The University of Texas at Arlington s9

SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC FUNCTIONS OF KUKI-CHIN VERBAL • Henderson (1965: Tiddim Chin) saw the stems as indicative vs. STEM ALTERNATIONS subjunctive. AND THE AGENTIVE AND NONAGENTIVE VOICE 1970-Present: New Perspectives • Nominalization/Subordination – Osburne (1975: Zahao); DEBORAH KING Chhangte (1993: Mizo) The University of Texas at Arlington • Relative Clauses/WH questions – Hillard (1977: Lushai); [email protected] Lehman (1975: Lushai; 1982, 1996: Lai); Kathol (1999: Lai); Kathol and VanBik (2001) Definitions • Valence – (Peterson (1998: Lai) Kuki-Chin – a Tibeto-Burman language family of northeast India and • Discourse Prominence – Osburne (1975: Zahao); Kathol and western Myanmar (Burma). VanBik (2001: Lai); Kathol (2003: Lai) Verbal Stem Alternation – A morphosyntactic feature characteristic of Kuki-Chin languages (in fully developed or trace forms) which: Goals  is manifested as two (or more) distinct and unpredictable  To compare/contrast stem use across a spectrum of Kuki- variations in the verb stem (suppletive): Stem 1 & Stem 2 Chin languages  is formed by the addition or alternation of a single final  To isolate the unifying theme/common denominator of how morpheme and/or by tonal change these stems are used Functions – the uses of a morphosyntactic feature, divisible as syntactic (structural) and pragmatic. Points of Discussion I. Phonological Shape and Historical Derivation Primary Languages Studied Northern Chin A: What do Verbal Stem Alternations look like? Tiddim Chin (See Table 1.) Sizang Chin Central Chin Mizo (Lushai) Falam Chin (Zahoa dialect; other) Hakha Chin (Lai dialect) Southern Chin (no data available)

Literature 1898-1970: Mood Theories • Lorrain and Savidge (1898: Lushai) note the stem alternations and categorize them. Lorrain (1940: Lushai) sees them as a feature of mood. • Stern (1963: Sizang Chin) follows suit. (1) Mizo: fiŋ ~ fin 1 Central ChinBawm: Languagesfiŋ ~ fiŋ ‘be clever’ Northern Chin Languages

Alternation Type English Mizo Lai Falam Tiddim Sizang 1) final stop ~ glottal stop ‘kill’ that ~ tha that ~ tha that ~ tha that ~ tha that ~ thaa 2) glottalization of final liquid, nasal, ‘see’ hmuu ~ hmu hmuu ~ hmu hmu ~ hmu muu ~ mu muu vowel/diphthong 3) /ŋ/ ~ /n/ ‘cook’ tshuaŋ ~ suang ~ suan tshuan ‘be tall, high’ saa ~ saan saa ~ saan 4) nasal ~ stop ‘look at’ en ~ et en ~ et 5) addition of final oral stop (/t/ or /k/) ‘give’ pee ~ peek pee ~ peek pe ~ pek pia ~ piak to vowel/diphthong ‘sing’ sa ~ sak sa ~ sak saa ~ sak 6) vowel alteration (ablaut)/shortening ‘be happy’ nuam ~ nom nuam ~ nawm 7) ~ tone ‘crawl, walk’ vák ~ vàk vǎak ~ vâak 8) invariant forms ‘like’ du du du dei

Table 1: Types of Verbal Stem Alternations in Five Kuki-Chin Languages (cf. Chhangte 1993; and Matisoff 2003.) B: Where do Verbal Stem Alternations come from?  Two Proto-Tibeto-Burman morphemes: /-t, -/ Subordinating/Nominalizing /-/ Causative/Benefactive (Valence-changing)  The two operated at different diachronic points  They have since been collapsed into one system (some verbs retain three forms)

S1 S2/Nominalized S3/Valence Change Lai keŋ ~ ken ‘bring along’ ken ‘make bring along’ Mizo ìi ~ ìt ‘be fearful’ ì ‘fear someone’ rhîl ~ rhil ‘proclaim’ rhil ‘tell someone something’ Table 2: Verbs with Three Forms: Central Chin

1 data from Löffler in Chhangte 1993. Part II: Syntactic and Pragmatic Functions of Stem Alternations B. Nominalizations Methodology: 1. Agentive Nominalizations 1. Compared and contrasted 5 Kuki-Chin languages usage of VSAs in • Noun formed is the agent of the action the following contexts: • Agentive nominalizers: -tu or –mi • Independent, indicative clauses • Stem 1 • Relative, complement, adverbial, and non-finite clauses • Questions (yes-no and WH) (4a) mi- cak • Nominalizations strong • Negatives (1) • Imperatives strong person 2. Divided the results into 5 main categories: • Subordinate Clauses (4b) that -tu • Nominalizations kill • Relative clauses/WH questions (1) • Valency-changing Operations murderer • Irrealis Mood Case Study: Falam Chin 2. Non-agentive Nominalizations • Abstract concept: ‘-ness’, place of, way of A. Subordinate Clauses: Adverbial and Non-finite • Non-agentive nominalizers: -nak, -dan or -pi 1. Adverbial Clauses • Stem 2 • Temporal, locative, reason • Type 1 Conditional (reality of condition assumed) (5a) cah -nak • Stem 2 strong (2) (2) Ka pa a thih asile, strength M fathe 3 die if y r S (2) (5b) suan -dan If my father died, cook (2) 2. Non-finite Clauses (way of) cooking • Occur with psychological verbs of desire, feeling, perception • Lack complementizer or adverbial subordinator C. Relative Clauses/WH Questions • Stem 2 1. Subject Focus • Agent is relativized or questioned (3) Nat ka duh lo • Use -tu or -mi just like agentive nominalizations sick 1 lik NE • Stem 1 (2) S e G I don’t like being sick. 6(a) vawk vainim pe tu pa pig corn feed RE ma (1) L n 8(c) A thingkuang ka phur the man who fed the pig corn Hi box 1 carry s S (1) 6(b) Zo so vainim vawk a pe? I carried his box. Who corn pig 3 feed S (1) 8(d) A thingkuang ka phurh -sak Who fed the pig corn? Hi box 1 carry BE s S (2) N 2. Object Focus I carried his box for him. • Object is relativized or questioned • Use -mi or -nak 2. PP vs. IO • Stem 2 • Oblique argument vs. core argument • Two equally grammatical forms of a sentence: 7(a) vawk a pek mi vainim pig 3 feed RE corn 9(a) A falanui hnenah a pe. S (2) L Hi girlfrien to 3 give the corn which he fed the pig s d S (1) He gave (it) to his girlfriend. 7(b) Ziang so vawk na pek? What pig 2 feed 9(b) A falanui a pek. S (2) Hi girlfrien 3 give What did you feed the pig? s d S (2) He gave his girlfriend (it). D. Valency-changing Operations 1. Causative, Benefactive, Other Applicative 3. Antipassive vs. Ergative • Stem 2 form can contain intrinsic causative/benefactive • A feature of Lai (Hakha) meaning • Pragmatic rather than syntactic • Stem 2 can be used along with valence-raising morphemes. • Antipassive lowers valence by noun-incorporation

8(a) A zir. 10(a) Mangkio ni vok a tsook. 3 learn Mangki ER pig 3 buy(2 S (1) o G S ) He learned. Mangkio bought a pig.

8(b) Ka lo zirh. 10(b) Mangkio vok a tsoo. 1S 2 teach Mangki pig 3 buy(1 S (2) o S ) I taught you. Mangkio bought a pig. E. Irrealis Mood Variation • Stems normally in S2 neutralize to S1: • Purpose Clauses – Type 2 Conditonals (assumed to be untrue) • Verbal Nouns – Contrafactuals • Oblique WH questions – Circumstantial Clauses • Causatives – Yes-no questions • Ergativity – Imperatives • Conditionals – Negatives Central Chin Languages Northern Chin Languages Context Lai Mizo Falam Tiddim Sizang Intr. Atp. Erg. , t n

e declarative I I II I I I I d

n 2 e complement clause I I II I I p e 3 d

n causative/benefactive II II I/II (II-Zahao) I/II I/II I e v i t a c

i core argument IO II d n I

H subject Q I I II I I W /

e 4 s nonsubject Q II II II II I , II u a l C

subject relative I I N/A I I e v i t a l e R s

n nonsubject relative II N/A II II II II II o i t s e u Q d o

o imperative I N/A N/A I M

i yes/no Q I N/A N/A I l a e

r negation I N/A N/A r I conditional clause: Type 2 I I I I contrafactual/circumstantial I I conditional clause: Type 1 II II II II II adverbial subordinate clause5 II II II II II non-finite subordinate clause II II II agentive nominalizations I I

2 direct speech or with complementizer 3 and other applicative morphemes (Peterson 1998) 4 Most obliques 5 with adverbial subordinators of time, place, and reason 6

Blanks indicate that no data, or inconclusive data, was available for that structure in that language. Chart is an expanded version of Kathol’s VSA chart for Lai (2001). for version VSA chart that of Lai for an language.Chart Kathol’s that is available expanded that data, in structure or was indicate inconclusive no data, Blanks Nominalizations/ Subordinate Clauses objective nominalizationsobjective Table 3: Comparison of Verbal Stem AlternationFive Uses Kuki-Chin Stem ComparisonLanguages Across ofVerbal 3: Table II II II 6 II II III. Theoretical Implications • The term antipassive is not adequate for Kuki-Chin stem 1 – Does not delete/demote O argument A. How do the languages differ in stem use? – Not all structures which use S1 are valency-decreased Ann Cooreman (1994) describes ‘co-opting’ of pragmatic functions for • The term active voice is not adequate for Kuki-Chin stem 2 syntactic uses. – Accusative – topic slot fixed; argument fluid Here we see the process moving the other way: syntactic  pragmatic – Ergative – argument slots fixed; topic location fluid • S2 for nominalizations and subordinate clauses (Tiddim, Sizang) Nominative/Accusative Ergative/Absolutive • + S2 for disambiguation in relative clauses and content active voice nonagentive voice questions (Mizo, Falam) • + S2 for ergative in indicative clauses (Lai) transitive John beat the dog. John beat the dog. John eats a mango. John eats a mango. B. How are they in agreement? agentive voice The underlying usage of the stems swings on a pivot of agent vs. non- agent focus (in every category for which they are contrasted in that John eats (food). John food-eats. language). John sleeps. John sleeps. intransitive Stem 1 Stem 2 passive voice Agentive Nonagentive nominalizations agentive objective/verbal nouns The dog was beaten (by John). John dog-beat. John mango-ate. subordinate clauses adverbial/non-finite The mango was eaten (by John). subject object/oblique wh questions questioned questioned Table 5: Comparison of Accusative and Ergative Systems subject object/oblique relative clauses relativized relativized • Campbell 2000 uses term agent-focus antipassive or 7 valence-changing causatives causatives/benefactives agentive voice for similar structure in K’iche operations antipassive ergative Table 4: Functions of the Stems By Focus

I propose the terms agentive and nonagentive voice to describe the overall function of verbal stem alternations.

C. Why not use the terms ‘active’ and ‘antipassive’?

7 Tiddim, Sizang, and Falam