Khamti Shan anti-ergative construction
A Tibeto-Burman influence?
It is widely recognized that Khamti Shan is unique among Tai languages in evidencing a basic (A)OV word order, quite likely due to extensive language contact with Tibeto-Burman languages. Much less recognized in Khamti Shan is that some functional objects take a postposition marker, revealing a striking, but not necessarily unexpected, resemblance to a Tibeto-Burman-like anti-ergative construction. The deictic mai² ‘here’ grammaticalizes an anti-ergative function in which it acts as a marker for certain monotransitive ‘objects’ which are analyzed as pragmatically foregrounded referents in the information structure of the sentence.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Where it all begins: Proximal deictic mai²
- 3.The anti-ergative construction in Khamti Shan
- 3.1Preliminaries to the anti-ergative construction
- 3.2Monotransitive clauses
- 3.2.1The foregrounded O-mai² V pattern
- 3.2.2The neutral OV pattern
- 3.2.3The backgrounded VO pattern
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
Abbreviations
-
References
References
Andrews, Avery D.
2007[1985] The major functions of the noun phrase. In
Timothy Shopen (ed.),
Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. I1:
Clause Structure, 2nd edn, 132–223. Cambridge: CUP.


Blansitt, Edward
1988 Datives and allatives. In
Michael Hammond,
Edith Moravcsik &
Jessica Wirth (eds.),
Studies in Syntactic Typology [
Typological Studies in Language 17], 173–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


Chamberlain, James R.
1975 A new look at the history and classification of the Tai languages. In
Jimmy G. Harris &
James R. Chamberlain (eds),
Studies in Tai Linguistics in Honor of William J. Gedney, 49–66. Bangkok: Central Institute of English Language.

Cheng, Lisa L. & Rint Sybesma
1998 On dummy objects and the transitivity of run. In
Renée van Bezooijen &
Rene Kager (eds),
Linguistics in the Netherlands, Vol. 151, 81–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Clark, Eve V.
1978 Locationals: A study of ‘existential,’ ‘locative,’ and ‘possessive’ sentences.
Universals of Human Language, Vol 41:
Syntax, 85–126. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Coupe, Alexander R.
2017 On the diachronic origins of converbs in Tibeto-Burman and beyond. In
Picus Ding &
Jamin Pelkey (eds),
Sociohistorical Linguistics in Southeast Asia: New Horizons for Tibeto-Burman Studies in Honor of David Bradley, 210–237. Leiden: Brill.


Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
2011 Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP.


Diessel, Holger
2006 Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar.
Cognitive Linguistics 17(4): 463–489.


Diller, Anthony
1992 Tai languages in Assam: daughters or ghosts? In
Carol J. Compton &
John F. Hartmann (eds),
Papers on Tai Languages, Linguistics and Literatures: In Honor of William J. Gedney on his 77th Birthday, 5–43. DeKallb, IL: Center for Southeast Asian Studies.

Diller, Anthony, Jerold A. Edmondson & Yongshian Luo
(eds) 2008 The Tai-Kadai Languages. London: Routledge.

Dockum, Rikker
2014 A tale of two Khamtis: Language classification in Southwestern Tai.
SYNC 2014. Stony Brook University.

Dryer, Matthew S.
2007 Clause types. In
Timothy Shopen (ed.),
Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol I1:
Clause Structure, 224–275. Cambridge: CUP.


Edmondson, Jerold A.
2008 Shan and other northern tier southwest Tai languages of Myanmar and China: Themes and variations. In
Anthony Diller,
Jerold A. Edmondson &
Yongshian Luo (eds),
The Tai-Kadai Languages, 184–206. London: Routledge.

Edmondson, Jerold A. & David B. Solnit
1997 Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics & The University of Texas at Arlington.

Enfield, Nicholas J.
2007 A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.


Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
1991 The de dicto domain in language. In
Elizabeth Traugott &
Bernd Heine (eds),
Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 11:
Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues [
Typological Studies in Language 19], 219–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


Frawley, William
1992 Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Genetti, Carol
1991 From postposition to subordinator in Newari. In
Elizabeth Traugott &
Bernd Heine (eds),
Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 21:
Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers [
Typological Studies in Language 19], 227–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


Givón, Talmy
1979 On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press.

Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP.


Haspelmath, Martin
1997 From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbials in the World’s Languages. Munich: Lincom.

Heine, Bernd
1990 The dative in Ik and Kanuri. In
William Croft,
Keith Denning &
Suzanne Kemmer (eds),
Studies in Typology and Diachrony [
Typological Studies in Language 20], 129–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


Heine, Bernd
1997a Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Gramaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.


Heine, Bernd
1997b Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: OUP.

Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2002 World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.


Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2011 The areal dimension of grammaticalization. In
Heiko Narrog &
Bernd Heine (eds),
The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 291–301. Oxford: OUP.


Inglis, Douglas
2014 This here thing: Specifying morphemes an³, nai¹, and mai² in Tai Khamti reference-point constructions. PhD dissertation, University of Alberta.

Inglis, Douglas
2017 Myanmar-based Khamti Shan orthography.
Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 10(1): xlvii–lxi.

Janssen, Theo A. J. M.
1995 Deixis from a cognitive point of view. In
Ellen Contini-Morava &
Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds),
Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory, 245–270. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.


Karapurkar, Pushpa
1976 Kokborok Grammar [
CIIL Grammar Series 3]. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Linguistics.

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP.


Langacker, Ronald W.
1993 Reference-point constructions.
Cognitive Linguistics 4(1): 1–38.


Langacker, Ronald W.
2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.


LaPolla, Randy J.
1992 Anti-ergative marking in Tibeto-Burman.
LTBA 15(1): 1–9.

LaPolla, Randy J.
1994 Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman languages: Evidence of Sapir’s ‘Drift’.
LTBA 17(1): 61–80.

LaPolla, Randy J.
2004 On nominal relational morphology in Tibeto-Burman. In
Fung-min Hsu,
Ying-chin Lin,
Chun-chih Lee,
Jackson, T. -S.,
Hsiu-fung Yang &
Dah-an Ho (eds.),
Studies on Sino-Tibetan Languages: Papers in Honor of Professor Hwang-cherng Gong on his Seventieth Birthday, 23–74. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Lichtenberk, Frantisek
2002 The possessive-benefactive connection.
Oceanic Linguistics 41(2): 439–412.


Lyn, Shan Tieu
2008 Complements in non-referential contexts: Comparing English and Chinese.
Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–15. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Matisoff, James A.
1973 The Grammar of Lahu [
University of California Publications in Linguistics 75]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.

Morey, Stephen
2006 Constituent order change in the Tai languages of Assam.
Linguistic Typology 10(3): 327–367.


Needham, Jack Francis
1894 Outline Grammar of the Khamti Language: As Spoken by the Khamtis Residing in the Neighborhood of Sadiya. Rangoon, Burma: Superintendent of Governement Printing.

Newman, John
(ed.) 1996 The Linguistics of Giving [
Tyological Studies in Language 36]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Newman, John
1998 Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rice, Sally
1992 Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions.
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 14), 89–94.

Rice, Sally
2005 Moving for thinking: The pervasiveness of motion imagery in ideation and emotion. In
Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk &
Alina Kwiatkowska (eds),
Imagery in Language: Festschrift in Honour of Professor Ronald W. Langacker [
Łódź Studies in Language 10], 343–359. Berlin: Peter Lang.

Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata
2007 Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative.
Linguistic Typology 11(3): 451–514.


Sankoff, Gillian
2001 Linguistic outcomes of language contact. In
Peter Trudgill,
J. Chambers &
Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds),
Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 638–668. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Simons, Gary F., M. Paul Lewis & Charles D. Fennig
(eds.) 2009 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 16th edn. Dallas, TX: SIL International.
[URL]
Timberlake, Alan
1977 Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In
Charles N. Li (ed.),
Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 141–177. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Wang, Y.
1992 Discourse grounding: The morphosyntax of Mandarin direct objects.
Proceedings of the 19th conference of the linguistic association of Canada and the United States (LACUS), 143–152.

Watters, David E.
1973 Clause patterns in Kham. In
Austin Hale (ed.),
Clause, Sentence, and Discourse Patterns in Selected Languages of Nepal, I1:
General Approach, 39–202. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Weinreich, Uriel
1968[1953] Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wilaiwan, Khanittanan
1986 Kamti Tai: from an SVO to an SOV Language. In
B. H. Krishnamurti (ed.),
South Asian Linguistics: Structure, Convergence, and Diglossia, 174–178. Delhi: Motilal Barnarsidas.

Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 april 2022. 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.