Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 25:2 (2024) ► pp.187–233

Interrogatives of reason in Tibeto-Burman languages of Sichuan

| The Education University of Hong Kong | The Hong Kong Polytechnic University1
| Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen
This is a typological study of the why-interrogative expressions in Tibeto-Burman languages, or the non-Chinese Sino-Tibetan languages, in Sichuan, southwest China. After examining 22 languages/dialects, the interrogative category of reason is grouped into three types, viz. the distinct why-type, the how-type, and the what-type, according to the interrogative categories from which they are derived. It is discovered that the what-type is the dominant strategy for languages in Sichuan to derive the reason category. It is also common for Tibeto-Burman languages to use verbal interrogatives, namely interrogative verb phrases and interrogative words with verbal origins, dominantly in the sense of ‘to do what’ and ‘to become what’, to ask for reason. After a focused investigation of the verbal interrogatives, it is found that Tibeto-Burman languages in Sichuan distinguish purpose from cause via word/phrase distinction, sentential positions and semantic differences. A path of grammaticalization of the verbal interrogatives is thus proposed and analyzed. Finally, the derivation maps of interrogatives in Cysouw (2005) and Hölzl (2018) are complemented with a refined distinction between purpose and cause.
Keywords: interrogatives of reason, verbal interrogatives, Tibeto-Burman languages, purpose & cause, typology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Languages in Sichuan
  • 3.A typology of reason interrogatives in Sichuan
    • 3.1Distinct why-type
    • 3.2 How-type
    • 3.3 What-type
      • 3.3.1 What-word as modifier of causal noun
      • 3.3.2 What-word with direct semantic extension
      • 3.3.3 What-word as oblique for reason
        • 3.3.3.1 reason as adpositional phrase
        • 3.3.3.2 reason as dative-marked nominal
        • 3.3.3.3 reason as instrumental form
      • 3.3.4 What-word as the object of the verbal interrogatives of reason
        • 3.3.4.1Defining verbal interrogatives of reason
        • 3.3.4.2Patterns of verbal interrogatives of reason
  • 4.Verbal interrogatives of reason in Sichuan
    • 4.1Criteria for distinguishing verbal interrogative words and phrases
    • 4.2Purpose/cause distinction in Tibeto-Burman languages
      • 4.2.1Theoretical differences between purpose and cause
      • 4.2.2Cause and purpose distinction in Tibeto-Burman languages
        • 4.2.2.1Verbal interrogatives of reason only based on do-what meaning
        • 4.2.2.2Verbal interrogatives of reason based on different verb-what meanings
    • 4.3Summary
    • 4.4Why verbal interrogatives are frequently used in Tibeto-Burman languages
  • 5.Conclusion and implications
    • 5.1Verbal interrogatives of reason in Sinitic languages
    • 5.2A derivation map incorporating purpose
  • 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: 2 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00153.don
References (103)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2011. Multi-verb constructions: Setting the scene. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Muysken, Pieter C. (eds.), Multi-verb constructions: A view from the Americas, 1–26. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andvik, Erik E. 2010. A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Tshangla. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edn., 418–435. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Atshogs, Yeshes Vodgsal. 2004. Daohua yanjiu. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar
Axelsen, Jacob Bock & Manrubia, Susanna. 2014. River density and landscape roughness are universal determinants of linguistic diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1784). ([URL]) (Accessed 2023-10-17.) (Article ID: 20133029.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bai, Junwei. 2019. A grammar of Munya. Townsville: James Cook University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Bradley, David. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In Bradley, David (ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics no. 14: Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, 1–71. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2002. The subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. In Beckwith, Christopher I. (ed.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the IATS, 2000, 73–112. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Institute of Linguistics, CASS & Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, CASS & Language Information Sciences Research Centre (LISRC), City University of Hong Kong. 2012. Language atlas of China: Chinese dialects. 2nd edn. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Chirkova, Katia. 2008. On the position of Báimă within Tibetan: A look from basic vocabulary. In Lubotsky, Alexander & Schaeken, Jos & Wiedenhof, Jeroen (eds.), Evidence and counter-evidence: Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt, volume 2: General linguistics, 69–91. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Shǐxīng, a Sino-Tibetan language of South-West China: A grammatical sketch with two appended texts. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 32(1). 1–89.Google Scholar
. 2012. The Qiangic subgroup from an areal perspective: A case study of languages of Muli. Language and Linguistics 13(1). 133–170.Google Scholar
. 2014. Akhu Tomba. (
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
) (Accessed 2021-11-22.) (Shixing.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chirkova, Katia & Wang, Dehe. 2014. History of the Wang clan. (
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
) (Accessed 2021-11-23.) (Ersu.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015a. Eggplant child. (
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
) (Accessed 2021-11-20.) (Lizu.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. Two sisters and a human-eating creature 1 1. (
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
) (Accessed 2020-7-20.) (Lizu.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chirkova, Katia & Han, Zhengkang. 2016. Shiyong Duoxuyu yufa. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar
Cui, Rongchang. 1985. The making of the Sichuan dialects. Fangyan 1985(1). 6–14.Google Scholar
. 1996. Sichuan jingnei de Xiang fangyan. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
. 2011. Sichuan jingnei de Ke fangyan. Chengdu: Bashu Publishing.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2005. The typology of content interrogatives. (Paper presented at the 6th Meeting of Association for Linguistic Typology, Padang, 21–25 July 2005.)
Cysouw, Michael & Hackstein, Olav. 2011. The (in)stability of interrogatives: The case of Indo-European. ([URL]) (Accessed 2020-09-25.)
Daudey, Henriëtte. 2014. A grammar of Wadu Pumi. Melbourne: La Trobe University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Daudey, Henriëtte & Gerong Pincuo. 2011. The sheep and the shaman. (
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
) (Accessed 2021-11-22.) (Pumi.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2008. Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3). 465–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ding, Sizhi. 1998. Fundamentals of Prinmi (Pumi): A Tibeto-Burman language of Northwestern Yunnan, China. Canberra: The Australian National University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2014. A grammar of Prinmi: Based on the central dialect of Northwest Yunnan, China. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2012a. Basic linguistic theory, volume 1: Grammatical topics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012b. Basic linguistic theory, volume 3: Further grammatical topics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of subject, object and verb. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL]) (Accessed 2023-08-11.)
Duanmu, San. 1998. Wordhood in Chinese. In Packard, Jerome L. (ed.), New approaches to Chinese word formation: Morphology, phonology and the lexicon in modern and ancient Chinese, 135–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebihara, Shiho. 2011. Amdo Tibetan. In Yamakoshi, Yasuhiro (ed.), Grammatical sketches from the field, 41–78. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Feng, Chuntian. 2003. On fused interrogative pronouns za and sha . Zhongguo Yuwen 2003(3). 234–241.Google Scholar
Gerner, Matthias. 2013. A grammar of Nuosu. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, vol. II1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Thomas. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism, and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Haiman, John (ed.), Iconicity in syntax: Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford, June 24–26, 1983, 187–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hackstein, Olav. 2004. From discourse to syntax: The case of compound interrogatives in Indo-European and beyond. In Jones-Bley, Karlene & Huld, Martin E. & Della Volpe, Angela & Dexter, Miriam Robbins (eds.), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual UCLA Indo-European conference (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 49), 257–298. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 2008. Towards a typology of interrogative verbs. Linguistic Typology 12(1). 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3). 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hammarström, Harald & Forkel, Robert & Haspelmath, Martin & Bank, Sebastian. 2021. Glottolog database 4.4. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL]) (Accessed 2021-11-15.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & The APiCS Consortium. 2013. Position of interrogative phrases in content questions. In Michaelis, Susanne Maria & Maurer, Philippe & Haspelmath, Martin & Huber, Magnus (eds.), The atlas of pidgin and creole language structures, 44–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. n.d. How do you ‘Do’ in Manange? ([URL]) (Accessed 2021-01-11.)
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. & Bond, Oliver. 2017. Manange. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy L. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edn., 516–533. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hölzl, Andreas. 2015. A typology of negation in Tungusic. Studies in Language 39(1).118–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. A typology of questions in Northeast Asia and beyond: An ecological perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Lillian M. & Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Yeh, Marie M. & Chang, Anna H. & Wu, Joy J. 1999. Interrogative constructions in some Formosan languages. In Yin, Yuen-mei & Yang, I-li & Chan, Hui-chen (eds.), Chinese languages and linguistics, volume V: Interactions in language, 639–680. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Huang, Chenglong. 2004. A reference grammar of the Puxi variety of Qiang. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Idiatov, Dmitry. 2007. A typology of non-selective interrogative pronominals. Antwerp: Universiteit Antwerpen. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Jacques, Guillaume. 2015. On the cluster *sr- in Sino-Tibetan. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 43(1A). 215–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Hanzang yuxi de puxi he fayuandi. (Talk presented at the Southwest University, Chongqing, 17 May 2019.)
. 2021. A grammar of Japhug. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume & Michaud, Alexis. 2011. Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages: Naxi, Na and Laze. Diachronica 28(4). 468–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Li. 2015. A grammar of Guìqióng: A language of Sichuan. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kangassalo, Raija. 1995. Mastering the question: The acquisition of interrogative clauses by Finnish-speaking children. Umeå: Umeå University. (Distributed by Swedish Science Press.)Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2007. Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume 1: Clause structure, 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania & Heine, Bernd & Hong, Bo & Long, Haiping & Narrog, Heiko & Rhee, Seongha. 2019. World lexicon of grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, Yunfan. 2017. Grammaire du khroskyabs de Wobzi. Paris: Université Paris 3 – Sorbonne Nouvelle. (Doctoral dissertation.)
LaPolla, Randy J. & Huang, Chenglong. 2003. A grammar of Qiang: With annotated texts and glossary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Xiang. 2019. How can zenme questions have multiple interpretations: A study from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Zhongguo Yuwen 2019(5). 548–561, 639.Google Scholar
Lidz, Liberty A. 2010. A descriptive grammar of Yongning Na (Mosuo). Austin: The University of Texas at Austin. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Liu, Guangkun. 1998. Mawo Qiangyu yanjiu. Chengdu: Sichuan Nationalities Publishing House.Google Scholar
Lü, Shuxiang. 1980. Xiandai Hanyu babai ci. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Luo, Tianhua. 2016. Interrogative strategies: An areal typology of the languages of China. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2009. Content interrogatives in a sample of 50 languages. Lingua 119(8). 1131–1163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 2015. The Sino-Tibetan etymological dictionary and thesaurus. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Stephen & Yip, Virginia. 2011. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Michaud, Alexis. 2011. Dog: How dog and man exchanged their lifespan. (
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
) (Accessed 2021-11-24.) (Yongning Na.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Yongning Mosuohua (Nayu) changpian yuliao de jilu zhengli yu yanjiu gongzuo. Lijiang Minzu Yanjiu 2012(5). 36–54.Google Scholar
. 2013. Housebuilding: The process of building a house (version 1). (
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
) (Accessed 2021-11-24.) (Yongning Na.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Tone in Yongning Na: Lexical tones and morphotonology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
. 2018. Na (Mosuo)-English-Chinese dictionary. ([URL]) (Accessed 2020-09-22.)
Mushin, Ilana. 1995. Epistememes in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 15(1). 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter & Smith, Norval. 1990. Question words in pidgin and creole languages. Linguistics 28(4). 883–904. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael & Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2017. Chantyal. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edn., 494–515. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Partridge, Eric. 2006. Origins: A short etymological dictionary of modern English. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. ([URL]) (Accessed 2023-09-30.)Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas Edward. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prins, Marielle. 2016. A grammar of rGyalrong, Jiǎomùzú (Kyom-kyo) dialects: A web of relations. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent & Jacques, Guillaume & Lai, Yunfan & Ryder, Robin J. & Thouzeau, Valentin & Greenhill, Simon J. & List, Johann-Mattis. 2019. Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 116(21). 10317–10322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A typology of purpose clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheng, Yimin. 2020. The lexicalization and typological characteristics of Chinese interrogative pronouns. Zhongguo Yuwen 2020(6). 714–730.Google Scholar
Shi, Shuo. 2018. Ethnic flows in the Tibetan-Yi corridor throughout history. International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology 21. 1–22. (Article no. 2.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2001. Interrogative constructions. In Haspelmath, Martin & König, Ekkehard & Oesterreicher, Wulf & Wolfgang, Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. 21, 1010–1028. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1980. The historical tribe Dizu and the Baima of Sichuan and Gansu Area – A preliminary study of the origin of the Baima. Minzu Yanjiu 1980(3). 33–43.Google Scholar
. 2001. On language of the Qiangic branch in Tibeto-Burman. Language and Linguistics 2(1). 157–181.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai & Chirkova, Katia & Liu, Guangkun. 2007. Baimayu yanjiu. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2018. Identifying Tibetic subgroups: A case in Khrochu (Sichuan). (Paper presented at the 51st International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics (ICSTLL51), Kyoto, 26–28 September 2018.)
Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Bstan’dzin Blogros. 2019. Tshobdun Rgyalrong spoken texts: With a grammatical introduction. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Longacre, Robert E. & Hwang, Shin Ja J. 2007. Adverbial clauses. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume II: Complex constructions, 2nd edn., 237–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 2017. Sino-Tibetan: Genetic and areal subgroups. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edn., 3–39. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2007. Chongwen weishenme wen zenmeyang, zenmeyang wen weishenme. Zhongguo Yuwen 2007(3). 195–207.Google Scholar
van Driem, George. 2007. The diversity of the Tibeto-Burman language family and the linguistic ancestry of Chinese. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 1(2). 211–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2008. The status of purpose, reason, and intended endpoint in the typology of complex sentences: Implications for layered models of clause structure. Linguistics 46(4). 757–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Shiwen. 2013. Zangyu Kangfanyan yufa yanjiu (Degehua yufa). Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar
Wode, Henning. 1971. Some stages in the acquisition of questions by monolingual children. WORD 27(1–3). 261–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yin, Weibin. 2016. Namuziyu yufa biaozhu wenben. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.Google Scholar
Yip, Virginia & Matthews, Stephen. 2007. The bilingual child: Early development and language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, Dominic. 2012. Proto-Ersuic. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Zhang, Menghan & Yan, Shi & Pan, Wuyun & Jin, Li. 2019. Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in northern China in the Late Neolithic. Nature 569(7754). 112–115. DOI logoGoogle 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 Civilisations Orientales (INALCO). (Doctoral dissertation.) ([URL]) (Accessed 2020-08-22.)
Zhang, Sihong. 2013. A reference grammar of Ersu: A Tibeto-Burman language of China. Townsville: James Cook University. (Doctoral dissertation.)