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. 201–236

The restoration of the ergative case marking of ‘A’ in perfective clauses in New Indo-Aryan

The case of the Braj language*

| Ca' Foscari University of Venice
The development of the ergative construction in the New Indo-Aryan period is still not totally clear. In particular we don’t know the process of grammaticalization of the new analytical ergative marker, the postposition ne, found, among others, in Hindī and Pañjābī. This study tries to demonstrate that if it is true that the “macro-history” of this form suggests that the discriminatory function of case marking is clearly important in the beginning of its process of diffusion and stabilization, it is also true that there is no single interpretation as regards its high initial variability. In fact, starting from data taken from prose texts written in the old Hindī literary variety known as Braj-bhās�ā, the full set of conditions on case alternations for A in the perfective aspect is really complex.
Published online: 14 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.112.07dro
References (93)
References
Andersen, Paul Kent. 1986a. Die ta-Partizipialkonstruktion bei Aśoka: Passiv oder Ergativ? Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Sprachforschung 99: 75-94.Google Scholar
. 1986b. The genitive agent in Rigvedic passive constructions. In Collectanea linguistica in honorem Adami Heinz [Prace Komisji Językoznawstwa 53], 9-13. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On mechanism by which languages become ergative. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, Charles N. Li (ed.), 317-363. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Arnot, Sandford. 1831. A New Self-instructing Grammar of the Hindustani Tongue, the Most Useful and General Language of British India, in the Oriental and Roman Character (With Appendix of Reading Exercises and Vocabulary). London.Google Scholar
Balbir, Nicole de Tugny. 1991. De Fort William au hindi littéraire: La transformation de la Khari boli en langue littéraire moderne au XIXe siècle. In Littératures médiévales de l’Inde du Nord, Françoise Mallison & Charlotte Vaudeville (eds), 187-204. Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, James R. 1838. Grammar of the Hindustani Language, with Grammatical Exercices. London.Google Scholar
Barz, Richard K. 1976. The Bhakti Sect of Vallabhācārya. Faridabad: Thompson Press India.Google Scholar
. 1982. A beginning in prose: Some steps in the emergence of modern Hindi literature. South Asia 5(1): 5-15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beames, John. 1872-1879. A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India. London: Trubner & Co. (reprint 1966, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal).Google Scholar
Bhardwaj, Mangat R. 1995. Colloquial Panjabi. A Complete Language Course. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Tej K. 1981. The treatment of transitivity in the Hindi grammatical tradition. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11(2): 195-208.Google Scholar
. 1987. A History of the Hindi Grammatical Tradition. Hindi-Hindustani Grammar, Grammarians, History and Problems. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
. 1993. Punjabi. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2000. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Punjabi. In Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Selected South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology, Barbara C. Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds), 637-715. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloch, Jules. 1906. La phrase nominale en sanskrit [Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique XIV]. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
. 1920. La formation de la langue marathe. Paris: E. Champion.Google Scholar
. 1934. L’indo-aryen du véda au temps moderne. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve (English edition largely revised by the author and translated by Alfred Master, Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1965).Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit. 1993. Morphological and syntactic change in Late Middle Indo-Aryan. Journal of Indo-European Studies 21: 259-281.Google Scholar
. 1996. The Structure and Development of Middle Indo-Aryan Dialects. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
. 1998. A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa) [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 165]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burrow, Thomas. 1955. The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Busch, Allison. 2010. Hidden in plain view: Brajbhasha poets at the Mughal court. Modern Asian Studies 44(2): 267-309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2003. Argument realization in Punjabi. Workshop ‘Case, Valency and Transitivity’: Nijmegen, June 17-19, 2003.
. 2006. The dative-ergative connection. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), 69-92. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora. 2005. Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(1): 1-72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chatterji, Suniti K. 1926. The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
. 1960. Indo-Aryan and Hindi. Calcutta: Calcutta University.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology, Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), 329-394. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Alignment of case marking. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 398-405. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dās, Śyāmasundara. (ed.) 1925. Rānī ketakī kī kahānī (of Iṁśā Allāha Khān). Vārāṇasī: Nāgarī Pracāriṇī Sabhā.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini & Sharma, Devyani. 2006. Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages. Linguistic Typology 10(3): 369-418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drocco, Andrea. 2008. L’ergatività in hindī. Studio diacronico del processo di diffusione della posposizione ‘ne’. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
. 2010. La concordanza verbale nelle costruzioni transitive al passato della braja-bhāṣā. In Tīrthayātrā. Essays in Honour of Stefano Piano, Pinuccia Caracchi, Antonella S. Comba, Alessandra Consolaro & Alberto Pelissero (eds), 161-185. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Eastwick, Edward B. (ed.). 1851. The Prem Ságar; or the Ocean of Love, Being a History of Kṛiṣhṇa, According to the Tenth Chapter of the Bhágavat of Vyásadev, Translated into Hindí from the Braj Bhákhá of Chaturbhuj Misr, by Lallú Lál, late Bhákhá Múnshí of the College of Fort William, A New Edition with a Vocabulary. Printed (for the Hon. East-India Company) by Stephen Austin, bookseller, etc., to the East India College, Hertford.
. (ed.). 1855. The Baitál Pachísí; or, Twenty-five tales of a demon, by Mazhar ‘Alī Khāna Whā & Lallūjī Lāla. A new edition of the Hindí text, with each word expressed in the Hindústání character immediately under the corresponding word in the nágarí; and with a perfectly literal English interlinear translation, accompanied by a free translation in English at the foot of each page, and explanatory notes: by W. Burckhardt Barker, M.R.A.S., oriental interpreter; and Professor of Arabic, Turkish, Persian, and Hindústání languages at Eton. Hertford: Printed and published by Stephen Austin. Bookseller to the East India College.Google Scholar
. (ed.). 1858. A Concise Grammar of the Hindustani Language, to which are added Selections for Reading. (2nd edn, enlarged, with a vocabulary, dialogues, twelve fac-similes of Persian and Devanagari writing, &c. by the Rev. George Small). London: Bernard Quaritch, Oriental Publisher.Google Scholar
Estival, Dominique & Myhill, John. 1988. Formal and functional aspects of the development from passive to ergative systems. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 441-491. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9(1): 77-113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forbes, Duncan. 1855. A Grammar of the Hindústání Language in the Oriental and Roman Character, with Numerous Copper-plate Illustrations of the Persian and Devanágarí Systems of Alphabetic Writing: To Which is Added a Copious Selection of Easy Extracts for Reading, in the Persi-Arabic and Devanágarí Characters, Forming a Complete Introduction to the Totá-Kahání and Bágh-o-Bahár, Together with a Vocabulary of all the Words, and Various Explanatory Notes. London: Wm. H. Allen and Co.Google Scholar
. 1860. The Hindūstānī Manual: A Pocket-Companion for Those who Visit India in any Capacity; Intended to Facilitate the Essential Attainments of Conversing with Fluency and Composing with Accuracy in the most Useful of all the Languages Spoken in our Eastern Empire. In two Parts. Part I. – A Compendious Grammar of the Language. Part II. – A Vocabulary of Useful Words, English and Hindūstānī. (3rd edn, much enlarged and improved). London: Wm. H. Allen and Co.Google Scholar
Garcin de Tassy, Joseph H. 1829. Rudiments de la Langue hindoustanie, à l’Usage des Élèves de l’École Royale et Spéciale des Langues Orientales Vivantes. Paris.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, John B. 1796. A Grammar of the Hindoostanee Language, or Part Third of Volume First of a System of Hindoostanee Philology. Calcutta.Google Scholar
Gricourt, Marguerite. 1988. Le Sab Ras de Vajhī (1634/35). Thèse de nouveau doctorat soutenue à l’Université Paris III (non publiée).
Haig, Geoffrey L.J. 2008. Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawley, John S. 1979. The early Sūr Sāgar and the growth of the Sūr tradition. Journal of the American Oriental Society 99(1): 64-72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. Sūr Dās. Poet, Singer, Saint. Delhi: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2007. Braj: Fishing in Sur’s ocean. In Krishna. A Sourcebook, Edwin F. Bryant (ed. ), 223-240. Oxford: OUP.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
Hoernle, A.F. Rudolf. 1880. A Comparative Grammar of the Gauḍian (Aryo-Indian) Languages. Amsterdam: Philo Press.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter E. 1992. On identifying the conceptual restructuring of passive as ergative in Indo-Aryan. In Pāṇinian studies. Professor S. D. Joshi Felicitation Volume, Madhav M. Deshpande & Saroja Bhate (eds), 177-199. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Hultzsch, Eugen. 1924[1991]. Inscriptions of Aśoka [Corpus Inscriptiorum Indicarum I]. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W. 2000. Lurching towards ergativity: Expressions of agency in the Niya documents. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 63(1): 64-80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, Henry S. 1893. A grammar of the Hindi language, rev. edn. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. (1990: reprinted from the 2nd edn).Google Scholar
Khokhlova, Ludmila V. 1992. Trends in the development of ergativity in New Indo-Aryan. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 18: 71-97.Google Scholar
. 1995. The development of patient-oriented constructions in Late Western NIA Languages. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 21: 15-54.Google Scholar
. 2001. Ergativity attrition in the history of Western New Indo-Aryan languages. In The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, Tokyo Symposium on South Asian Languages. Contact, Convergence and Typology, Rajendra Singh (ed.), 159-184. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
. 2006. Sintaktičeskaja evolucija zapadnych novoindijskich jazykov v 15–20 vv. In Aspekty komparativistiki. Anna V. Dybo, Vladimir A. Dybo, Oleg A. Mudrak & George S. Starostin (eds), 151–186. Moskva: Rosijskij Gosudarstvennyj Gumanitarnyj Universitet (Orientalia et Classica: Trudy Instituta Vostočnych Kultur i Antičnosti: Vypusk VIII).Google Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam H. 1978. Arguments against a passive origin of the IA ergative. Papers from the Regional Meetings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 14: 204-216.
. 1987. Mechanisms of ergativity in South Asia. Lingua 71: 61-102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liperovskij, Vladimir P. 2007. Notes on the marking of actants in Braj (in comparison with Modern Standard Hindi). In Old and New Perspectives on S. Asian Languages: Grammar and Semantics, Colin P. Masica (ed.), 144-152. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Monier-Williams, Monier. 1860. Hindústání Primer; Containing a First Grammar Suited to Beginners and a Vocabulary of Common Words on Various Subjects. Together with Useful Phrases and Short Stories. London.Google Scholar
Montaut, Annie. 2007. The evolution of the tense-aspect system in Hindi/Urdu, and the status of the ergative alignment. In Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 365-385. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2009. Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 480–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120: 1610–1636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, Ronald S. 1968. The Language of Indrajit of Orchā. A Study of early Braj Bhāsā prose. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1974. Hindi Literature of The Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nespital, Helmut. 1998. The linguistic structure of Hindavī, Dakkhinī, Early Urdū and Early Khaṛī Bolī Hindī. Berliner Indologische Studien 11-12: 195-217.Google Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari & Kachru, Yamuna. 1977. Relational grammar, ergativity, and Hindi-Urdu. Lingua 41: 217-238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John M. 1998. Grammatical relations in Pāli and the Emergence of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Munich: Lincom.Google 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. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pischel, Richard. 1965. A Grammar of the Prākrit Languages. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (2nd rev. edn, translated from German by Subhandra Jha).Google Scholar
Pray, Bruce R. 1976. From passive to ergative in Indo-Aryan. In The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages, Manindra K. Verma (ed.), 195-211. Madison WI: Department of South Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Price, William. 1827-28. A new Grammar of the Hindoostanee Language, with Selections from the Best Authors, to Which are Added Familiar Phrases and Dialogues in the Proper Character. London.Google Scholar
Saksenā, Baburam. 1971. The Evolution of Avadhi, 2nd edn. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Saulih, Mirza M. & Price, William. 1823. A Grammar of the Three Principal Oriental Languages, Hindoostanee, Persian, and Arabic, to Which is Added, a Set of Persian Dialogues, Accompanied with an English Translation. London: Kingsbury, Parbury, and Allen.Google Scholar
Shakespear, John. 1813. A Grammar of the Hindustani Language. London.Google Scholar
Sigorsky, Alexander A. 2007. Case, split nominativity, split ergativity, and split accusativity in Hindi: A historical perspective. In Old and New Perspectives on S. Asian Languages: Grammar and Semantics, Colin P. Masica (ed.), 34-61. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.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
Śivprasad, Bábú. 1870. Guṭaka or Selections. C. S. I. Benares: Printed at the Medical Hall Press.Google Scholar
Smith, John D. 1975. An introduction to the language of the historical documents from Rajasthan. Modern Asian Studies 9(4): 433-464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell, Rupert. 1992. The Hindi Classical Tradition. A Braj Bhāṣā Reader. New Delhi: Heritage Publishers.Google Scholar
Śrīvāstav, Dayanand. 1970. Historical Syntax of Early Hindi Prose. Calcutta: Atima Prakashan.Google Scholar
Stroński, Krzysztof. 2009. On the origin and function of the ergative postposition in Hindī and its varieties. Rocznik Orientalistyczny (Annual of Oriental Studies) 62(1): 175-186.Google Scholar
. 2011. Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1983. The elimination of ergative patterns of case marking and verbal agreement in Modern Indic Languages. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 27: 140-164.Google Scholar
Tessitori, Luigi P. 1913. On the origin of the dative and genitive postpositions in Gujarati and Marwari. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 553-567.Google Scholar
. 1916. Notes on the Grammar of Old Western Rājasthānī with Special Reference to Apabhraṃça and to Gujarātī and Mārwāṛī. Bombay: Printed at the British India Press, Mazgaon. (Reprinted from the Indian Antiquary).Google Scholar
Varma, Dhirendra 1965. La langue Braj (avant-propos de Jules Bloch). Paris: Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje 2013. Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje & De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2009. The rise of ergativity in Hindi: Assessing the role of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 30: 1-24.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1981. Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 43-80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yates, William 1827. Introduction to the Hindustani Language in Three Parts. Calcutta: The Baptist Mission Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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.