Salar and Wutun. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 3(1). 85–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siqinchaoketu. 1999. Kangjiayu yanjiu [Studies on Kangjia language]. Shanghai: Shanghai Far East Publishers.Google Scholar
Skribnik, Elena. 2003. Buryat. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 102–128. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Slater, Keith W. 2003. A grammar of Mangghuer: A Mongolic language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu sprachbund. London & New York: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas & Stroh, Cornelia & Urdze, Aina. 2006. On comitatives and related categories: A typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. Varieties of comitative. In Malchukov, Andrej L. & Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 601–608. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 2003. Khalkha. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 154–176. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tsumagari, Toshiro. 2003. Dagur. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 129–153. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vollmann, Ralf. 2008. Descriptions of Tibetan ergativity: A historiographical account (Grazer Vergleichende Arbeiten 23). Graz: Leykam Buchverlag.Google Scholar
Wang, Qingshan. 1995. A grammar of spoken Amdo Tibetan. Chengdu: Sichuan Nationality Publishing House.Google Scholar
Wang, Shuangcheng. 2012. Xining fangyan de jieci leixing [The pattern of the adpositions in the Xi’ning dialect]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 2012(5). 469–478.Google Scholar
Weiers, Michael. 2003. Moghol. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 248–264. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wu, Hugjiltu. 2003. Bonan. In Janhunen, Juha A. (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 325–345. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Xu, Dan. 2014. Tangwanghua yanjiu [Studies of the Tangwang language]. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar
. 2015. Sinitic languages of Northwest China: Where did their case marking come from? In Cao, Guangshun & Djamouri, Redouane & Peyraube, Alain (eds.), Languages in contact in Northwestern China: Historical and synchronic studies (Collection des Cahiers de Linguistique-Asie Orientale 13), 217–243. Paris: EHESS, Centre de recherches linguistiques sur l’Asie orientale.Google Scholar
Yang, Yonglong & Zhang, Jingting. 2016. Qinghai Minhe Gangou hua de gebiaoji xitong [Case-marking system in Gangou Chinese dialect in Qinghai province]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority Languages of China] 2016(5). 25–38.Google Scholar
Zhang, Jingting. 2013. Baoanzu Hanyu fangyan gefanchou yanjiu [The study of the case in the Chinese dialect used by the race of Baoan]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University. (Master’s thesis.)
Zhou, Chenlei. 2017. On the word order of ditransitive constructions in Northwestern Chinese. Journal of China Studies 20(3). 29–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019a. A special case marking system in the Sinitic languages of Northwest China. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 47(2). 425–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019b. Ganqing fangyan gebiaoji “ha” de laiyuan [The origin of the dative-accusative marker xa in Gan-Qing dialects]. Language and Linguistics 20(3). 493–513.Google Scholar
. 2020a. The structure of Num+CL in the Zhōutún dialect: Issues induced by language contact. Language and Linguistics 21(1). 145–173.Google Scholar
. 2020b. Case markers and language contact in the Gansu-Qinghai linguistic area. Asian Languages and Linguistics 1(1). 168–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Maocao. 2003. Maqu Zangyu yanjiu [Studies on Machu Tibetan]. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Zhou, Chenlei
2022. On the disjunctive constructions and related constructions in Zhoutun. Lingua 266 ► pp. 103183 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.