Article published in:
Language Ecology
Vol. 1:1 (2017) ► pp. 4–24

Searching for “Agent Zero”

The origins of a relative case system

| Ngukurr Language Centre/University of Queensland
| University of Queensland/ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language
| Karungkarni Arts

Gurindji Kriol, a mixed language spoken in northern Australia, combines a Kriol VP with a Gurindji NP, including case suffixes (Meakins 2011a). The Gurindji-derived case suffixes have undergone a number of changes in Gurindji Kriol, for example the ergative suffix -ngku/-tu now marks nominative case (Meakins 2011b, 2015). This study explores a new innovation in case morphology among Gurindji Kriol-speaking children: the use of -ngku/-tu to mark possessors as well as subjects, i.e. the emergence of a relative case system. Although rare in Australian languages, syncretism between agents and possessors is not uncommon cross-linguistically, reported in Caucasian Eskimo-Aleut, Mixe-Zoquean and Yucatecan-Mayan languages (Allen 1964; Blake 1994; Palancar 2002). In the case of Gurindji Kriol, the relative case system found its origins in allomorphic reduction which led to syncretism between ergative and dative case forms. This syncretism was shaped by the syntactic grouping of subjects and possessors as dependents of verbs and possessums, respectively. Although partial syncretism between ergative and dative case is not unusual in Australian languages historically, it has gone to completion in Gurindji Kriol and can be observed in two other instances of rapid linguistic change in Australia: Ngiyambaa (Donaldson 1980) and Dyirbal (Schmidt 1985). The re-organisation of the case system can be traced back to a small group of second-generation Gurindji Kriol speakers at Nitjpurru (Pigeon Hole) and this change has since been transmitted laterally through familial connections to other children at Daguragu. There are also indications that it has begun propagating to other children at Kalkaringi and is now being acquired by the next generation of Gurindji Kriol speakers.

Keywords: case system, children's agency, language change, child language, language contact, Gurindji Kriol


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 13 July 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/le.1.1.02van

Full-text

Searching for “Agent Zero”
References

References

Allen, W. S.
1964 Transitivity and possession. Language 40(3): 337–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berry, R. and J. Hudson
1997 Making the Jump: A Resource Book for Teachers of Aboriginal Students. Broome: Catholic Education Office, Kimberley Region.Google Scholar
Blake, B.
1977 Case-marking in Australian Languages. Canberra: AIAS Press.Google Scholar
1994 Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowern, C.
2012 A Grammar of Bardi. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L. and M.C. Muntzel
1989 The structural consequences of language death. In N.C. Dorian, ed. Investigating Obsolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 181–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, H. and W.B. McGregor
1996 The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dench, A.
2001 Descent and diffusion: The complexity of the Pilbara situation. In A.Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon, eds. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 122–150.Google Scholar
Disbray, S. and J. Simpson
2005 The expression of possessive in Wumpurrarni English, Tennant Creek. Monash University Linguistics Papers 4(2): 65–85.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W.
1972 The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1980 The Languages of Australia. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T.
1980 Ngiyambaa: The Language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dorian, N.
1978 The fate of morphological complexity in language death: Evidence from East Sutherland Gaelic. Language 54(3): 590–609. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gal, S.
1989 Lexical innovation and loss: Restricted Hungarian. In N. Dorian, ed. Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 313–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Handschuh, C.
2015 A Typology of Marked-S Languages. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B.
1997 Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge, U.K.; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hercus, L.A.
2005 The influence of English on possessive systems as shown in two Aboriginal languages, Arabana (northern SA) and Paakantyi (Darling River, NSW). Monash University Papers 4(2): 29–41.Google Scholar
Hofling, C.A.
1990 Possession and ergativity in Itzà Maya. International Journal of American Linguistics 56(4): 542–560. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huffines, M.L.
1989 Case usage among the Pennsylvania German sectarians and nonsectarians. In N. Dorian, ed. Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 211–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, P.J.
2001 Hausa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janse, M. and S. Tol
eds. 2003 Language Death and Language Maintenance: Theoretical, Practical and Descriptive Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langlois, A.
2004 Alive and Kicking: Areyonga Teenage Pitjantjatjara. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C.
1995 Thoughts on Grammaticalization. München: Lincom.Google Scholar
Matras, Y.
2007 The borrowability of structural categories. In Y. Matras and J. Sakel, eds. Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 31–74.Google Scholar
McConvell, P.
1988 Nasal cluster dissimilation and constraints on phonological variables in Gurindji and related languages. Aboriginal Linguistics 1: 135–165.Google Scholar
Meakins, F.
2009 The case of the shifty ergative marker: A pragmatic shift in the ergative marker in one Australian mixed language. In J. Barddal and S. Chelliah, eds. The Role of Semantics and Pragmatics in the Development of Case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 59–91.Google Scholar
2011a Borrowing contextual inflection: Evidence from northern Australia. Morphology 21(1): 57–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011b Case Marking in Contact: The Development and Function of Case Morphology in Gurindji Kriol. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 From absolutely optional to only nominally ergative: The life cycle of the Gurindji Kriol ergative suffix. In F. Gardani, P. Arkadiev and N. Amiridze, eds. Borrowed Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 189–218.Google Scholar
2016 No fixed address: The grammaticalisation of the Gurindji locative as a progressive suffix. In F. Meakins and C. O'Shannessy, eds. Loss and Renewal: Australian Languages Since Colonisation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 128–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meakins, F., P. McConvell, E. Charola, N. McNair, H. McNair, and L. Campbell
2013 Gurindji to English Dictionary. Batchelor, Australia: Batchelor Press.Google Scholar
Meakins, F. and C. O'Shannessy
2005 Possessing variation: Age and inalienability related variables in the possessive constructions of two Australian mixed languages. Monash University Linguistics Papers 4(2): 43–63.Google Scholar
2010 Ordering arguments about: Word order and discourse motivations in the development and use of the ergative marker in two Australian mixed languages. Lingua 120(7): 1693–1713. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, S.
2005 Language contact, hybrids and new varieties: Emergent possessive constructions. Introduction to special volume. Monash University Papers 4(2): 3–10.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R.
1998 A Grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
O'Shannessy, C.
2004 The Monster Stories: Picture Stimulii to Elicit Lexical Subject NPs. Nijmegen, Holland: Max-Planck-Institut-für-Psycholinguistik.Google Scholar
Palancar, E.
2002 The Origin of Agent Markers. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pensalfini, R.
2003 A Grammar of Jingulu, an Aboriginal Language of the Northern Territory. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A.
1985 Young People's Dyirbal: An Example of Language Death from Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.R.
2001 Possessives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trask, R.L.
1979 On the origins of ergativity. In F. Plank, ed. Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press. 385–404.Google Scholar
Watkins, C.
2001 An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the comparative method. In A.Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon, eds. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 61–80.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Meakins, Felicity, Samantha Disbray & Jane Simpson
2020. Which MATter matters in PATtern borrowing? The direction of case syncretisms. Morphology Crossref logo
Meyerhoff, Miriam
2019. Unnatural bedfellows? The sociolinguistic analysis of variation and language documentation. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 49:2 ► pp. 229 ff. Crossref logo
Phillips, Joshua
2018. A sense of agency. Studies in Language 42:2 ► pp. 329 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 august 2020. 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.