Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 42:2 (2018) ► pp.329–368

A sense of agency

Accounting for a change-in-progress in Australian Kriol pronoun distribution

| Yale University
Roper Kriol exhibits variation in the shape of the first-person singular pronoun in subject position. This paper provides an account of the numerous syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors that appear to influence the selection of either ai or mi based predominantly on a study of a corpus of the written language. It is claimed that the synchronic distribution of ai and mi is an innovation primarily motivated by speaker reanalysis of the semantic entailments frequently associated with English subject and object arguments – effectively evidence of the partial grammaticalisation of agentivity in these varieties. This work has implications for our understanding of ‘agentivity’ as a cross-linguistic, cognitive category and for the dynamic relationship between semantic roles and the morphosyntactic encoding of grammatical relations.
Keywords: grammaticalisation, Kriol, Australian Kriol, Pidgins & Creoles, semantics, semantic change, corpus linguistics, contact linguistics, transitivity, agentivity, pronouns, pragmatics’ grammatical relations
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Background
    • 1.2The Kriol pronoun paradigm
  • 2.Agentivity & Transitivity
    • 2.1Transitivity: Hopper & Thompson (1980)
    • 2.2Proto-Roles: Dowty (1991)
    • 2.3Uniting these approaches
      • 2.3.1Optional case marking
      • 2.3.2The semantics of case marking
  • 3.Pronoun selection: Corpus study
    • 3.1Materials and method
    • 3.2Environmental effects: Obligatory conditions
    • 3.3Structured variation: Semantic constraints
      • 3.3.1No endpoint: Correlation with imperfectivity
      • 3.3.2Modalities and polarity
      • 3.3.3Valence
    • 3.4Lexical semantics: Further observations
  • 4.A diachronic account of ai~mi variation
    • 4.1Transfer
    • 4.2Pronominal ‘case’: A diachronic vestige as the input
    • 4.3Accounting for the variation
      • 4.3.1Semantic factors
      • 4.3.2Distributional factors
    • 4.4Concluding remarks and future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 June 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17025.phi
References (57)
References
Angelo, D., & E. Schultze-Berndt. 2016. ‘Beware bambai – lest it be apprehensive.’ In Felicity Meakins & Carmel O’Shannessy (eds.), Language Contact in Australia, 255–296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bible Society in Australia, The. 2010. Kriol e-Baibul. Retrieved from [URL]
Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
van den Bos, J., F. Meakins, & C. Algy. 2017. Searching for "Agent Zero": The origins of a relative case system. Language Ecology 1(1). 4–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, M., & T. H. King. 2002. Case systems: Beyond structural distinctions. In E. Brandner & H. Zinsmeister (eds.), New Perspectives on Case Theory (CSLI Lecture Notes 156), 53–87. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Ö Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13(1). 51–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deo, A. 2015. The semantic and pragmatic underpinnings of grammaticalization paths: The progressive to imperfective shift. Semantics and Pragmatics 8(14). 1–52.Google Scholar
Dickson, G. 2016. Alabat tok najawei: surveying geographic variation in Kriol speaking communities east of Katherine. Poster presented at theCoEDL Huddle, WSU: Sydney, NSW.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. London: London Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002a. Copula Clauses in Australian Languages: A Typological Perspective. Anthropological Linguistics 44(1). 1–36.Google Scholar
2002b. Australian languages: their nature and development. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J. 1986. Grammatically deviant prestige constructions. In M. Brame, H. Contreras & F. J. Newmeyer (eds.), A Festschift for Sol Saporta. Noit Amrofer Pub Co.Google Scholar
Graber, P. L. 1987. The Kriol particle ‘na’. Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 211. 1–21.Google Scholar
Harley, H., & E. Ritter. 2002. Person and Number in Pronouns: a feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3). 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. 1986. Northern Territory Pidgins and the Origin of Kriol. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Holisky, D. A. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua. 71 (1–4). 103–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & S. A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T., K. Hornik, & A. Zeileis. 2006. Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3). 651–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, J. 1983. Grammatical and semantic aspects of Fitzroy Valley Kriol. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics, Australian Aborigines Branch.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb Standard: Introducing Rbrul for Mixed-Effects Variable Rule Analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. 1987. Tiwi Today: A study of language change in a contact situation. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McConvell, P., & F. Meakins. 2005. Gurindji Kriol: A Mixed Language Emerges from Code- switching. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 9–30. DOI logoGoogle 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 & S. Chelliah (eds.), The Role of Semantics and Pragmatics in the Development of Case (Studies in Language Companion Series 108), 59–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2011. Case-Marking in Contact: The development and function of case morphology in Gurindji Kriol. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meakins, F. & C. O’Shannessy. 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
McGregor, W. B. 2008. Indexicals as sources of case markers in Australian languages. In F. Josephson & I. Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses, 299–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 1201. 1610–1636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, J. H. 1998. Identifying the Creole Prototype: Vindicating a Typological Class. Language 74(4). 788–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. The Rest of the Story: restoring pidgins to creole genesis theory. Journal of Pidgin & Creole Languages 17(1). 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Defining Creole. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
2007. Language Interrupted: Signs of Non-Native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Å. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, S. 2011. Referring Expressions and Referential Practice in Roper Kriol. Armidale, NSW: University of New England PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Parrott, J. K. 2007. Distributed Morphological Mechanisms of Labovian Variation in Morphosyntax. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Ph.D. Dissertation.Google Scholar
2009. Danish Vestigial Case and the Acquisition of Vocabulary in Distributed Morphology. Biolinguistics 3(2–3). 270–304.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. 2011. Kriol and Kriolisation: exploring the creole language of Northern Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Unpublished Honours thesis.Google Scholar
Ponsonnet, M. 2016. Emotion middle predicates in Barunga Kriol. Paper presented at the Australian Languages Workshop . Canberra; Kioloa, March 2016.
2018b. Lexical semantics in language shift: Comparing emotional lexica in Dalabon and Barunga Kriol (northern Australia). Journal of Pidgin & Creole Linguistics 33(1).Google Scholar
Sandefur, J. R. 1979. An Australian Creole in the Northern Territory: a description of Ngukurr- Bamyili dialects, part 1, vol. 31. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics, Australian Aborigines Branch.Google Scholar
1982. Kriol and the question of decreolization. International Journal of the Sociology of Language (36). 5–13.Google Scholar
1985. Aspects of the Socio-political History of Ngukurr (Roper River) and its Effect on Language Change. Aboriginal History 9(2). 20.Google Scholar
Sandefur, J. R. & J. Harris. 1986. Variation in Australian Kriol. In J. A. Fishman, A. Tabouret-Keller, M. Clyne, B. Krishnamurti, & M. Abdulaziz (eds.), The Fergusonian impact: in honor of Charles A. Ferguson on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Contributions to the sociology of language, 180–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. 1985. Young People’s Dyirbal: an example of language death from Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sharpe, M. C. [As Margaret Clare Cunningham]. 1969. Alawa Phonology and Grammar. Brisbane: Brisbane University of Queensland PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, E., F. Meakins, & D. Angelo. 2013. Kriol. In S. M. Michaelis, P. Maurer, M. Haspelmath, & M. Huber (eds.), Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Structures, vol. I: English- based and Dutch-based Languages, 241–251. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, E., M. Ponsonnet, & D. Angelo. (forthcoming). The semantics of modal markers in North Australian Kriol [manuscript in preparation]. Language Science Press.
Schütze, C. T. 2001. On the Nature of Default Case. Syntax 4(3). 205–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siegel, J. 2008. The Emergence of Pidgin and Creole Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1986 [1976]). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In P. Muysken & H. C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Features and Projections, 112–170. Amsterdam: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. 1999. The role of pragmatics in semantic change. Paper presented at the Pragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference.
Troy, J. 1990. Australian Aboriginal Contact with the English Language in New South Wales: 1788–1845. Canberra, ACT: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Van Valin, J., D. Robert, & D. P. Wilkins. 1996. The Case for ‘Effector’: Case Roles, Agents, and Agency Revisited. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their form and Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar