Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 47:3 (2023) ► pp.643–682

The history of the polyfunctional 𗗙 jij 1 in Tangut

How did the accusative/genitive syncretism come about?

ORCID logo | Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

This paper focuses on the history of a polyfunctional case marker 𗗙 jij1 in Tangut, an extinct Rgyalrongic language (Sino-Tibetan). This versatile case morpheme is a typological rarity of maximum syncretism among several abstract case functions, including differential object marking, the genitive, and the oblique (which overlaps with the dative). For one thing, accusatives originating from datives or spatial sources are rarely found with additional genitive functions; for another, reported instances of accusative/genitive syncretism seldom include other functions. The principal hypothesis of this paper is that the Tangut 𗗙 jij1 may be the result of multiple grammaticalization processes stemming from a proto-locative source. These processes can be subsumed under two pathways, one leading from an allative to an accusative, with an intermediate oblique stage, and the other from a locative to a genitive. Although both of these development pathways are frequently attested, the Tangut 𗗙 jij1 remains a typological rarity due to their superposition.

Keywords: case syncretism, differential object marking, locative, Tangut, Rgyalrongic languages
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Differential object marking
    • 1.2Sources and grammaticalization of DOM markers
    • 1.3Genitive syncretism
  • 2.Morpho-syntactic profile of Tangut
    • 2.1Transitivity
    • 2.2Status of 𗗙 1139 jij1 in Tangut case system
  • 3.Clausal functions of 𗗙 1139 jij1
    • 3.1Monotransitive verbs: Optional O marking
    • 3.2Ditransitive verbs: Alternating R marking
    • 3.3Auxiliary causative
      • 3.3.1Optional causee marking with 𗗙 1139jij1
      • 3.3.2Optional marking on the oblique argument with 𗗙 1139jij1
      • 3.3.3Alternative causee marking with 𘋩 5447do2
    • 3.4Interim summary
      • 3.4.1Prototypical semantic values of 𗗙 1139jij1 and 𘋩 5447do2
      • 3.4.2Syntactic distribution of 𗗙 1139jij1 and 𘋩 5447do2
  • 4.Cross-Rgyalrongic comparison
    • 4.1Modern West Rgyalrongic: Genitive/oblique =jV
      • 4.1.1Extended intransitive verbs
      • 4.1.2Indirective verbs
    • 4.2Situ Rgyalrong: General locative =j
      • 4.2.1Delimitative adjuncts
      • 4.2.2Oblique
        • 4.2.2.1Extended intransitive verbs
        • 4.2.2.2Indirective verbs
      • 4.2.3Locative =j and possession
        • 4.2.3.1Locational possessive
        • 4.2.3.2Locative pronouns
        • 4.2.3.3‘Double marking’
  • 5.Multi-directional development of the yod postposition
    • 5.1From allative to accusative
      • 5.1.1From allative to oblique in West Rgyalrongic
      • 5.1.2Promotion of oblique to accusative in Tangut
      • 5.1.3Information structure and accusative marking
    • 5.2From locative to genitive
      • 5.2.1Location schema
      • 5.2.2Topic Schema
    • 5.3Beneficiary possessor
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21085.zha
References
Aissen, Judith
2003 Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andvik, Erik
2010 A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Tshangla. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 418–435. 2nd edn, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arakawa, Shintaro
2010 Seika-go no kakuhyōshiki ni tsuite [on the Tangut case markers]. In Hideo Sawada (ed.), Chibetto=Biruma-kei gengo no bunpō genshō 1: Kaku to sono shūhen [Grammatical phenomena of Tibeto-Burman languages 1: Case-marking and related matters], 153–174. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
2012 On the Tangut verb prefixes in ‘Tiansheng Code’. In Irina Popova (ed.), Тангуты в Центральной Азии: сборник статей в честь 80-летия профессора. Е.И.Кычанова [Tanguts in Central Asia: a collection of articles marking the 80th anniversary of Prof. E. I. Kychanov], 58–71. Moscow: Oriental Literature.Google Scholar
2018 Seikago no sōsū setsuoji ni tsuite [On the “dual” suffix of Tangut]. In Tooru Hayasi, Tomoyuki Kubo, Setsu Fujishiro, Noriko Ohsaki, Yasuhiro Kishida & Mutsumi Sugahara (eds.), Yūrashia sho gengo no tayōsei to dōtai 20 gō kinengō [Diversity and dynamics of Eurasian languages: The 20th commemorative volume], 69–83. Tokyo: Consortium of Studies of Eurasian Languages.Google Scholar
2019 Seika-go no shieki ni tsuite [On the causative construction in Tangut] In Takumi Ikeda (ed.), Shina=Chibetto-kei sho gengo no bunpō genshō 2: Shieki no shosō [Aspects of causative construction], 135–147. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew
2009 Case syncretism. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 219–230. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beaudouin, Mathieu
2021 Localiser en tangoute: entre continuums et bipartitions. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 116(1): 327–346.Google Scholar
2022 Tangut verb agreement: optional or not? Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 45(1): 93–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Accepted. Tangut and Horpa languages: some shared morphosyntactic features. Language and Linguistics.
Blansitt, Edward
1988 Datives and allatives. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 173–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1985 Empirische universalienforschung: Differentielle objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1991 Differential object marking Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & Shanshan Lü
2022 A semantic typology of location, existence, possession and copular verbs: Areal patterns of polysemy in Mainland East and Southeast Asia. Linguistics 60(1): 1–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & Jean-Christophe Verstraete
2019 Optional and alternating case marking: Typology and diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass 13(3). Available at: DOI logo (last access 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
2011 Object and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2011 “Optional” “ergativity” in Tibeto-Burman languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2): 9–20.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
(eds.) 2000 Changing valency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endalew, Assefa
2017 Multifunctional Morpheme jə- and -m in Ezha: An Ethio-Semitic Language. Macrolinguistics 6(2): 24–36.Google Scholar
Gates, Jesse P.
2021 A grammar of Mazur Stau. Paris: EHESS PhD dissertation.
Genetti, Carol
1997 Object relations and dative case in Dolakha Newari. Studies in Language 211(1): 37–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 A grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1994 The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: functional and typological aspects of inversion. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Voice and Inversion, 3–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gong, Hwang-cherng
2001 Xīxià yǔ dòngcí de rénchēng hūyìng yǔ yīnyùn zhuǎnhuàn [Personal Agreements and Phonological Alternations in the Tangut Verb]. Language and Linguistics 2(1): 21–67.Google Scholar
2003 Tangut. In Randy J. LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 602–620. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gong, Xun
2017 Verbs stems in Tangut and their orthography. SCRIPTA 91. 29–48.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997 Possession: Cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Grammaticalization of cases. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 458–469. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer
1991 Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hetzron, Robert
1977 The Gunnän-Gurage languages. Napoli: Istituto orientale di Napoli.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W.
2019 The historical phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honkasalo, Sami
2019 A grammar of Eastern Geshiza: A culturally anchored description. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD dissertation.
Iemmolo, Giorgio
2011 Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Pavia: University of Pavia PhD dissertation.
Ikeda, Takumi
2012 Verbs of Existence in Tangut and Mu-nya. In Nathan W. Hill (ed.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages IV1, 191–210. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume
2004 Phonologie et morphologie du japhug (rGyalrong). Paris: Université Paris VII – Denis Diderot PhD dissertation.
2007 Textes tangoutes I, nouveau recueil sur l’amour parental et la piété filiale (Languages of the World/Text Collections 25). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2009 The origin of vowel alternations in the Tangut verb. Language and Linguistics 10(1): 17–27.Google Scholar
2011 The Structure of the Tangut verb. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 39(2): 419–443.Google Scholar
2014 Esquisse de phonologie et de morphologie historique du tangoute. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Tangut, Gyalrongic, Kiranti and the nature of person indexation in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan. Linguistics Vanguard. Available at DOI logo (last access 22 March 2022).Google Scholar
2021 A grammar of Japhug. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha
2003 On the taxonomy of nominal cases in Mongolic. Altai Hakpo 131: 83–90.Google Scholar
Kepping, Ksenija Borisovna
1975 Subject and Object agreement in the Tangut Verb. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 2(2): 219–231.Google Scholar
1985 Тангутский язык: морфология [The Tangut Language: Morphology]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2006 Object-, animacy- and role-based strategies: A typology of object marking. Studies in Language 30(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotaka, Yuji
2000 Seikago no kakujoshi ni kansuru tōgoronteki kenkyū [A synthetic study of Tangut case particles]. Hiroshima: Hiroshima University PhD dissertation.
Lai, Yunfan
2017 Grammaire du khroskyabs de Wobzi. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD dissertation.
2018 Relativisation in Wobzi Khroskyabs and how genitivisation enters it. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41(2): 219–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 Jiāróngyǔzǔ yǔyán dòngcí de fēnlèi – yǐ Chuòsījiǎ (Lāwùróng) yǔ wéilì [The classification of verbs in Rgyalrongic languages, from a Khroskyabs perspective]. Yǔyánxué lùncóng [Essays on linguistics] 631: 68–95.Google Scholar
Lai, Yunfan, Guillaume Jacques, Xun Gong & Jesse Gates
2020 Tangut as a West Rgyalrongic language. Folia Linguistica Historica 41(1): 171–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J.
1992 ‘Anti-ergative’ Marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 15(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
2004 On Nominal Relational Morphology in Tibeto-Burman. In Ying-chin Lin, Fang-min Hsu, Chun-chih Lee, Jackson T.-S. Sun, Hsiu-fang Yang & Dah-an Ho (eds.), Studies on Sino-Tibetan languages: Papers in honour of Professor Hwang-cherng Gong on his seventieth birthday, 43–73. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2015 Thoughts on grammaticalization (Classics in Linguistics 1). Berlin: Language Science Press, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Fanwen
2008 Xià-Hàn Zìdiǎn [Tangut-Chinese Dictionary]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Lin, Xiangrong
1993 Jiāróngyǔ yánjiū [A study of the Rgyalrong language]. Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Lin, You-jing
2016 Jiāróngyǔ Zhuókèjīhuà yǔfǎ biāozhù wénběn [Cogtse Rgyalrong texts: Fully analyzed spontaneous narratives with an updated sketch grammar of the language]. Beijing: Shehui Kexue Wenxian Chubanshe.Google Scholar
2017 How grammar encodes space in Cogtse Rgyalrong. Himalayan Linguistics 16(1): 59–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L., Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie
2010 Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej L. Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Ronny
2005 The morpheme yä- in Muher. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 19(1): 40–63.Google Scholar
2011 Gurage. In Stefan Weninger (ed.), The Semitic languages: An international handbook, 1220–1257. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, Tara
1994 Argument structure in Hindi. California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2004 What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 1141: 1186–1212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagano, Yasuhiko
2018 Gyarongo bunpō kenkyū [A reference grammar of the rGyalrong language – Bhola dialect]. Tokyo: Kyūko Shoin.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
2014 The grammaticalization chain of case functions: Extension and reanalysis of case marking vs. universal of grammaticalization. In Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles, 71–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevskij, Nikolaj Aleksandrovich
1960 Tангутская филилогия, Исследования и словарь [Tangut Philology, Research and Dictionary]. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura.Google Scholar
Nishida, Tatsuo
1989 [2012] Seikago [Tangut]. In Gengogaku Daijiten, vol. 21, 408–429. Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar
Prins, Marielle
2016 A grammar of rGyalrong Jiǎomùzú (Kyom-kyo) dialects. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent, Guillaume Jacques, Yunfan Lai, Robin J. Ryder, Valentin Thouzeau, Simon J. Greenhill & Johann-Mattis List
2019 Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. PNAS 116(21): 10317–10322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Jinbo
2020 Tangut language and manuscripts: An introduction. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Jinbo, Zhenhua Huang & Hongyin Nie
1993 Lèilín yánjiū [A study on ‘the Forest of Categories’]. Ningxia Renmin Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Simon, Camille
2016 Morphosyntaxe et sémantique grammaticale du salar et du tibétain de l’Amdo: analyse d’un contact de langues. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD dissertation.
Sinnemäki, Kaius
2014 A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2): 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solonin, Kirill
1995 Dvendtsat’ Tsarstv. Neizvstnij Pamyatnik Tangutskoi Literatury [Twelve kingdoms: An unknown monument of Tangut literature]. St. Petersburg: Peterburskoe Vostokovedenie.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon
2009 Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai
1991 Cóng cíhuì bǐjiào kàn xīxiàyǔ yǔ zàmiǎn yǔzú qiāngyǔzhī de guānxì [The relationship between Tangut and the Qiangic branch of Tibeto-Burman from the perspective of vocabulary comparison]. Mínzú yǔwén [Minority Languages of China] 2(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S.
2000 Parallelism in verb morphology of Sidaba Rgyalrong and Lavrung in Rgyarongic. Language and Linguistics 1(1): 161–190.Google Scholar
2007 Morphological causative formation in Shangzhai Horpa. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 2(1): 211–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Qianzi Tian
2013 Huò’ěr yǔ géxī huà dòngcí duìxié [Verb agreement in Gexi Horpa]. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 7(2): 203–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter
2007 Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD dissertation.
Wang, Jingru
1933 Lùn Sìchuān Qiāngyǔ jí Mǐyàoyǔ yǔ Xīxiàyǔ [The Shishiah and the Ch’iang and Minia Languages in Szŭch’uan Province]. In Xīxià Yánjiū, vol. 21, 278–288. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Ilja A. Seržant
2018 Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Shuya
2020 Le rgyalrong situ de Brag-bar et sa contribution à la typologie de l’expression des relations spatiales: L’orientation et le mouvement associé. Paris: Institut national des langues et des civilisations orientales PhD dissertation
Zhang, Shuya, Guillaume Jacques & Yunfan Lai
2019 A study of cognates between Gyalrong languages and Old Chinese. Journal of Language Relationship 17(1): 73–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar