Cover not available
Part of
Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony
Edited by Sonia Cristofaro and Fernando Zúñiga
[Typological Studies in Language 121] 2018
► pp. 343–376

Chapter 10
Deictic and sociopragmatic effects in Tibeto-Burman SAP indexation

| University of Oregon
The study of hierarchical argument indexation systems shows that while the ranking of both 1st and 2nd person over other arguments is robust and reliable, it is impossible to find any compelling crosslinguistic evidence for one or the other ranking of the two Speech Act Participants, and rare to find a consistent ranking even within a single language. This paper assembles and reviews historical changes in the indexation of the “local” categories (1→2 and 2→1) in a number of Tibeto-Burman languages. We see that the fundamental deictic ranking SAP > 3 is conservative, and inverse marking to emphasize that ranking has been reinvented several times in the family. Changes in the marking of local categories are more diverse, but two phenomena recur independently in different languages and branches: a tendency for the 1→2 form to be uniquely marked, sometimes with forms which are not synchronically relatable to anything else in the paradigm, and a contrasting tendency for the 2→1 form to merge with the marking of 3→1. I propose that these tendencies reflect what I call sociopragmatic effects, i.e. the socially delicate nature of any and all natural utterances involving both the speaker and the addressee.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Problems of hierarchy
    • 2.1The structure of hierarchical paradigms
    • 2.2Problems of local indexation
    • 2.3Accounts of hierarchy
    • 2.4Sociopragmatic effects in Tibeto-Burman morphological change
  • 3.Deictic effects in hierarchical systems
    • 3.1The original inverse in Rgyalrongic
    • 3.2Innovative inverses in Northern Naga
  • 4.Sociopragmatic effects in hierarchical indexation systems
    • 4.1Merger of 1O forms in Kiranti
    • 4.2The “marked scenario”
  • 5.Deictic and sociopragmatic effects
    • 5.1Reviewing the evidence
    • 5.2Typology, genre, and person
    • 5.3Patterns
    • 5.4 Sociopragmatic just-so stories: It’s always about you
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.10del
References (73)
References
Barnard, John Terence Owen. 1934. A Handbook of the Rawang Dialect of the Nung Language. Rangoon: Supdt., Govt. Printing and Stationery.Google Scholar
Bauman, James. 1975. Pronouns and Pronominal Morphology in Tibeto-Burman. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations. In Case and Grammatical Relations, Greville Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds), 191–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Iemmolo, Giorgio, Zakharko, Taras & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2013. Patterns of alignment in verb agreement. In Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 15–36. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Gaenszle, Martin. 2015. First person objects, antipassives, and the political history of the Southern Kirant. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2(1): 63–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boro, Krishna. 2017. A Grammar of Hakhun Tangsa. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora. 1998. Inverse direction and second person in Dumi. In Typology of Verbal Categories, Leonid Kulikov & Heinz Vater (eds), 85–93. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caughley, Ross. 1978. Participant rank and verbal cross-reference in Chepang. In Papers on discourse, Joseph Grimes (ed.), 163–78. Dallas TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 1982. The Syntax and Morphology of the Verb in Chepang [Pacific Linguistics Series B, no. 84]. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Chhangte, Lalnunthangi. 1993. Mizo Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language 7: 33–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981a. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3): 626–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1981b. The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 6(1): 83–101.Google Scholar
. 1985. The analysis-synthesis-lexis cycle in Tibeto-Burman: A case study in motivated change. In Iconicity in Syntax [Typological Studies in Language 6], John Haiman (ed.), 367–389. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics 9(1): 1–38. <[URL]> (24 April 2014).
. 2011a. Agreement prefixes in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics 10(1): 1–35. <[URL]> (24 April 2014).
. 2011b. Nocte and Jinghpaw: Morphological correspondences. In North East Indian Linguistics 3, Gwendolyn Hyslop, Stephen Morey & Mark Post (eds), 61–75. New Delhi: Foundation/CUP India. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Argument indexation (verb agreement) in Kuki-Chin. presented at the 46th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Dartmouth College. <[URL]> (10 November 2015).
. 2014. Second person verb forms in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(1): 3–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Driem, George. 1988. The verbal morphology of Dumi Rai simplicia. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 11(1): 134–207.Google Scholar
. 1993. A Grammar of Dumi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen. 1987. Grammatical marking of Speech Act Participants in Tibeto-Burman. Journal of Pragmatics 11(4): 473–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. On the evidence for the relationship Kiranti-Rung. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 13(1): 57–58.Google Scholar
. 1991. Inverse and pseudo-inverse prefixes in Kiranti languages: Evidence from Belhare. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1): 73–92.Google Scholar
. 1994. The Structure of Kiranti Languages [Arbeiten des Seminars für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 13]. Zurich: Universität Zurich.Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9(1): 77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Jirsa, Bill. 2006. The Principle of Indirect Means in language use and language structure. Journal of Pragmatics 38(4): 513–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1988. Notes on the structure of the Sunwari transitive verb. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 11(2): 62–92.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1994. Semantic and pragmatic inverse: ‘Inverse alignment’ and ‘inverse voice’ in Carib of Surinam. In Voice and Inversion [Typological Studies in Language 28], T. Givón (ed), 187–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Jansen, Joana. 2018. The development of referential hierarchy effects in Sahaptian. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language 121], Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1994. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. In Voice and Inversion [Typological Studies in Language 28], T. Givón (ed), 3–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gong, Xun. 2014. The personal agreement system of Zbu Rgyalrong (Ngyaltsu variety). Transactions of the Philological Society 112(1): 44–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1991. Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, Frans Plank (ed.), 75–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Pragmatic skewing in 1 ←→ 2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64(2): 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Eugénie Jane Andrina. 1965. Tiddim Chin: A Descriptive Analysis of Two Texts. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2004. Phonologie et morphologie du japhug (Rgyalrong). PhD dissertation, Université Paris VII.Google Scholar
. 2010. The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong. Language and Linguistics 11(1): 127–157.Google Scholar
. 2012. Agreement morphology: The case of Rgyalrong and Kiranti. Languages and Linguistics 13(1): 83–116.Google Scholar
. 2018. Generic person marking in Japhug and other Gyalrong languages. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language Typological Studies in Language 121], Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume)DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume & Antonov, Anton. 2014. Direct/inverse systems. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(7): 301–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The direction(s) of analogical change in direct/inverse systems. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language 121], Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, Lahaussois, Aimée, Michailovsky, Boyd & Bahadur Rai, Dhan. 2012. An overview of Khaling verbal morphology. Language and Linguistics 13(6): 1095–1170.Google Scholar
King, John. 2002. Marked transitive scenarios and archaic biactinal agreement morphology in Dhimal. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 34: 39–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kongkham, Hemabati. 2010. A Descriptive Grammar of Moyon. PhD dissertation, Manipur University.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lahaussois, Aimee. 2003. Thulung Rai. Himalayan Linguistics Archive 1: 1–25. <[URL]> (10 November 2015).
Lai, Yunfan. 2015. The person agreement system of Wobzi Lavrung (rGyalrongic, Tibeto-Burman). Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3): 271–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy. 2010. Hierarchical person marking in the Rawang language. In Forty Years of Sino-Tibetan Language Studies: Proceedings of ICSTLL-40, Dai Zhaoming (ed.), 107–113. Heilongjiang: Heilongjiang University Press.Google Scholar
Lo, Ch’ang-p’ei. 1945. A preliminary study on the Trung language of Kung Shan. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 8: 343–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, Hunter & Macaulay, Monica. 2012. Prominence hierarchies. Language and Linguistics Compass 6–7: 431–446.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Monica. 2009. On prominence hierarchies: Evidence from Algonquian. Linguistic Typology 13(3): 357–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morey, Stephen. 2016. The internal diversity of Tangsa: Vocabulary and morphosyntax. In Language and Culture in Northeast India and Beyond: In Honor of Robbins Burling, Mark Post, Stephen Morey & Scott DeLancey (eds), 23–40. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Morse, Robert. 1965. Syntactic frames for the Rvwang (Rawang) verb. Lingua 15: 338–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter & Harré, Rom. 1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Opgenort, Jean. 2004. A Grammar of Wambule. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris. 1994. The Tupí-Guaraní inverse. In Voice: Form and Function [Typological Studies in Language 27], Barbara Fox, & Paul Hopper (eds), 313–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reichle, Verena. 1981. Bawm Language and Lore. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sharma, H Surmangol. & Singh, N. Gopendro. 2011. Person-marking prefixes of Purum. In North East Indian Linguistics 3, Gwendolyn Hyslop, Stephen Morey & Mark Post (eds), 61–75. New Delhi: Foundation/CUP India. DOI logoGoogle 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
Sun, Hongkai. 1982. Dulong yu jianzhi (Outline of Trung). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
. 1983. Wo guo zang-mian yu dungci-de rencheng fanchou (The category of personal agreement of the verb in Tibeto-Burman languages of China). Minzu Yuwen 1983(2): 17–29.Google Scholar
. 1984. Woguo bufen ZangMianyu zhong mingci de rencheng lingshu fanchou (The personal possessive category of nouns in some Tibeto-Burman languages of China). Zhongyang Minzu Xuebao 1984(1): 78–84.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson Tianshin. 2014. Typology of generic-person marking in Tshobdun Rgyalrong. In Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Dialect, Phonology, Transcription and Text, Richard Simmons & Newell Ann Van Auken (eds), 225–248. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson Tianshin & Shi, Danluo. 2002. Caodeng Jiarongyu yu “rentong dengdi” xiangguan de yufa xianxiang (The Empathy Hierarchy in Caodeng rGyalrong grammar). Language and Linguistics 3(1): 79–99.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson Tianshin & Qianzi, Tian. 2013. Huoeryu Gexihua dongci dueixie (Verb agreement in Gexi Horpa). Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 7(2): 221–241.Google Scholar
Thompson, Chad. 1990. On the treatment of topical objects in Chepang: Passive or inverse? Studies in Language 14(2):405–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toba, Sueyoshi. 1979. Khaling (Asian and African Grammatical Manual 13d). Tokyo: Tokyo Gaikokugo Daigaku.Google Scholar
Watters, David. 2002. A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weidert, Alfons. 1985. Paradigmatic typology and verb agreement analysis. In Studia Linguistica Diachronica et Synchronica: Werner Winter Sexagenario Anno MCMLXXXIII, Ursula Pieper & Gerhard Stickel (eds), 903–936. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart, Zúñiga, Fernando & Bickel, Balthasar. 2016. Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments and conditions on alignment. Linguistics 54(3): 531–561.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and Alignment: Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas [Typological Studies in Language 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. How many hierarchies, really? Evidence from several Algonquian languages. In Scales [Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86], Marc Richards & Andrej Malchukov (eds), 277–294. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

DeLancey, Scott
2021. Differential innovation in 2nd person pronouns and agreement indexation in Trans-Himalayan languages. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s1 ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Jacques, Guillaume & Thomas Pellard
2021. Phylogenies based on lexical innovations refute the Rung hypothesis. Diachronica 38:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Konnerth, Linda
2021. On the nature of inverse systems. Diachronica 38:1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Konnerth, Linda & Andrea Sansò
2021. Towards a diachronic typology of individual person markers. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gildea, Spike & Joana Jansen
2018. Chapter 4. The development of referential hierarchy effects in Sahaptian. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo
Guillaume, Antoine
2018. Chapter 6. From ergative case-marking to hierarchical agreement. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2018. Tone assignment and grammatical tone in Anal (Tibeto-Burman). Studies in Language 42:3 ► pp. 708 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.