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 (52)
Abadie, Peggy. 1974. Nepali as an ergative language. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 11. 156–177.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Acharya, Jayaraj. 1991. A descriptive grammar of Nepali and an analyzed corpus. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Agresti, Alan. 2007. An introduction to categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity versus economy. Natural language and linguistic theory 211. 435–483. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In J.J. Song, The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–445. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bickel, Balthasar, Walther Bisang & Yogendra P. Yadava. 1999. Face vs. empathy: The social foundation of Maithili verb agreement. Linguistics 37(3). 481–518. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In W. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter. 2008. Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dixon, R.M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harrell, Frank. 2014. rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 4.2-0.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity, grammar and discourse. Language 561. 251–299. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3). 651–674. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hutt, Michael. 1997. Modern literary Nepali: An introductory reader. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hutt, Michael & A. Subedi. 1999. Nepali. London: Teach Yourself Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kachru, Y. & R. Pandharipande. 1979. On ergativity in selected South Asian languages. South Asian languages analysis 11. 193–209.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kutner, M., C. Nachtsheim, J. Neter & W. Li. 2005. Applied linear statistical models. New York: McGraw-Hill.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Landis, J.R. & G.G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1). 159–174. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lemmens, Aurélie & Christophe Croux. 2006. Bagging and Boosting Classification Trees to Predict Churn. Journal of Marketing Research 43(2). 276–286. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Li, Chao. 2007. Split ergativity and split intransitivity in Nepali. Lingua 1171. 1462–1482. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 1181. 203–221. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Masica, Colin. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McGregor, William. B. 2009. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120(7). 1610–1636. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McGregor, William. B. & J.-C. Verstraete. 2010. Optional ergative marking and its implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 120(7). 1607–1609. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Morland-Hughes, W.R.J. 1947. A grammar of the Nepali language in the Roman and the Nagri script. London: Luzac & Co.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Riccardi, Theodore. 2003. Nepali. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 538–580. London/New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schikowski, Robert. 2013. Object-conditioned differential marking in Chintang and Nepali. Zurich: University of Zurich dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tchekhoff, Claude. 1978. Aux fondements de la syntaxe: l’ergatif. Paris: Press Universitaire de France.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thapa, S. 2001. Tuntuni ko (
About a bird
). New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Turnbull, A. 1982. Nepali grammar and vocabulary. New Delhi: Asian educational services.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verbeke, Saartje. 2013. Differential subject marking in Nepali: The agent marker le in imperfective constructions. Linguistics 51(3). 585–610. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wallace, William. 1982. The evolution of ergative syntax in Nepali. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12(2). 147–211.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Stroński, Krzysztof & Leonid Kulikov
Chappell, Hilary & Jean‐Christophe Verstraete
2019.
Optional and alternating case marking: Typology and diachrony.
Language and Linguistics Compass 13:3
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.