Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 45:2 (2022) ► pp.300–311

Accusative alignment in the Old Tibetan switch reference system

| Trinity College Dublin
The use of ནས་ -nas to mark cross-clausal co-reference in Version I of the Old Tibetan Rāmāyaṇa reveals accusative alignment in Tibetan syntax, which in turn vindicates the notion of ‘subject’ applied to Tibetan.
Keywords: accusative, co-reference, switch reference, Old Tibetan, Tibetan
Article outline
  • 1.Tibetan ergativity
  • 2.The co- and switch reference system
  • 3. ནས་ -nas for co-reference
    • 3.1Co-reference of an agent and sole argument
    • 3.2Co-reference of a sole argument and an agent
  • 4. པ་དང་ -pa-daṅ to mark switch reference
    • 4.1Switch reference from an agent to a sole argument
    • 4.2Switch reference from a sole argument to an agent
    • 4.3Switch reference from an agent to another agent
    • 4.4Switch reference from a sole argument to another sole argument
  • 5.Conclusion: The cross clausal indexing of subjecthood
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.22007.hil
References (16)
References
Andersen, P. K. 1987. Zero-anaphora and related phenomena in Classical Tibetan. Studies in Language 11(2).286–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beer, Z. 2019. Switch-reference in the Ye shes rgyas pa’i mdo. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. New Series 29(2).249–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, K. & B. Shefts. 1980. Ergativity in Spoken Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 51(1).15–32.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. 1982. Lhasa Tibetan: a case study in ergative typology. Journal of Linguistic Research 2(1).21–31.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von der Gabelentz, H. C. 1861. Über das Passivum: eine sprachvergleichende Abhandlung. Abhandlungen der Philologisch-Historischen Klasse der Königlich-Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 81, 431–546.Google Scholar
Giraudeau, P. P. 1916. Dictionarium Latino-Thibetanum ad usumalumnorum Missionis Thibeti. Hongkong: Typis Societatis Missionum ad Exteros.Google Scholar
Haller, F. 2009. Switch-reference in Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 32(2).45–70.Google Scholar
Hill, N. W. 2010. A lexicon of Tibetan verb stems as reported by the grammatical tradition. Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
de Jong, J. W. 1989. The story of Rāma in Tibet: text and translation of the Tun-huang manuscripts. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Sato, M. 1994. An examination of ergativity and the so-called ‘middle-construction’ in the Tibetan Language. In Hajime Kitamura (ed.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics, 985–991. Osaka: Organising Committee the 26th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Tournadre, N. 1991. The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1).93–107.Google Scholar
1996. L’ergativité en tibétain. Louvain: Péeters.Google Scholar
Vollmann, R. 2008. Descriptions of Tibetan ergativity: a historiographical account. Grazer vergleichende Arbeiten, Bd. 23. Graz: Leykam.Google Scholar
Zadoks, A. 2000. Switch evidence in Old Tibetan: Between switch reference and evidentiality. Paper presented at the 9th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden University, June 24–30, 2000.
2002. The Tibetan connection: Switch evidence and direct-inverse marking from Old to Middle Tibetan. Paper presented at the 8th Himalayan Languages Symposium, Bern University, September 19–22, 2002.