LISSIM 6

June 1-15, 2012@ Kangra

Selected Essays

Case System of some Tibeto-Burman Languages

Sakuntala Longkumer

PhD, HCU, Hyderabad

My research work aims to compare the case system of some Tibeto-Burman languages and try to account the nature of Ergativity in these languages, which may also contribute to the study of Ergative languages in general. The theoretical research question that I intend to postulate here is how the theories on case so far justify Ergativity. The measures of Ergativity itself seem very vague. Every language that does not correspond to the conventional, well know realm of ‘nominative-accusative’ pattern of case marking seems to get the alternate tag ‘ergative-absolutive’. What is it that defines an Ergative- Absolutive language? Is it just that the internal argument of a transitive clause being marked same as to that of the external argument of an intransitive clause and the external argument of a transitive clause being marked differently? Because none of the ergative languages studied so far is entirely consistent with the above mentioned definition. There should be more to it than just this simple definition which should be looked into, a phenomena found in all ergative languages that can stand a strong base for Ergativity.

In order to accommodate all the non nominative languages within ergative languages, Ergativity has been sub classed such as split-ergative, active system, agentive etc. And hence the definition of Ergativity no longer stands firm. With a few years of research experience, Ergativity comes across to me as a complex topic of study.

How does case theory of the universal grammar account for ergative case markers? Assuming that like the nominative- accusative language the ergative case is assigned to the external argument by the Infl and absolutive case to the internal argument by the verb. Can it be the case with the intransitive subject as well? Where in it gets the case same as the object of a transitive clause as opposed to the nominative accusative language where the intransitive subject gets the same case as the subject of a transitive clause.  Does ergative language receive structural case or do they receive inherent case?  It’s all very unclear, we need a wider empirical basis to characterise Ergativity.

I do not have any well formed solutions to these existing problems so far, I am in the process of collecting data and I hope to come up with some possible solution or ideas after analysing the data. And LISSIM6 gives a hope of rich erudition which i hope will manifest in my research work. 

Also the case theory does not shed much light on the semantic aspect of case marking, which is also a factor in the overt case marking in most of the ergative languages I have come across. Case is conditioned to a large extent by the semantics or even pragmatics in these languages which can be accounted for in terms of theta roles like agent, patient etc. Case markers and theta roles are two different entities where one is considered syntactic and the other semantic. I favour Ergative case as an inherent case rather than structural case based on various data I have collected so far. In Ergative languages like Ao- Mongsen (My mother tongue) and Meithei, Case is conditioned by factors like Volitionality, Animacy hierarchy, Habitual reading, Tense and Pragmatics etc. which are also found in many other ergative languages. Semantics has been instrumental in the development of a more nuanced understanding regarding the inconsistencies in the case marking in ergative languages.

 

One may come across sentences in Mongsen and Meithei (two languages I have analysed so far) which may appear to be Nominative- accusative or Ergative- Absolutive, but on a deeper examination the case marking appear to be rather confusing and complex, which is also the case in many other Tibeto-Burman languages. The notion of transitivity in assigning case to the various arguments of a sentence does not always seem applicable in the case of Mongsen and Meithei. The external argument of a transitive clause may occur with or without the agentive case marker, as also with the sole argument of an intransitive clause. The syntactic relation of the verb with its argument does not invariably determine the case marker.

 

Only some examples are exemplified below because of the word limit, to give a broad idea of the case system in some Tibeto-Burman languages

Example of volitionality in Mongsen

(1)        ni Ø akhət

1sg ABS coughed

“I coughed”.

 

(2)        ni nə akhət

1sg ERG coughed

“I coughed”. (On purpose to get someone‟s attention)

 

Example of Animacy hierarchy in Mongsen

(3)        ni akhu Ø ənsət-ər

1sg tiger ABS kill-prog

“I am killing a tiger”

 

(4)        Akhu nə ni Ø ənsət-ər

Tiger ERG 1sg PAT kill-prog

“The tiger is killing me”

Ergative marker is obligatory when the agent is lower in animacy scale than patient.

 

Example of volitionality in Meithei.

(5)        əy-nə maŋon-de theŋŋi

i ERG he LOC touched

“I touched him” (intentionally)

 

(6)        əy maŋon-de theŋŋi

i he LOC touched

“I touched him” (unintentionally)

 

Example of Animacy Hierarchy in Meithei

(7)        Məhak-nə tebəl kawwi

he-ERG table kicked

“He kicked the table‟

 

(8)        əŋaŋ-si ma-bu illi

child det he ABS push

            “The child pushed him‟

In Meithei when the affected argument is animate, it is obligatory to be case marked.

 

How would Case Theory of Universal Grammar justify or account for such irregularities (exemplified above)in Ergative languages. Can syntax itself solve the issue or is there an interface between syntax and semantics when it comes to case marking in ergative languages? We need meticulous research work on ergative languages. There is a need to compare their nature in order to formulate a theory that accounts for the complexity of languages so as to build upon the existing theories which can explicate the issues regarding Ergativity.

 

These are some of the questions that I would like to answer in my research and LISSIM6 will be a very good forum for me to interact with other scholars who might be facing similar questions and interacting with them will help me understand these contractions and possibly resolve them.

 

For enquiries, write to secretary@fosssil.in