Differential Subject Marking in Nepali imperfective constructions
A probabilistic grammar approach
We investigate Differential Subject Marking in Nepali imperfective constructions. No previous accounts were satisfying in explaining under what conditions the ergative marker is preferably used. Building on a probabilistic approach to syntactic variability, we conducted statistical analyses on the basis of corpus data, which compared and evaluated the influence of the predictor variables on the ergative marking. We found evidence for the influence of four factors: Animacy, Pronominality, Honorificity, and Tense/Aspect. Animacy appeared to yield the strongest effect. We argue that these factors can be classified into two classes pertaining to two functions of the ergative marker: emphasis of the agent role combined with disambiguation of the patient and the relation of ergativity with verb semantics.
References
Abadie, Peggy
1974 Nepali as an ergative language.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 11. 156–177.
Acharya, Jayaraj
1991 A descriptive grammar of Nepali and an analyzed corpus. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Agresti, Alan
2007 An introduction to categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Aissen, Judith
2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity versus economy.
Natural language and linguistic theory 211. 435–483.
Antipov, Evgeny & Elena Pokryshevskaya
2010 Applying CHAID for logistic regression diagnostics and classification accuracy improvement.
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 181. 109–117.
Baayen, Harald
2008 Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bickel, Balthasar
2011 Grammatical relations typology. In
J.J. Song,
The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–445. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bickel, Balthasar, Walther Bisang & Yogendra P. Yadava
1999 Face vs. empathy: The social foundation of Maithili verb agreement.
Linguistics 37(3). 481–518.
Blake, Barry J
1994 Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bresnan, Joan W., Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & Harald Baayen
2007 Predicting the Dative Alternation. In
G. Bourne,
I. Kraemer &
J. Zwarts (eds.),
Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
Butt, Miriam & Tikaram Poudel
2007 Distribution of the ergative in Nepali. Paper presented at the University of Leipzig.
Clark, T.W
1963 Introduction to Nepali. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons.
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Ergativity. In
W. Lehmann (ed.),
Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Comrie, Bernard
1989 Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter
2008 Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dixon, R.M.W
1979 Ergativity.
Language 55(1). 59–138.
Dixon, R.M.W
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, John & Jangman Hong
2009 Effect displays in R for multinomial and proportional-odds logit models: Extensions to the effects package.
Journal of Statistical Software 32(1). 1–24.
Harrell, Frank
2014 rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 4.2-0.
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson
1980 Transitivity, grammar and discourse.
Language 561. 251–299.
Hosmer, D.W., T. Hosmer, S. Le Cessie & S. Lemeshow
1997 A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model.
Statistics in Medicine 161. 965.
Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis
2006 Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework.
Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3). 651–674.
Hutt, Michael
1997 Modern literary Nepali: An introductory reader. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Hutt, Michael & A. Subedi
1999 Nepali. London: Teach Yourself Books.
Kachru, Y. & R. Pandharipande
1979 On ergativity in selected South Asian languages.
South Asian languages analysis 11. 193–209.
Kutner, M., C. Nachtsheim, J. Neter & W. Li
2005 Applied linear statistical models. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Landis, J.R. & G.G. Koch
1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
Biometrics 33(1). 159–174.
Lemmens, Aurélie & Christophe Croux
2006 Bagging and Boosting Classification Trees to Predict Churn.
Journal of Marketing Research 43(2). 276–286.
Li, Chao
2007 Split ergativity and split intransitivity in Nepali.
Lingua 1171. 1462–1482.
Long, William J., John L. Griffith, Harry P. Selker & Ralph B. D’Agostino
1993 A Comparison of Logistic Regression to Decision-Tree Induction in a Medical Domain.
Computers and Biomedical Research 261. 74–97.
Malchukov, Andrej
2008 Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking.
Lingua 1181. 203–221.
Masica, Colin
1991 The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGregor, William. B
2009 Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective.
Lingua 120(7). 1610–1636.
McGregor, William. B. & J.-C. Verstraete
2010 Optional ergative marking and its implications for linguistic theory.
Lingua 120(7). 1607–1609.
Morland-Hughes, W.R.J
1947 A grammar of the Nepali language in the Roman and the Nagri script. London: Luzac & Co.
Peterson, John M
2002 The Nepali converbs: a holistic approach. In
R. Singh (ed.).
The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, 93–135. New Delhi: Sage.
Piper, Megan E., Wei-Yin Loh, Stevens Smith, Sandra Japuntich & Timothy Baker
2011 Using decision tree analysis to identify risk factors for relapse to smoking.
Substance Use and Misuse 46(4). 492–510.
Riccardi, Theodore
2003 Nepali. In
George Cardona &
Dhanesh Jain (eds.),
The Indo-Aryan languages, 538–580. London/New York: Routledge.
Rudolfer, Stephan M., Georgios Paliouras & Ian S. Peers
1999 A comparison of logistic regression to decision tree induction in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome.
Computers and Biomedical Research 321. 391–414.
Schikowski, Robert
2013 Object-conditioned differential marking in Chintang and Nepali. Zurich: University of Zurich dissertation.
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In
R.M.W. Dixon. (ed.),
Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal studies; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Lars Hinrichs
Tagliamonte, S. & Harald Baayen
2012 Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice.
Language variation and change 24(2). 135–178.
Tchekhoff, Claude
1978 Aux fondements de la syntaxe: l’ergatif. Paris: Press Universitaire de France.
Thapa, S
2001 Tuntuni ko (
About a bird
). New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.
Turnbull, A
1982 Nepali grammar and vocabulary. New Delhi: Asian educational services.
Verbeke, Saartje
2013 Differential subject marking in Nepali: The agent marker le in imperfective constructions.
Linguistics 51(3). 585–610.
Verma, Manindra K
1976 The notion of subject and the data from Nepali. In
M.K. Verma (ed.),
The notion of subject in South Asian languages, 270–285. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Wallace, William
1982 The evolution of ergative syntax in Nepali.
Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12(2). 147–211.
Wallace, William
1985 Subjects and subjecthood in Nepali: An analysis of Nepali clause structure and its challenges to RG and GB. Illinois: University of Illinois, Urbana.
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Chappell, Hilary & Jean‐Christophe Verstraete
2019.
Optional and alternating case marking: Typology and diachrony.
Language and Linguistics Compass 13:3
Stroński, Krzysztof & Leonid Kulikov
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 march 2024. 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.