KHAMTI SHAN ANTI-ERGATIVE CONSTRUCTION: a TIBETO- BURMAN INFLUENCE? Douglas Inglis SIL International
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
XXXX XXXX — XXXX KHAMTI SHAN ANTI-ERGATIVE CONSTRUCTION: A TIBETO- BURMAN INFLUENCE? Douglas Inglis SIL International It is widely recognized that Khamti Shan is unique among Tai languages in evidencing a basic (A)OV word order, quite likely due to extensive language contact with Tibeto-Burman languages. Much less recognized in Khamti Shan is that some functional objects take a postposition marker, revealing a striking, but not necessarily unexpected, resemblance to a Tibeto-Burman-like anti-ergative construction. The deictic mai² ‘here’ grammaticalizes an anti-ergative function in which it acts as a marker for certain monotransitive ‘objects’ which are analyzed as pragmatically foregrounded referents in the information structure of the sentence. Keywords: Tai Khamti, Tibeto-Burman, anti-ergative, grammaticalization, language contact 1. INTRODUCTION1 Khamti Shan (KS)2 features a rather prolific polyfunctional morpheme, mai², expressing a deictic source with many extended functions as a grammatical marker. The deictic usage, shown in (1a), approximates the English meaning: a location in proximity to the speaker. This locational deictic mai² grammaticalizes to a spatio- temporal marker, encoding heun⁴ ‘house’ in (1b) as a spatial topological location roughly translated at (also on, or in, Inglis 2014: 150) and as a temporal locative marker of neun³ haa⁵ ‘fifth month’ in (1c). 1 I wish to thank David Beck, Alexander Coupe, and two anonymous reviewers for significant comments leading to the analysis presented here and any errors remain my own. The (currently unarchived) Khamti data is from my fieldwork (2005–2014) and is comprised of elicitation, fieldnotes (unelicited, but non-textual material), and a 320,000 word corpus including natural stories, such as Catching eels in Appendix A, other text genres from fluent speakers, and translated material that have undergone extensive revision for naturalness by fluent speakers. Two Khamti speakers, Mann Han and Lwin Lwin Zaw, originally from Putao, Myanmar, deserve special recognition for the many natural texts provided and the countless hours going over the semantic, pragmatic, and cultural particulars of this material. Permission from each of my language consultants to use this data is documented with the Human Research Ethics office of the Faculty of Graduate Studies Research (FGSR) at the University of Alberta. 2 Khamti is a northern tier language of SW Tai in the Tai-Kadai language family (Chamberlain 1975: 63; Edmondson & Solnit 1997: 340; Edmondson 2008: 184; Diller et al. 2008). There are approximately 14,000 speakers dispersed across two regions: Northwest Myanmar (Burma) and the Assam region of Northeast India (Simons et al. 2009). These two predominant Khamti regions, Khamti Shan in Northern Myanmar and Tai Khamti in Northeast India, even though they both refer to themselves as Tai Khamti, actually represent two sprechbunds and potentially two separate dialects (Dockum 2014). It is the specific Tibeto-Burman language contact situation in Myanmar that influences the analysis presented in this paper. 1 2 Khamti Shan anti-ergative construction (1) a. mai² kaw¹ maeu⁴ kin³khau² nai² u⁵ here also 2S eat can IPFV.I ‘You can also eat here.’ (fieldnotes 2005-01-17) b. heun⁴ nai¹ mai² maeu⁴ tsau²naai³ kiaa⁴ yang⁴ nai¹ house DEF LOC 2S alone is.it.that exist Q ‘Are you alone at the house?’ (fieldnotes 2005-03-28) c. yau¹ki⁴ neun³ haa⁵ mai² phaai⁵nam¹ naa⁴ hit⁵ u⁵ after.this month five LOC water.gate field make IPFV.I ‘After this, at/in the fifth month, make (the) field water gates.’ (Farming.006) The grammaticalization pathway for mai² from a deictic in (1a) to a static marker of location in (1b) is evidenced by functional, syntactic, and morphological changes (Diessel 1999: 118): Functionally, the mai² in (1b) is no longer used to “focus the hearer’s attention on entities in the outside world” and it becomes “deictically non-contrastive”. Syntactically, it becomes restricted to that of a postposition and is now also obligatory. Morphologically, only the proximal form (i.e. mai²) of the deictic paradigm grammaticalizes, the other forms (Inglis 2014: 148) do not. This process from deictic to gram is what Diessel (2006: 475) refers to as deictic shift and what Frajzyngier (1991: 220) identifies as a de re to de dicto developmental process, a move from the domain of reality and external situation to one of speech and text. In this fashion a kind of ambiguity leads to a reanalysis (Timberlake 1977; Harris & Campbell 1995; Coupe 2017), the deictic being a de re location and the postposition a de dicto location, its ostensive function reinterpreted as a predicative one. The reanalysis of mai² as a postposition for (static) location in (1b), then, readily extends to temporal location in (1c) by means of commonplace conceptual metaphor—TIME IS SPACE—and a well documented spatio-temporal interplay in language (Givón 1979: 217; Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 8–10; Rice 1992: 90–91; Haspelmath 1997; Heine & Kuteva 2002: 41, 205; Rice & Kabata 2007: 461–462). The examples in (2) show more extensions that arise from a static locative function, with mai² marking the possessor maan² amaeu⁴nai¹ ‘that village’ of a predicative possessive construction in (2a), the standard of comparison (comparee) kun² ‘person’ in (2b), and marking the causal undergoer (causee) nam¹khiang² ‘ice’ in (2c). (2) a. maan² amaeu⁴nai¹ mai² an³yap⁵ aan⁵taan⁵ yang⁴ u⁵ village that LOC problems many exist IPFV.I ‘That village has many problems.’ Lit. ‘Many problems are at that village.’ (fieldnotes 2005-05-11) b. paa³sa²nje¹ seung⁵ kun⁴ mai² hiang⁴ saa⁵ ki⁴ yaa¹ eel EMPH person LOC be.strong more if TOP Khamti Shan anti-ergative construction 3 ‘If it is that an eel is stronger than a person...’ Lit. ‘If it is that an eel is stronger at a person...’ (Catching eels.027) c. au³ hin³ luk¹ leung³ nam¹khiang² mai² au³ with stone CLF INDF ice LOC cause tiat¹ u⁵ crack IPFV.I ‘(Someone) with a stone causes the ice to crack.’ Lit. ‘(Someone) with a stone causes a crack at/on the ice’ (fieldnotes 2005-06-10) Both the locative construction in (1b) and predicative possessive construction in (2a) take the verb of existence yang⁴, motivating the functional extension of a possessor marker vis-à-vis the notion location. Mai² serves to locate the existence of one entity within the proximity of another entity, spatially in (1b) and metaphorically in (2a), in which the possessee an³yap⁵ aan⁵taan⁵ ‘many problems’ acts as a reference location exhibiting a search domain that is analogous to a reference possessor exhibiting a “region of possession” (Langacker 1993: 12). The possessive-as-locative process is a rather common predicative possessive strategy across languages (Clark 1978; Heine 1997a; Lichtenberk 2002; Heine & Kuteva 2002: 204–205; Dryer 2007: 244; Rice & Kabata 2007; Langacker 2009: 98). The comparative construction in (2b) comprises the stative verb hiang⁴ ‘be strong’ (with an index marker saa⁵ ‘more’) as a criterion of comparison, the nominal paa³sa²nje¹ ‘eel’ as that which is being compared, and the nominal kun⁴ ‘person’ as the standard of comparison that takes the mai² marker. The stative verb provides a (static) context—a discerned parameter or property—from which to interpret locative mai² as marking a baseline entity “within which to locate” a compared target entity. Other languages such as Archaic Chinese, Naga, and Hungarian use locative markers glossed as ‘on/at’ to also introduce the standard of comparison (Heine & Kuteva 2002: 201). For the causative construction in (2c), spatial location provides the basis for a general cognitive figure/ground organization (Frawley 1991: 162), with the causee nam¹khiang² ‘ice’ taking the mai² marker and setting up a cognitive ground on which a cognitive figure, the elided causer ‘(someone)’, initiates an action resulting in a crack (cf. Inglis 2014: 161–162). Locative-causal grammaticalization pathways are well-documented (Heine & Kuteva 2002: 200; see also Rice 2005 for locative (directionals) as markers of causality). When it comes to (dynamic) locatives, a motion verb provides the condition for mai² to emerge as a goal marker, as shown in (3a) with the allative meung⁴ ‘city’. Then with transfer verbs mai² becomes the marker for human endpoints (goals), prototypically the recipient of a physical transaction, as shown with 3S in (3b). The extension from allative marker to (human) goal marker is also well-documented across languages (Blansitt 1988: 177; Heine 1990; Genetti 1991; Heine & Kuteva 2002: 37–38; Rice & Kabata 2007: 481). 4 Khamti Shan anti-ergative construction (3) a. kuu³ pat¹ meung⁴ mai² kau³ kaa⁵ u⁵ each week city LOC 1S go IPFV.I ‘Each week I go to the city.’ (elicitation.046) b. maeu⁴ man⁴ mai² pap¹ haeu² aw⁴ 2S 3S LOC book give Q ‘Did you give the book to her?’ (elicitation.147) Constructions that express less prototypical human endpoints are also included in the mai² marking scheme, as with the addressee mee⁵tsau²heeun⁴ kau³ ‘my wife’ in (4a) and the benefactive pi⁵nuang¹ ‘sibling(s)’ in (4b), which are frequently derived from allative/directional markers (Heine 1997b: 94; Heine & Kuteva 2002: 37–38; Rice & Kabata 2007: 480–481). These are arguably not ‘syntactic’ ditransitives because the object expressing human goal is likely attributable to haeu² ‘give’ as part of a serial verb distributing the structural load for two objects (Enfield 2007: 371). (4) a. mee⁵tsau²heun⁴ kau³ mai² pung⁵ pseu⁵ nai¹ kau³ wife 1S LOC story witch DEF 1S khai⁵ haeu² yau¹ tell give PFV ‘I told the witch story to my wife already.’ (fieldnotes 2005-03-22) b. man⁴ pi⁵nuang¹ mai² tang² phak⁵ haeu² u⁵ 3S sibling LOC cook curry give IPFV.I ‘She cooks curry for siblings.’ Lit. ‘She cooks curry give to siblings.’ (elicitation.127) Finally, and central to this paper, mai² occurs as a marker of the monotransitive ‘object’ maa¹ ‘horse’ in (5).