Cover not available
Part of
Indo-Aryan Ergativity in Typological and Diachronic Perspective
Edited by Eystein Dahl and Krzysztof Stroński
[Typological Studies in Language 112] 2016
► pp. 165–200

Ergative alignment in Western New Indo-Aryan languages from a historical perspective

| Moscow University
This paper describes the syntactic development of three Western Indo-Aryan languages – Punjabi, Gujarati and Rajasthani. Historical changes in the ergative construction are described here as part of the changing syntactic systems of Western NIA languages. The perfect ergative system in Western New Indo-Aryan languages had developed by the time of Middle Indo-Aryan, when for the first time in the history of NIA the whole perfective domain was structured in accordance with the ergative pattern, implying ‘passive syntax without active counterpart’. The decline of ergativity in Western NIA went through three distinct stages. In the first of them the process of case merging resulted in the splitting of the consistently ergative case marking system into an ergative and a neutral one. The second stage is characterized by the introduction of special O-markers, which appeared first in the non-ergative and later in the ergative domain. As a result of this, there developed two more case marking systems – the accusative and the tripartite. The greatest divergence in syntactic behavior took place at the third stage of syntactic development, when each of the described languages selected its own ergative model. In contrast to the many different directions in the development of NPs’ coding properties, the controlling properties showed a great deal of similarity in the history of Western NIA.
Published online: 14 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.112.06kho
References (60)
References
Anand, Pranav & Nevins, Andrew. 2006. The locus of ergative case assignment: Evidence from scope. In Ergativity: Emerging Issues, Alana Johns, Diane Massam & Juve´nal Ndayiragije (eds), 3–25. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Paul Kent. 1986. Die ta-Partizipialkonstruktion bei Ashoka: Passiv oder Ergativ? Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 99: 75-94.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, Charles Li (ed.), 317-363. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bahal, Kalicharan. 1989. Adhunik Rajasthani ka sanrachnatmak vyakaran (Generative Grammar of Modern Rajasthani). Jodhpur: Rajasthani Sahitya sansthan.Google Scholar
Bashir, Elena. 1999. The Urdu and Hindi ergative postposition ne: Its changing role in the grammar. In The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, Rajendra Singh (ed.), 11-36. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Bon, Estella D. 2002. Personal inflexions and order of clitics in Kashmiri. In Topics in Kashmiri Linguistics, Omkar N. Koul & Kashi Wali (eds), 129-142. New Delhi: Creative Books.Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit. 1998. A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa) [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 165]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam, 2001. A reexamination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo-Aryan. In Time Over Matter: Diachronic Perspectives on Morphosyntax, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 105–141. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 1993. Conscious choice and some light verbs in Urdu. In Complex Predicates in South Asian Languages, Manindra K. Verma (ed.), 11-46. Delhi: Manohar.Google Scholar
. 2006. The dative-ergative connection. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 69–92. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Cardona, George. 1965. A Gujarati Reference Grammar. Philadelphia PA: The University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology. Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), 329-393. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Aspect and voice: some reflections on perfect and passive. In Tense and Aspect [Syntax and Semantics 14], Philip J. Tedeschi & Annie Zaenen (eds), 65–78. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dave, Trimbaklal 1935. A Study of the Gujarati Language in the 16th Century (V.S.). London: The Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 2000. Lexicon anaphora and pronouns in Hindi/Urdu. In Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Selected South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology, Barbara C. Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 431-432. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1888. Altindische Syntax. Halle: Waisenhaus.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elizarenkova, Tatiana Y. 1982. Grammatika vedijskogo yazyka (Vedic grammar). Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Gaeffke, Peter. 1967. Untersuchungen zur Syntax des Hindi. The Hague: MoutonGoogle Scholar
Gusain, Lakhan. 2004. Marwari. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1986. P-oriented constructions in Sanskrit. In South Asian Languages: Structure, Convergence and Diglossia, Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Colin P. Masica & Anjani Kumar Sinha (eds.), 15-26. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
. 1991. Possessive agents in Sanskrit? In Studies in Sanskrit Syntax, Hock, Hans Henrich (ed.), 55-70. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter Edwin. 1992. On identifying the conceptual restructuring of passive as ergative in Indo-Aryan. In Pāninian Studies. Professor S.D. Joshi Felicitation Volume, Madhav M. Deshpande & Saroja Bhate (eds), 177-199. Ann Arbor MI: Center for South and South East Asian Studies, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter Edwin & Koul, Omkar N. 1992. Reflexive possessives in Kashmiri and Hindi-Urdu: Evidence for an antecedency hierarchy. South Asian Language Review 2(1): 68–83.Google Scholar
. 1984. Pronominal suffixes and split ergativity. In Aspects of Kashmiri Linguistics, Peter Edwin Hook & Omkar N. Koul (eds), 123-135. New Delhi: Bahri.Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W. 1979. The case of the agent in Indo-European. Die Sprache 25: 129-143.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna, Kachru, Braj B. & Bhatia, Tej K. 1976. The notion ‘subject’: A note on Hindi-Urdu, Kashmiri and Panjabi. In The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages [Department of South Asian Studies, Publication 2], Manindra K. Verma (ed.), 79-108. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Khokhlova, Liudmila V. 1989. Podlezhashchyje svojstva imennykh grupp v ergativoidnykh jazykakh Zapadnoj Indii. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta 13(4): 34-46.Google Scholar
. 1992. Trends in the development of ergativity in New Indo-Aryan. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 18: 71-97.Google Scholar
. 1995. On the development of patient-oriented constructions in Late Western NIA Languages. Osmania Papers in Linguistics. 21:15-52.Google Scholar
. 2001 Ergativity attrition in the history of Western New Indo-Aryan Languages (Hindi/Urdu, Punjabi, Gujarati and Rajasthani). The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 159-184.Google Scholar
. 2003 The distribution of analytic and synthetic passives in Indo-European languages of Western India (Hindi/Urdu, Punjabi, Gujarati and Rajasthani). In Studies in Honour of P.J. Mistry, Ritva Laury, Gerald McMenamin & Shigeko Okamoto (eds), 139-157. New Delhi: Creative Publishers.Google Scholar
Khokhlova, Liudmila V. & Singh, Charanjit. 2007. Resultative constructions with overt agent/possessor in Western NIA Languages (Hindi-Urdu, Punjabi, Gujarati, Rajasthani). In Old and New Perspectives on South Asian Languages. Grammar and Semantics, Colin P. Masica (ed.), 91-118. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej E. 1992. Ocherki po obshchim i prikladnym voprosam jazykoznanija. Moscow: Moscow University Press.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Alexander. 1997. Beyond Subject and Object: Towards a Comprehensive Relational Typology. Linguistic Typology 1: 279-346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam H. 1978. Arguments against a passive origin of the IA ergative. In Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting, 204–216. Chicago IL: CLS.
. 1979. On the status of subjecthood hierarchy in Hindi. IJDL 1(8):17–31.Google Scholar
. 1987. Mechanisms of ergativity in South Asia. Lingua 71: 61-102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klimov, Georgij A. 1983. Printsipi Kontensivnoy Typologiji (Principles of content typology). Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liperovsky, Vladimir P. 1988. Ocherk Grammatiki Sovremennogo Bradza (Short Braj grammar). Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Magier, David. 1983. Components of ergativity in Marwari. In Chicago Linguistic Socity. Papers from the 19th Regional Meeting , 244 -255. Chicago IL: CLS.
Mistry, P.J. 2004. Subjecthood of non-nominatives in Gujarati. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Language 61], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 1-32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montaut, Annie. 1994. Reflexivation et focalisation en Hindi/Ourdou. Bull. de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris. 89(1): 83–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Oblique main arguments in Hindi as localizing predications. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Language 61], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 33-56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John. 1998. Grammatical Relations in Pāli and the Emergence of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Pray, Bruce. 1976. From passive to ergative in Indo-Aryan. In The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages [Department of South Asian Studies Publication 2], Manindra K. Verma (ed.), 195–211. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Savelyeva, Liudmila V. 1965. Yazyk Gujarati. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Singh, R.A. 1980. Syntax of Apabhramsha. Calcutta: Simant Publications.Google Scholar
Stroński, Krzysztof. 2011. Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Speijer, Jan S. 1973[1886]. Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata. 1971. Notes on reflexivization in Hindi syntax. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 2(1): 180–214.Google Scholar
Swami, Narottamdas. 1960. Rajasthani vyakaran (in Rajasthani). Bikaner: Sadul Rajasthani Research Society.Google Scholar
Tessitory, Luigi P. 1914–1916. Notes on the grammar of Old Western Rajasthani with special reference to Apabhramsha and Gujarati and Marwari. Indian Antiquary. Hindi Translation by Namvar Singh, Nagaripracharini Sabha, Kashi, 1955.Google Scholar
Trask, R. Larry. 1979. On the origin of ergativity. In Ergativity. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Frans Plank (ed.) 385-404. London: Academic press.Google Scholar
Wali, Kashi & Koul, Omkar N. 1997. Kashmiri: A Cognitive Descriptive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Whitney, William D. 1969[1888]. Sanskrit Grammar. Delhi: Motilal BanarsidassGoogle Scholar
Zakharyin, Boris. 1979. On the formation of ergativity in Indo-Aryan and Dardic. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 5: 50-71.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Zúñiga, Fernando
2018. The diachrony of morphosyntactic alignment. Language and Linguistics Compass 12:9 DOI logo
Bubenik, Vit
2017. Uta Reinöhl: Grammaticalization and the rise of configurationality in Indo-Aryan . Folia Linguistica 51:s38-s1 ► pp. 363 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.