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. 237–258

Syntactic lability vs. ergativity in Indo-Aryan

| Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
Contemporary IA languages are considered to be purely nominative at the level of syntax. Ergativity is restricted to the morphological domain. However the scrutiny of certain syntactic constructions such as converbal clause chaining or coordinate conjunction reduction shows that they are not necessarily sensitive to the basic grammatical relations (Bickel & Yādava 2000), in other words, the notion of pivot is not fully operational in the IA languages. The aim of the present paper is to demonstrate that apart from the dominating syntactic A/S pivot early NIA shows: (a) instances of converbs not controlled by the A of the main clause and (b) the dropped element in coordinate or certain subordinate constructions is not always an A/S argument. The alleged syntactic lability will be observed diachronically in four dialectal groups, namely Rajasthani, Pahari, Western Hindi and Eastern Hindi.
Published online: 14 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.112.08str
References (45)
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On the mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 217–264. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bāhrī, Hardev. 1981. Sūr śabd-sāgar. Ilāhābād: Smṛti Prakāśan.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Yādava, Yogendra P., 2000. A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110: 342-373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bubenik, Vit. 1989. On the origins and elimination of ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34(4): 377–398.Google Scholar
. 1993. Morphological and syntactic change in Late Middle Indo-Aryan. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 21(3-4): 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
Butt, Miriam. 2005. The dative-ergative connection, 1-31. <[URL]>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
Cardona, George. 1976. Subject in Sanskrit. In The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages [South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2], Manindra K. Verma (ed.), 1–38. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grierson George A., 1916. Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. IX, Part IV: Specimens of the Pahari Languages and Gujuri. Calcutta.Google Scholar
Hendriksen, Hans. 1986. Himachali Studies, III: Grammar [Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 48(3)]. København: Munksgaard.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
Hook, Peter E. 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: Sang-e-Meel and Lok Virsa.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. 1980. Aspects of Hindi Grammar. New Delhi: Manohar Publications.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna, Kachru, Braj B. & Bhatia, Tej K. 1976. The notion of ‘subject. A note on Hindi-Urdu, Kashmiri and Panjabi. In The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages [South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2], Manindra K. Verma (ed.), 79-109. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Khokhlova, Ludmila V. 1995. The development of patient-oriented constructions in Late Western NIA Languages. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 21: 15–51.Google Scholar
. 2000. Typological evolution of Western NIA Languages. Berliner Indologische Studien (BIS) 13-14: 117–142.Google Scholar
. 2001. Ergativity attrition in the history of Western New Indo –Aryan languages (Punjabi, Gujarati and Rajasthani). The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 159–184.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
Montaut, Annie. 2001. La notion de sujet en hindi moderne constitue-t-elle une catégorie pertinente? Sur la dissymétrie entre catégories morpho-syntaxique, sémantique et discursive’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris XCVI(1): 311–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004a. Oblique main arguments in Hindi /Urdu as localizing predications. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Lanugage 61], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 33–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. A Grammar of Hindi. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari & Kachru, Yamuna 1977. Relational grammar, ergativity and Hindi-Urdu. Lingua 41: 217–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John. 1998. Grammatical Relations in Pali and the Emergence of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Pirejko, Lija A. 1968. Osnovnyje voprosy ergativnosti na materiale indoiranskich jazykov. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Poudel, Tikaram. 2008. Ergativity in Nepali: A historical perspective. Paper presented at the Workshop on Case and Alignment in Indo-European University of Bergen, 10–11 December.
Šamatov, Azad N. 1974. Klassičeskij dakxini. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Śarmā, Śrīrām. 1964. Dakkhinī hindī kā udbhav aur vikās. Pryāg: Hindī Sāhitya Sammelan.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Rolf. 1977. Untersuchungen zum Absolutiv in modernen Hindi. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Snell, Rupert. 1991. The Hindi Classical Tradition: A Braj Bhāṣā Reader. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Stroński, Krzysztof. 2011. Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Ṭaṇḍan, Premnārayāṇ. 1962. Brajbhāṣā – vyākaraṇ kī rūprekhā. Lakhnaū: Lakhnaū Viśvavidyālay.Google Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil. 1995. Burushaski converbs in their South and Central Asian areal context. In Converbs in Cross-linguistic Perspective, Haspelmath Martin & König Ekkehard, (eds), 487-528. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert, Jr. 1993. A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In Advances in Role and Reference Grammar [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 82], Robert Van Valin Jr. (ed.), 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje. 2011. Ergativity and Alignment in Indo-Aryan. PhD Dissertation, Ghent University.
. 2013. Differential subject marking in Nepali: The agent marker le in imperfective constructions. Linguistics 51(3): 585�610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verma, Manindra K. 1976. The notion of subject and the data from Nepali. In The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages [South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2], Manindra K. Verma (ed.), 270–286. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Yadāv, Śankar Lāl. (n.d.). Ahīrvāṭī. In Hariyāṇā kī upbhāṣāe, Śārdā Sādhurām (ed.) 193–269. Caṇḍīgaṛh: Nideśak, Bhāšā Vibhāg, Hariyāṇā. (27444 Govt. Press, Chandigarh).
Zoller, Claus P. 2008. Genitive marking of subjects in West Pahāṛī. Acta Orientalia 69. 121–151.Google Scholar