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. 403–424

Chapter 12
Generic person marking in Japhug and other Gyalrong languages

This paper discusses the history of generic person marking systems in several Gyalrong languages. While closely related, Japhug and Tshobdun differ considerably: the inverse prefix marks generic A in Japhug, while it appears in the generic P form in Tshobdun. We propose a historical scenario to explain how such radically different systems came into being, proposing in particular that one of the generic human markers was grammaticalized from a nominalizer, and show that our reconstruction can also explain the origin of the local scenario portmanteau 1→2 and 2→1 prefixes. These reconstructions allow us to establish the existence of several previously unattested grammaticalization pathways.
Keywords: Gyalrong, Japhug, Tshobdun, Situ, inverse, generic, passive, grammaticalization, hierarchical agreement, nominalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Inverse and generic marking in Japhug
    • 2.1The verbal paradigms
    • 2.2Inverse in non-local scenarios
    • 2.3Generic marking
    • 2.4Inclusive vs exclusive generic marking
  • 3.Nominalization in Japhug
    • 3.1Overview of participle prefixes in Japhug
    • 3.2Nominalization and generic
  • 4. Tshobdun and Situ
    • 4.1Generic person marking and nominalization in Tshobdun
    • 4.2Generic person marking and nominalisation in Situ
  • 5.Historical perspectives
    • 5.1From nominalization to generic marking
    • 5.2The origin of the local scenario portmanteau prefixes
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.12jac
References (32)
References
Aissen, Judith. 1997. On the syntax of obviation. Language 73(4): 705–750. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Gaenzle, Martin, Rai, Arjun, Shoj Rai, Prem, Rai, Shree Kumar, Rai, Vishnu & Sharma, Narayan P. 2007. Two ways of suspending object agreement in Puma: Between incorporation, antipassivization, and optional agreement. Himalayan Linguistics Journal 7: 1–19.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 6(1): 83–101.Google Scholar
. 2010. Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics 9(1): 1–39.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1994. The discourse function of the Kutenai inverse. In Voice and Inversion [Typological Studies in Language 28], Talmy Givón (ed.), 65–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2011. Ute Reference Grammar [Culture and Language Use. Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gong, Xun. 2014. Personal agreement system of Zbu rGyalrong (Ngyaltsu variety). Transactions of the Philological Society 112(1): 44–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14(1): 25–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2004. Phonologie et morphologie du japhug (Rgyalrong). PhD dissertation, Université Paris VII – Denis Diderot.Google Scholar
. 2010. The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong. Language and Linguistics 11(1): 127–157.Google Scholar
. 2012a. Agreement morphology: The case of Rgyalrongic and Kiranti. Language and Linguistics 13(1): 83–116.Google Scholar
. 2012b. Argument demotion in Japhug Rgyalrong. In Ergativity, Valency and Voice, Katharina Haude & Gilles Authier (eds), 199–226. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012c. From denominal derivation to incorporation. Lingua 122(11): 1207–1231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014a. Clause linking in Japhug Rgyalrong. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2): 263–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. Denominal affixes as sources of antipassive markers in Japhug Rgyalrong. Lingua 138: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Subjects, objects and relativization in Japhug. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 44(1): 1–28.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume & Antonov, Anton. 2014. Direct / inverse systems. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(7): 301–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konnerth, Linda. 2016. The Proto-Tibeto-Burman *gV- nominalizing prefix. Linguistics of the Tibeto Burman Area, University of Oregon 39(1): 3–32.Google Scholar
Lai, Yunfan. 2013. La morphologie affixale du lavrung wobzi. MA thesis, Université Paris III.Google Scholar
. 2015. The person agreement system of Wobzi Lavrung (Rgyalrongic, Tibeto-Burman). Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3): 271–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Youjing. 2009. Units in Zhuokeji rGyalrong Discourse: Prosody and Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Lín, Xiàngróng (林向榮). 1993. Jiāróngyǔyánjiū 嘉戎語研究 (A study on the Rgyalrong language). Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd, Mazaudon, Martine, Michaud, Alexis, Guillaume, Séverine, François, Alexandre & Adamou, Evangelia. 2014. Documenting and researching endangered languages: The Pangloss Collection. Language Documentation and Conservation 8: 119–135.Google Scholar
Sansò, Andrea. Under review. Nominalization-based voice constructions as a cross-linguistic type.
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2000. Parallelisms in the verb morphology of Sidaba rGyalrong and Lavrung in rGyalrongic. Language and Linguistics 1(1): 161–190.Google Scholar
2003. Caodeng rGyalrong. In The Sino-Tibetan languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds), 490–502. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2014. Typology of generic-person marking in Tshobdun Rgyalrong. In Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Dialect, Phonology, Transcription and Text, Richard VanNess Simmons & Newell Ann Van Auken (eds), 225–248. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
2015. 黑水縣沙石多嘉戎語動詞人稱範疇的特點 (Remarkable features in the verb agreement system of Sastod Rgyalrong in Khrochu county). Language and Linguistics 16(5): 731–750.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Lin, Youjing. 2007. Constructional variation in rGyalrong relativization: How to make a choice? In Pre-Conference Proceedings of the International Workshop on Relative Clauses, 205–226. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Shi, Danluo. 2002. Caodeng Jiarongyu yu rentong dengdi xiangguan de yufa xianxiang 草登嘉戎語與「認同等第」相關的語法現象 (Empathy hierarchy in Caodeng rGyalrong grammar). Language and Linguistics 3(1): 79–99.Google Scholar
Wei, Jie-Wu. 2001. Verbal prefixation in Zhuokeji Rgyalrong: The problem of kə-/ka- alternation. MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University.Google Scholar
Zhang, Shuya. To appear. From proximate/obviative to number marking: Reanalysis of hierarchical indexation in rgyalrong languages. Journal of Chinese Linguistics.
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Jacques, Guillaume & Thomas Pellard
2021. Phylogenies based on lexical innovations refute the Rung hypothesis. Diachronica 38:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pons, Marie-Caroline
2021. On the origin of 2nd person prefix #tV- in Trans-Himalayan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 44:2 ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo
DeLancey, Scott
2018. Chapter 10. Deictic and sociopragmatic effects in Tibeto-Burman SAP indexation. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 343 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.