Cover not available
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, Gurindji Kriol, language contact, language change, child language, children’s agency
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The -ngku variant and its language ecology
  • 3.An emergent relative case system in Gurindji Kriol
    • 3.1Syncretism between nominative and dative allomorphs
    • 3.2Relative case systems cross-linguistically
  • 4.Morpho-syntactic origins of the relative case system in Gurindji Kriol
    • 4.1The development of relative systems cross-linguistically
    • 4.2Language shift and allomorphic reduction in Australia
    • 4.3The development of relative case in Gurindji Kriol
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 13 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/le.1.1.02van
References (43)
References
Allen, W. S. 1964. Transitivity and possession. Language 40(3): 337–343. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980. The Languages of Australia. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, P.J. 2001. Hausa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janse, M. and S. Tol. eds. 2003. Language Death and Language Maintenance: Theoretical, Practical and Descriptive Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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 11: 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Sloan, Bodean, Felicity Meakins & Cassandra Algy
2022. Intergenerational changes in Gurindji Kriol. Asia-Pacific Language Variation 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Dunn, Vivien, Felicity Meakins & Cassandra Algy
2021. Acquisition or shift?. In Variation Rolls the Dice [Contact Language Library, 59], ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo
Kantarovich, Jessica, Lenore A. Grenoble, Antonina Vinokurova & Elena Nesterova
2021. Complexity and Simplification in Language Shift. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Meakins, Felicity, Samantha Disbray & Jane Simpson
2020. Which MATter matters in PATtern borrowing? The direction of case syncretisms. Morphology 30:4 ► pp. 373 ff. DOI logo
O'Shannessy, Carmel & Lucinda Davidson
2020. Language Contact and Change through Child First Language Acquisition. In The Handbook of Language Contact, ► pp. 67 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Phillips, Joshua
2018. A sense of agency. Studies in Language 42:2 ► pp. 329 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 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.