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
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

Cited by 2 other publications

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 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.