Article published in:
On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia
Edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Lindsay J. Whaley
[Studies in Language Companion Series 164] 2014
► pp. 133–174

A survey of alignment features in the Greater Hindukush with special references to Indo-Aryan

| Stockholm University
The Hindukush Indo-Aryan (‘Dardic’) languages (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir) display a great range of variation in alignment patterns. The diversity is primarily evidenced in the case-marking of core argument noun phrases and verbal person marking properties. Along these parameters, six distinct alignment types emerge, each, in combination with language-specific developments, reflecting contact-induced changes that can be attributed to three significant areas or subareas that conflate in the region: first, a large Persian-dominated area overlapping with the Western part of the region, characterized by overt patient marking; second, an area in the East with e.g. ancient Tibetan influences, characterized by overt agent marking; and third, an area in the South bordering on the influential Hindi-Urdu belt, stretching over large parts of the Indian Subcontinent, characterized by patient agreement in the perfective.
Keywords: accusative, agent, alignment, areal, case, contact-induced change, Dardic, ergative, grammatical relations, Hindukush, Indo-Aryan, language diversity, patient
Published online: 17 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.164.05lil
References

References

Arkadiev, Peter M.
2009 Differential argument marking in two-term case systems and its implications for the general theory of case marking. In Differential Subject Marking, Helen de Hoop & Peter Swart (eds), 151–171. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baart, Joan L.G.
1999 A Sketch of Kalam Kohistani Grammar. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies Quaid-i-Azam University and Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
2003 Tonal features in languages of Northern Pakistan. In Pakistani Languages and Society: Problems and Prospects, Joan L.G. Baart & Ghulam Hyder Sindhi (eds), 132–144.Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies Quaid-i-Azam University and Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Baart, Joan L.G. & Sagar, Muhammad Zaman
2004 Kalam Kohistani texts. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies and Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bailey, Thomas Grahame
1924 Grammar of the Shina (Sina) Language; Consisting of a Full Grammar, with Texts and Vocabularies of the Main or Gilgiti Dialect and Briefer Grammars (with Vocabularies and Texts) of the Kohistani, Guresi, and Drasi Dialects. London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Bashir, Elena L.
1988 Topics in Kalasha Syntax: An Areal and Typological Perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
1996 Mosaic of tongues: Quotatives and complementizers in Northwest Indo-Aryan, Burushaski, and Balti. In Studies in Pakistani Popular Culture, William Hanaway & Wilma, Heston (eds), 187–286. Lahore: Lok Virsa Pub. House and Sang-e-Meel Publications.Google Scholar
2003 Dardic. In The Indo-Aryan Languages, George Cardona & Danesh Jain (eds), 818–894. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berger, Hermann
1992 Das Burushaski: Schicksale einer zentralasiatischen Restsprache. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
1998 Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nager 3. Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2007 Typology in the 21st Century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 239–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Grammatical Relations Typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.) 399–444. Oxford University Press, USA.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2008 Referential scales and case alignment: Reviewing the typological evidence. In Scales [Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86], Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds), 1–37. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik der Universität Leipzig.<http://​uzh​.academia​.edu​/BalthasarBickel​/Papers​/1463424​/Referential​_scales​_and​_case​_alignment​_reviewing​_the​_typological​_evidence> (12 February 2014). Google Scholar
Buddruss, Georg
1967 Die Sprache Von Sau in Ostafghanistan: Beiträge Zur Kenntnis Des Dardischen Phalûra [Münchener Studien Zur Sprachwissenschaft Beiheft, Supplement] Munich: Kitzinger in Kommission.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Ahmed, Tafseer
2010 The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology 21(3–4): 545–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), 329–394. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. <http://​www​.utexas​.edu​/cola​/centers​/lrc​/books​/type07​.html> (12 February 2014). Google Scholar
2013 Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/98> (12 February 2014).Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G.
2003 Agreement: The range of the phenomenon and the principles of the Surrey Database of Agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(2): 155–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degener, Almuth
2008 Shina-Texte aus Gilgit (Nord-Pakistan): Sprichwörter und Materialien zum Volksglauben, gesammelt von Zia, Mohammad Amin. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini & Sharma, Devyani
2006 Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages. Linguistic Typology 10(3): 369–418. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W.
1987 Studies in ergativity: Introduction. Lingua 71(1–4): 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Basic Linguistic Theory, Methodology 1. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
2007 Clause types. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Clause Structure I, 2nd edn, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 224–275. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Edelman, Dzhoi Iosifovna
1983 The Dardic and Nuristani Languages, translated from the Russian by E.H. Tsipan [Languages of Asia and Africa (Moscow, R.S.F.S.R.)]. Moscow: Nauka, Central Dept. of Oriental Literature.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray Barnson
1965 India and Historical Grammar: (Lecture on Diffusion and Evolution in Comparative Linguistics.. . Delivered.. . at the Linguistics Department of the Annamalai University in 1959) [Publications in Linguistics]. Annamalai: Dept. of Linguistics, Annamalai University.Google Scholar
1980 India and linguistic areas. In Language and Linguistic Area: Essays, 126–166. Standford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena
2005 The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9(1): 77–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fussman, Gérard
1972 Atlas linguistique des parlers dardes et kafirs. Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient; Dépositaire: Adrien-Maisónneuve.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike
2004 Are there universal cognitive motivations for ergativity? In L'ergativité en Amazonie, Francisco Queixalós (ed.), 1–37.Brasilia: CNRS, IRD and the Laboratório de Línguas Indígenas, UnB.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
2001 Syntax. An Introduction 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2006 Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(01): 25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 132], Theresa Biberauer (ed.), 75–108. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heegård Petersen, Jan
2006 Local Case-marking in Kalasha. PhD dissertation. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1986 ‘P-oriented’ constructions in Sanskrit. In South Asian Languages: Structure, Convergence and Diglossia, Colin P. Masica & Anjani Kumar Sinha (eds), 15–26. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter Edwin
1996 Kesar of Layul: A central Asian epic in the Shina of Gultari. In Studies in Pakistani Popular Culture, William Hanaway & Wilma Heston (eds), 121–183.Lahore: Lok Virsa Pub. House and Sang-e-Meel Publications.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter E. & Koul, Omkar N.
2004 Case as agreement: Non-nominative subjects in Eastern Shina, non-dative objects in Kashmiri and Poguli, and labile subjects in Kashmiri and Gujarai intransitive inceptives. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 213–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E.
1979 Canonical ergativity and Daghestan languages. In Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Frans Plank (ed.), 61–77. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam H.
1987 Mechanisms of ergativity in South Asia. Lingua 71(1–4): 61–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
2010 Linguistic typology and language contact. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 568–590. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Koul, Omkar N.
2003 Kashmiri. In The Indo-Aryan Languages, George Cardona & Danesh Jain (eds), 895–952. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Liljegren, Henrik
2008 Towards a Grammatical Description of Palula: An Indo-Aryan Language of the Hindu Kush. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
2009 The Dangari tongue of Choke and Machoke: Tracing the Proto-language of Shina enclaves in the Hindu Kush. Acta Orientalia 70: 7–62.Google Scholar
Lunsford, Wayne A.
2001 An Overview of Linguistic Structures in Torwali, a Language of Northern Pakistan. MA thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.
Manning, Christopher D.
1996 Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P.
1991 The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2001 The definition and significance of linguistic areas: Methods, pitfalls, and possibilities (with special reference to the validity of South Asia as a linguistic area). In The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2001, Peri Bhaskararao (ed.), 205–267. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Morgenstierne, Georg
1932 Report on a Linguistic Mission to North-western India. New Dehli: Indus Publications.Google Scholar
1947 Some features of Khowar morphology. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 14: 5–28.Google Scholar
1967 Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages 3, The Pashai Language 1, Grammar.Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning. Serie B, Skrifter, 40:3:1.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1993 Ergativity and linguistic geography. Australian Journal of Linguistics 13(1): 39–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003 Diversity and stability in language. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 283–310. Malden MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John R.
1980 The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua 51(2–3): 147–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pirejko, Lija A.
1979 On the genesis of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. In Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Frans Plank (ed.), 481–488. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
1979 Ergativity, syntactic typology and Universal Grammar: Some past and present viewpoints. In Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Frans Plank (ed.), 3–36. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Radloff, Carla F. & Ahmad, Shakil
1998 Folktales in the Shina of Gilgit: Text, Grammatical Analysis and Commentary. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University; Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rahman, Tariq
2011 From Hindi to Urdu: A Social and Political History. Karachi: OUP.Google Scholar
Rehman, Khawaja A.
2011 Ergativity in Kundal Shahi, Kashmiri and Hindko. In Himalayan Languages and Linguistics: Studies in Phonology, Semantics, Morphology and Syntax, Mark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Rensch, Calvin R., Decker, Sandra J. & Hallberg, Daniel G.
1992 Languages of Kohistan [Sociolinguitic Survey of Northern Pakistan 1]. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R.
2009 A Study of Persian Discourse Structure [Studia Iranica Upsaliensia 12]. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Ruth Laila
1985 Where have the Shina speakers come from? Some linguistic clues. Journal of Central Asia 8(1): 17–26.Google Scholar
1999 Urdu. An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Ruth Laila & Kaul, Vijay Kumar
2008 A comparative analysis of Shina and Kashmiri vocabularies. Acta Orientalia 69: 231–302.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Ruth Laila & Kohistani, Razwal
2008 A Grammar of the Shina Language of Indus Kohistan [Beiträge Zur Kenntnis Südasiatischer Sprachen and Literaturen 17]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
2013 Alignment of verbal person marking. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/100> (12 February 2014).Google Scholar
Skalmowski, Wojciech
1974 Transitive verb constructions in the Pamir and Dardic languages. In Studia Indoeuropejskie. Etudes Indo-européennes, 205–216. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
1985 The linguistic importance of the Dardic languages. Journal of Central Asia 8(1): 5–15.Google Scholar
Strand, Richard F.
2001 The tongues of Peristân. Appendix 1. In Gates of Peristan: History, Religion and Society in the Hindu Kush [Reports and Memoirs 5], Alberto M. Cacopardo & Augusto S. Cacopardo (eds), 251–257. Rome: IsIAO.Google Scholar
Stroński, Krzysztof
2009 Variation of ergativity patterns in Indo-Aryan. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46(2): 237–253.Google Scholar
2011 Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznan: Wydawn. Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey
2001 Language Contact. Edinburgh: EUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil
1988 On Burushaski and other ancient substrata in Northwestern South Asia. Studia Orientalia 64: 3030–325.Google Scholar
1999 Archaeological-linguistic correlations in the formation of retroflex typologies and correlating areal features in South Asia. In Archaeology and Language, Roger Blench (ed.), 138–148. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008 Some areal phonological isoglosses in the transit zone between South and Central Asia. In Proceedings of the Third International Hindu Kush Cultural Conference, by Israr-ud-Din (ed.), 250–262. Karachi: OUP.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L.
1979 On the origins of ergativity. In Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, Frans Plank (ed.) 385–404. London; New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Turner, R.L.
1927 Notes on Dardic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 4(03): 533–541. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje
2011 Ergativity and Alignment in Indo-Aryan. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.
Verbeke, Saartje & De Cuypere, Ludovic
2009 The rise of ergativity in Hindi. Folia Linguistica Historica 30: 1–24.Google Scholar
Verma, Mahendra K. & Mohanan, K.P.
1991 Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2010 Typological Variation in Grammatical Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig.
Zeisler, Bettina
2004 Relative Tense and Aspectual Values in Tibetan Languages: a Comparative Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zoller, Claus Peter
2005 A Grammar and Dictionary of Indus Kohistani 1: Dictionary [Trends in Linguistics 21–1]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Heegård, Jan & Henrik Liljegren
2018. Geomorphic coding in Palula and Kalasha. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 2020. 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.