Cover not available
Part of
Argument Selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations
Edited by Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel
[Typological Studies in Language 123] 2019
► pp. 469–510

Grammatical relations in Yakkha (Kiranti)

This article provides an analysis of the grammatical relations in Yakkha (Tibeto-Burman, Kiranti; Eastern Nepal). The study is based on the typological-theoretical framework established in Bickel (2011a) and Witzlack-Makarevich (2011). Yakkha does not have a dominant grammatical relation. It is rather a prime example for how diverse alignment patterns can be in a single language. The alignment patterns established by some argument selectors are role-based (i.e. accusative, ergative, etc.), while other argument selectors, particularly the verbal person marking, prefer reference-based selection principles. The verbal person marking is the core around which all morphosyntactic processes revolve. An intransitive and a transitive inflectional paradigms can be distinguished. Combined with different case marking options, several verb frames can be identified. Yakkha also has a number of operations affecting valency and transitivity. This article discusses the causative, the benefactive, the reflexive, the reciprocal, the middle, as well as the unmarked passive and antipassive. Yakkha also has a number of biclausal argument selectors: Whereas converbal clauses and participant nominalization show accusative alignment, relativization shows ergative alignment.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Verbal person marking
  • 3.Valency
    • 3.1Frames of intransitive inflection
      • The standard intransitive frame
      • The intransitive experiencer frame
      • The motion verb frame
    • 3.2Frames of transitive inflection
      • The standard monotransitive frame
      • The experiencer-as-object frame
      • The transimpersonal frame
      • Three-argument frames
        • The double object frame
        • The indirective frame
        • The secundative frame
    • 3.3The experiencer-as-possessor frames
    • 3.4Valency alternations
      • Lability
      • Alternations in three-argument verbs
  • 4.Transitivity operations
    • 4.1Morphologically unmarked detransitivizations
      • The passive detransitivization
      • The antipassive detransitivization
    • 4.2Morphologically marked transitivity operations
      • The causative
      • The benefactive
      • The reflexive
      • The reciprocal
  • 5.Constructions with an accusative pivot
    • 5.1Converbal clauses
    • 5.2Participant nominalization
  • 6.Ergatively aligned relativization via =na and =ha
  • 7.Reference-based alignment
    • 7.1Tense-aspect marking
    • 7.2The necessitative construction
  • 8.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123.13sch
References
Allen, Nicholas J.
1975 Sketch of Thulung Grammar, vol. 6 Cornell University East Asia Papers. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery D.
1985 The major functions of the noun phrase. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1, 62–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao
(eds) 2004 Non-nominative Subjects, vol. 60/61 Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
1997a Dictionary of the Belhare Language: Belhare–English–Nepali. Electronic database at the Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Project, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
1997b The possessive of experience in Belhare. In David Bradley (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas (Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics 14), 135–155. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, the Australian National University. Google Scholar
1999 Nominalization and focus constructions in some Kiranti languages. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds), Topics in Nepalese Linguistics, 271–296. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
2003 Belhare. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 546–570. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2004 Hidden syntax in Belhare. In Anju Saxena (ed.), Himalayan Languages, Past and Present, 141–190. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 On the typological variables of relativization. Paper presented at the Workshop on the typology, acquisition, and processing of relative clauses, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, June 11, 2005.
2011a Grammatical relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2011b Multivariate typology and field linguistics: a case study on detransitivization in Kiranti (Sino-Tibetan). In Peter Austin, Oliver Bond, Lutz Marten & David Nathan (eds), Proceedings of the Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 3, 3–13. London, SOAS.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols
2001 Syntactic ergativity in light verb complements. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 27:39–52.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Manoj Rai, Netra Paudyal, Goma Banjade, Toya Nath Bhatta, Martin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Iccha Purna Rai, Novel K. Rai & Sabine Stoll
2010 The syntax of three-argument verbs in Chintang and Belhare (Southeastern Kiranti). In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds), Studies in Ditransitive Constructions, 285–307. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Melissa Bowerman & Penelope Brown
2010 Cut and break clips. In Stephen C. Levinson & Nicholas J. Enfield (eds), Manual for the field season 2001, 90–96. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. [URL], accessed on July 15, 2012.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989  Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander
2007 A Grammar or Mongsen Ao. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1989 Relativization and nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. Ms., University of Oregon.
1999 Relativization in Tibetan. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren G. Glover (eds), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 231–249. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Doornenbal, Marius A.
2008 Nominalization in Bantawa. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31)2): 67–95.Google Scholar
Doornenbal, Marius A.
2009 A grammar of Bantawa. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
van Driem, George
1987 A Grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1986 Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62(4): 808–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen H.
1991 Inverse and pseudo-inverse prefixes in Kiranti languages: evidence from Belhare, Athpare and Dungmali. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14: 73–92.Google Scholar
1997 A Grammar of Athpare. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
1999 Nonfinite verbs in Kiranti languages – an areal perspective. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds), Topics in Nepalese Linguistics, Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
2003 Kiranti languages: an overview. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 505–517. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol
1992 Semantic and grammatical categories of relative clause morphology in the languages of Nepal. Studies in Language 16(2): 405–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol, A.R. Coupe, Ellen Bartee, Kristine Hildebrand & You-Jing Lin
2008 Syntactic aspects of nominalization in five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan Area. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(2): 97–139.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1993 More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), Causatives and Transitivity, vol. 23 Studies in Language Companion Series, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: A usage-based approach. Constructions 2. 1–71.Google Scholar
2005 Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language 14(1): 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume
2012 Agreement morphology: the case of Rgyalrongic and Kiranti. Language and Linguistics 13(1): 83–116.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I.
2001 Verbal reflexives and the middle voice. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals, vol. 2 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20), 916–927. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J
2007 Hierarchical person marking in the Rawang language. Paper presented at the 40th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Harbin, China.
Lehmann, Christian
1984 Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Letuchiy, Alexander
2009 Towards a typology of labile verbs: Lability vs. derivation. In Alexandre Arkhipov & Patience Epps (eds), New Challenges in Typology. Transcending the boundaries and refining the distinctions, 223–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2008 Split intransitives, experiencer objects, ‘transimpersonal constructions’: (re-)establishing the connection. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), The Typology of Semantic Alignment, 76–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie
2010 Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview. In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds), Studies in Ditransitive Constructions, 1–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A.
1972 Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 1, 237–257. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1986 Hearts and minds in South-East Asian languages and English: an essay in the comparative lexical semantics of psychocollocations. Cahiers de linguistique asie-orientale 15(1): 5–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael & Teresa Fanego
2008 Nominalizations in Bodic Languages. In María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds), Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives for the Twenty-Century, 219–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan
2006 Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In William Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schackow, Diana
2012 Referential hierarchy effects in three-argument constructions in Yakkha. Linguistic Discovery 10(3): 148–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 A Grammar of Yakkha. PhD dissertation, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Schikowski, Robert
2012 Chintang Morphology. MS, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
2013 Object-conditioned differential marking in Chintang and Nepali. PhD dissertation, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
2003 Person agreement and the determination of alignment. Transactions of the Philological Society 2(101): 339–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Central Bureau of Statistics, Nepal
2001 Population census report.
Toba, Sueyoshi, Ingrid Toba & Novel K. Rai
2005 Diversity and Endangerment of Languages in Nepal, vol. 7 UNESCO Kathmandu Series of Monographs and Working Papers. Kathmandu: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Kathmandu Office.Google Scholar
Van Linden, An
2012 Modal Adjectives: English Deontic and Evaluative Constructions in Synchrony and Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watters, David E.
2002 A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2011 Typological variation in grammatical relations. PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig dissertation.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Eva
2012 Affix copying in Kiranti. In Enrico Boone, Kathrin Linke & Maartje Schulpen (eds), Proceedings of the ConSOLE XIX, 343–367. Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar