Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 40:2 (2017) ► pp.202–242

The role of disambiguation in pragmatic agentivity

Evidence from Khatso

| San Jose State University

Pragmatic agentivity is widespread in the Tibeto-Burman family. Some analyses suggest that its main purpose is to mark the agent in structurally ambiguous clauses, such as those in which agents and patients share the same degree of animacy or where the patient is absent due to zero anaphora. Others question the role of disambiguation, pointing out that it is often superfluous or inconsistent in resolving the agent role and thus likely not the primary purpose. Instead, disambiguation is seen as an outcome of highlighting agency, volition or choice. Exploring the multiple discourse functions of the agent marker in Khatso (Burmese-Ngwi; Yunnan, China), this paper shows that disambiguation is the primary motivation for marking agents, a feature that becomes more important in newer functions. This analysis builds on previous studies and broadens our understanding of the phenomenon in the Tibeto-Burman family.

Keywords: agent marking, optional ergativity, pragmatic agentivity, disambiguation, pseudo-passive, contrastive focus, Khatso, Ngwi, Tibeto-Burman
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language
  • 3.Ablative and instrumental markers
  • 4.Agent marker
  • 5.Other functions
    • 5.1Pseudo-passive
    • 5.2Contrastive focus
    • 5.3Superlative
    • 5.4Conjunction
  • 6.Grammaticalization
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.16006.don
References
Bisang, Walter
2009 On the evolution of complexity: Sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, 34–49. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L.
2001 The role of text collection and elicitation in linguistic fieldwork. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic Fieldwork, 152–165. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L. & Gwendolyn Hyslop
2011 Introduction to special issue on optional case marking in Tibeto-Burman. LTBA 341: 1–7.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R.
2011 On core case marking patterns in two Tibeto-Burman languages of Nagaland. LTBA 341: 21–47.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2011 “Optional” “Ergativity” in Tibeto-Burman languages. LTBA 341: 9–20.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
1979 Ergativity. Language 551: 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donlay, Chris
2014 The pragmatic agent marker in Khatso. Paper presented at the 46th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Kunming, China, October 17, 2014.
2015 A functional grammar of Khatso. PhD dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
1987 The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 631: 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Representing discourse. Ms, University of California at Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Gerner, Matthias
2013 A Grammar of Nuosu. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gil, David
2004 Riau Indonesian sama: Explorations in macrofunctionality. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 58], 371–426. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2004 Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 58], 3–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2004 World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1991 On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19], 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Chun
2009 Mengguzu jianshi (Concise history of Mongolians). Kunming: Yunnan Renmin Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn
2010 Kurtöp case: The pragmatic ergative and beyond. LTBA 331: 1–40.Google Scholar
Jenny, Mathias & San San Hnin Tun
2013 Differential subject marking in Burmese. Studies in Language 371: 693–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J.
1993 Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 631: 759–813.Google Scholar
1995 ‘Ergative’ marking in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New Horizons in Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax, 189–228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig
(eds.) 2013 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 17th edn. Dallas, TX: SIL International. [URL]
Lidz, Liberty
2011 Agentive marking in Yongning Na (Mosuo). LTBA 341: 49–72.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B.
2006 Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 1161: 393–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 31: 480–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morey, Stephen
2012 The Singpho agentive–functions and meanings. LTBA 351: 1–14.Google Scholar
Moseley, Christopher
(ed.) 2010 Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. [URL]
Mu, Shihua
2002 Kazhuoyu yanjiu (A study of Kazhuo). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel
2014 The system of information packaging in colloquial Burmese. PhD dissertation, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Peterson, David A.
2011 Core participant marking in Khumi. LTBA 341: 73–100.Google Scholar
Sawada, Hideo
2012 Optional marking of NPs with core case functions: P and A in Lhaovo. LTBA 351: 15–34.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon
2000  and-languages and with-languages. Linguistic Typology 41: 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki
2012 Ergative marking in Nyagrong-Minyag (Xinlong, Sichuan). LTBA 351: 35–48.Google Scholar
Teo, Amos
2012 Sumi agentive and topic markers: no and ye . LTBA 351: 49–74.Google Scholar
Tonghaixian Xingmengxiang 2010 nian tongji nianjian
Tonghai County Xingmeng Village 2010 Statistical Yearbook. Xingmeng: Tonghaixian Xingmengxiang Tongjizhan.
Tournadre, Nicolas
1991 The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. LTBA 141: 93–107.Google Scholar
Willis, Christina M.
2011 Optional case marking in Darma (Tibeto-Burman) LTBA 341: 101–131.Google Scholar
Zeisler, Bettina
2012 Practical issues of pragmatic case marking variations in the Kenhat varieties of Ladakh. LTBA 351: 75–106.Google Scholar