Patterns of Morphosyntactic and Functional Diversification In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PATTERNS OF MORPHOSYNTACTIC AND FUNCTIONAL DIVERSIFICATION IN THE USAGE OF COGNATE VERBS IN INDO-IRANIAN by SHAHAR BARUCH SHIRTZ A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Linguistics and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2017 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Shahar Baruch Shirtz Title: Patterns of Morphosyntactic and Functional Diversification in the Usage of Cognate Verbs in Indo-Iranian. This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Linguistics by: Cynthia Vakareliyska Chairperson Scott DeLancey Core Member Spike Gildea Core Member Doris Payne Core Member Zhuo Jing-Schmidt Institutional Representative and Scott L. Pratt Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2017. ii © Shahar Baruch Shirtz This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (United States) License. iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Shahar Baruch Shirtz Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics June 2017 Title: Patterns of Morphosyntactic and Functional Diversification in the Usage of Cognate Verbs in Indo-Iranian. This is a study of processes of structural and functional diversification of the uses of three cognate verbs across the Indo-Iranian language family: “do/make”, “be/become”, and “give”. First, this study identifies over sixty distinct construction types in which these verbs are used, including complex predicate constructions, nominal predication constructions, serial verb constructions, and several distinct auxiliary constructions. Since the sets of verbs studied here are cognates, and share a common source, crosslinguistic differences in their uses are the result of grammatical change, and especially shared and parallel innovations of similar uses. Then, this study presents a taxonomy of different complex predication types with “do/make”, and shows that there are general patterns in the deployment of different types of complex predication to express different types of situations. These patterns exhibit “transitivity prominence” previously identified by typologists with “heavy” or “lexical” verbs. This study then shows that these patterns are the result of several distinct pathways of grammatical change, often motivated by analogy to existing constructions, giving raise to different types of N-V complex predication constructions. iv Then, this study shows that despite the fact that Indo-Iranian speakers can potentially deploy distinct constructions to encode each of the six nominal predication functions, sets of such functions are often co-expressed by the same structural coding means, especially clauses with cognate “be/become” verbs. This study uses a novel method, based on bipartite network graphs, to compare of the degree to which nominal predication functions are co-expressed in different languages. Finally, this study shows that the three sets of cognate verbs are more likely to be used similarity within branches and subbranches of Indo-Iranian than across branches. The scope of this branches, however, is different for different verbs: “do/make” and “give” behave more similarly in languages which belong to the same major branch, Iranian or Indo-Aryan, but “be/become” clusters are at different levels of subbranching. This is the result of the different types of innovations attested with these verbs: reanalysis and actualization motivated by analogy with “do/make” and “give”, and metaphorical and metonymy extensions with “be/become”. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Shahar Baruch Shirtz GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Linguistics, 2017, University of Oregon, Eugene Master of Arts, Linguistics, 2010, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Bachelor of Arts, Linguistics and Cognitive Science, 2006, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Linguistic Typology (especially discourse functions, complex predication, nominal predication) Historical and Comparative linguistics (especially the diversification of cognate morpho-syntax) Corpus / Usage Based Typology Construction(al models of) Grammar Event structure Discourse grammar vi PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Graduate Teaching Fellow, University of Oregon, September 2010 – June 2017 PUBLICATIONS: Shirtz, Shahar. 2016. “Indirect Participants as core arguments in Middle Persian”. In: Jila Ghomeishi, Carina Jahani, and Agnès Lenepvue-Hotz (eds), Further topics in Iranian linguistics. Cahiers de Studia Iranica 51. 175-194. Leuven: Peeters. Payne, Doris L & Shirtz Shahar (eds). 2015. Beyond Aspect: The Expression of Discourse Functions in African Languages. Typological Studies in Language 109. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. vii, 321 pp. Shirtz, Shahar & Payne, Doris L. 2015. “Discourse structuring and typology: How strong is the link with aspect?”. In: Doris L Payne and Shahar Shirtz (eds), Beyond Aspect: The Expression of Discourse Functions in African Languages. Typological Studies in Language 109. 1-22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Shirtz, Shahar & Payne, Doris L. “Nominal heads in Maa”. In: Ọlanikẹ Ọla Orie and Karen W. Sanders (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on African Linguistics: Linguistic Interfaces in African Languages. 207-221. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. (Available at: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/acal/43/paper2969.pdf) vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is easier to find the words for a sound grammatical description than it is to find the words to express what I wish to express here, so I will not pretend like this does it. First and foremost, I wish to thank my advisor, Cynthia Vakareliyska and my committee members, Doris Payne, Spike Gildea, Scott DeLancey, and Zhuo Jing- Schmidt. Without their criticism and encouragement this would not have been possible. I also wish to thank Tyler Kendell, Volya Kapatsinski, and Eric Pederson for their help, advice, and critique along the way, and to Shaul Shaked, who hired my as a research assistant in Jerusalem years ago and (inadvertently?) introduced me to the world of Indo- Iranian languages. In Oregon, I presented some of the ideas expressed here in the Linguistics department colloquium, and Fieldling / LingDocRev and CogGroup meetings. These meetings proved extremely helpful in shaping and reshaping my ideas. Just as important, mentally and professionally, were discussions over beverages with fellow colleagues: Linda Konnerth, Chris Doty, Jaime Peña, Danielle Barth, Brian Butler, Prakaiwan Vajrabhaja, Ted Bell, Zoe Tribur, Paul Olejarczuk, Matt Stave, Manuel Otero, Zalmai “Zeke” Zahir, Krishna Boro, Julia Trippe, Amos Teo, Sara Pacchiaroti, Becky Paterson, Charlie Farrington, Jason McLarty, Marie-Caroline Pons and many others. Without them, this entire experience would have been worse. I wish to thank my family in Israel, my parents, grandparents, and brothers (now with a sister-in-law and a nephew!), for being supportive even if they didn’t really understand why I do the things that I do. Finally, I also wish to thank Jessica (and viii Vynnie, Rock, Riley, and Remy), my family in Eugene, Oregon, without whom it would not have been worth it. ix To my family, here and there. x TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Descriptive Categories, Comparative Concepts ................................................. 4 1.2. Types of Morphosyntactic Change in Construction Types. .............................. 12 1.3. Quick Survey of Argument Coding Means in Indo-Iranian. ............................ 19 1.3.1. Word Order ................................................................................................... 19 1.3.2. Argument Indexing ....................................................................................... 21 1.3.3. Noun Flagging .............................................................................................. 25 1.3.4. Argument Structure ....................................................................................... 32 1.4. Summary ........................................................................................................... 34 II. THE DATA ............................................................................................................... 38 2.1. Data Sources ..................................................................................................... 38 2.1.1. Type of Data ................................................................................................. 40 2.1.2. The Sample ................................................................................................... 44 2.1.2.1. Sanskrit ................................................................................................. 46 2.1.2.2. Pali ........................................................................................................ 47 2.1.2.3. Hindi ..................................................................................................... 48 2.1.2.4. Gujarati ................................................................................................. 49 2.1.2.5. Kotia Oriya ...........................................................................................