Ergativity and Markedness in Nepali Luke S
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Yale University EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale Linguistics Graduate Dissertations Department of Linguistics Spring 5-20-2019 A Jewel Inlaid: Ergativity and Markedness in Nepali Luke S. Lindemann Yale University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/ling_graduate Part of the Discourse and Text Linguistics Commons, Language Description and Documentation Commons, Semantics and Pragmatics Commons, and the Syntax Commons Recommended Citation Lindemann, Luke S., "A Jewel Inlaid: Ergativity and Markedness in Nepali" (2019). Linguistics Graduate Dissertations. 4. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/ling_graduate/4 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Linguistics at EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale. It has been accepted for inclusion in Linguistics Graduate Dissertations by an authorized administrator of EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract A Jewel Inlaid: Ergativity and Markedness in Nepali Luke Lindemann 2019 Nepali presents with a complex case marking pattern in which ergative case is obligatory in perfective transitive clauses, disallowed in unaccusative intransitive clauses and copular clauses, and varies with the nominative elsewhere. Where erga- tive marking is variable, its usage correlates with a variety of semantic and pragmatic factors. The purpose of this investigation is to precisely delineate the grammatical domains for which ergative marking is variable and to provide a unified analysis of the semantic and pragmatic factors that correlate with its expression. The study of pragmatic phenomena requires the implementation of multiple strate- gies for collecting language data. The data for this investigation come from four con- verging lines of inquiry: descriptions of the Nepali pattern in the literature, targeted elicitations with thirteen native speakers, the implementation of a grammaticality judgment survey in Kathmandu in 2016, and the analysis of a published corpus of spoken Nepali. The analysis found ergative marking to be obligatory in perfective main clauses and variable in subordinate clauses. What appears to be active marking in intransitive clauses is analyzed as ergative marking in transitive clauses with covert objects. The only categorical split is the distinction between perfective and non-perfective verb forms. Every other association was found to be non-categorical. These non-categorical associations include a positive correlation between subjects with inanimate reference and the expression of ergativity in common nouns, and a negative correlation between first person pronouns and ergativity in the pronominal domain. This follows expected patterns of marking based on the types which are most frequent in discourse. Ergative marking is somewhat associated with highly individuated objects, but not with affected objects. Ergative marking is positively associated with characterizing or individual-level predicates, kind readings, categorical propositions, and strong construals of quan- tifiers. There was no correlation found between ergative marking and agencyor volitionality. The unified analysis of these associations contributes to theories of Optional Erga- tive Marking and to optional case marking systems in general. The main claim is that the Nepali ergative marks an effector of the event described by the clause. This term refers to a participant which is implicated in enacting and effecting the event, but is not necessarily its main controller or instigator. As a component of the ergative case marking system, it has a pragmatic usage, implicating the subject as a participant in a prototypically transitive event. Aspects of this analysis contribute to the general theory of Optional Ergative Marking and its relation to argument proto-roles. Asso- ciations between the ergative and prototypical properties of a transitive event arise from the meaning of the ergative marker as an effector. This analysis also provides a straightforward explanation for the lack of volitional correlations in Nepali that we find in other languages with variable ergativity. Other semantic and pragmatic features are associated with discourse prominence. These include the correlation with categorical propositions and characterizing predi- cates. Here the associations are attributable to general principles of semantic marked- ness. Variable ergativity represents the presence of pragmatic implicatures of various strengths. Gradient markedness oppositions can lead to the conventionalization of these associations into semantic entailments. This is demonstrated for English gen- der marking, the association between ergative marking and semantic properties of the transitive subject in Nepali, and the association between ergative marking and Nepali perfective verb forms. A Jewel Inlaid: Ergativity and Markedness in Nepali A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Luke Lindemann Dissertation Director: Dr. Claire Bowern May 2019 Copyright © 2019 by Luke Lindemann All rights reserved. ii Contents 1 Preliminaries 1 1.1 Introduction to the Problem ....................... 2 1.2 Nepali and its Speakers .......................... 5 1.2.1 A Brief History of the Language ................ 7 1.2.2 The Languages of Nepal ..................... 8 1.3 Ergativity and Basic Alignment Patterns ................ 10 1.3.1 Alignment Splits ......................... 15 1.4 Relevant Features of Nepali Grammar ................. 17 1.4.1 Nominal Morphology and Case ................. 18 The -le postposition ....................... 19 The -lāi postposition ....................... 20 1.4.2 Verbal Morphology ........................ 21 Copular Clauses ......................... 22 1.5 Ergativity in Nepali ........................... 23 1.5.1 The development of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan ......... 25 2 Methodologies 28 2.1 The Necessity of a Multifaceted Approach ............... 30 2.2 Elicitations ................................ 32 2.2.1 Procedure ............................. 33 2.2.2 Advantages and Limitations of Elicitation ........... 35 2.3 Grammaticality Judgment Survey .................... 36 2.3.1 Survey Respondents ....................... 40 2.3.2 Advantages and Limitations of the Kathmandu Survey .... 40 2.4 Corpus Analysis .............................. 43 2.4.1 The NNSP Corpus Sample .................... 43 2.4.2 Annotation Procedures ...................... 45 2.4.3 Advantages and Limitations of Corpus Analysis ........ 53 2.5 The Problem of Lect ........................... 54 3 Theories 59 3.1 General explanations of the Nepali Pattern ............... 59 3.1.1 Case Marking in Traditional Grammar ............. 60 3.1.2 Disambiguation .......................... 63 3.1.3 Animacy ............................. 64 iii 3.1.4 Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predication ......... 67 Stage-Level Predication in Nepali ................ 70 3.1.5 Perfectivity ............................ 72 3.1.6 The Intransitive Domain ..................... 74 3.1.7 Ergative Marking in Particular Structures and Tenses/Aspects 76 Hypothetical Future ....................... 76 Optative .............................. 76 Definite Future .......................... 77 Modal Constructions ....................... 77 3.1.8 Multiple Factor Analysis ..................... 78 3.1.9 Summary ............................. 79 3.2 General Theories of Optional Ergativity ................ 80 3.2.1 Overview ............................. 80 3.2.2 Terminology ............................ 81 Ergative Case ........................... 81 Typology of Split Case Marking systems ............ 82 3.2.3 Discriminative Function ..................... 83 3.2.4 Transitivity ............................ 86 The Transitivity Hypothesis ................... 86 Argument Proto-Roles ...................... 92 Causal Structure ......................... 96 3.2.5 Markedness ............................ 101 The Nominal Hierarchy ..................... 107 A Formal Implementation of the Nominal Hierarchy ..... 112 Markedness Extensions: Prototypes, Reversals, and Hierarchies 116 Criticisms of Markedness ..................... 118 3.2.6 Discourse Prominence ...................... 120 Focus, Topic, and the Question Under Discussion ....... 123 Intonation, Word Order, and Discourse Particles ....... 127 Categorical Propositions ..................... 130 Prominence and Markedness ................... 135 4 Observations 138 4.1 Ergative marking and the interpretation of the Event ......... 140 4.1.1 Ergativity and the Nepali Verb Form .............. 140 The Perfective Domain ...................... 142 The Present Imperfective Domain ................ 144 The Past Habitual Imperfective ................. 146 The Definite Future ....................... 147 The Hypothetical Future, Optative, and Imperative Mood .. 149 Subordinate Clauses ....................... 151 4.1.2 Intransitive Clauses ....................... 154 Unaccusative Predicates ..................... 158 Unergative Semelfactives/Verbs of Emission .......... 160 Ergativity and Volitionality in the Intransitive Domain .... 162 iv Telicity and Motion Verbs .................... 163 Unergative Atelic Predicates and “Do” Light Verbs ...... 166 Ergativity and Transitivity ................... 169 4.1.3 Ergativity in Copular Clauses