Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Nov 18, 2015 9:24:47 GMT 5.5
Elements of Ergativity in Manipuri: A mixture of Nom-Acc and Erg-Abs
A mixture of nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive features in a way split ergativity cannot explain.
A mixture of nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive features in a way split ergativity cannot explain.
THE CONCEPT OF ERGATIVITY
When sentences have more than one argument, it makes good communicative sense for language to have a basic coding method to differentiate the arguments (for example, as in transitive sentences). Though it is unnecessary for some verbs, such as with She saw a mountain (a mountain never sees), there are many predicates, such as The girl loves the boy, in which this disambiguation is essential in many languages. For example, without the case information in the articles below
(1a) Das Mädchen liebt den Jungen
the girl-3FS.NOM loves-3SP the boy-3MS.ACC
The girl loves the boy.
(1b) Den Jungen liebt das Mädche
the boy-3MS.ACC loves-3SP the girl-3FS.NOM
The girl loves the boy / The boy, the girl loves.
(2a) Der Jungen kennt das Mädchen
the boy-3MS.NOM knows-3SP the girl-3FS.ACC
The boy knows the girl.
(2b) Das Mädchen kennt der Jungen
the girl-3MS.ACC knows-3SP the boy-3FS.NOM
The boy knows the girl / The girl, the boy knows.
the German sentences would have been ambiguous. It is the case markers that distribute “disambiguating” roles to the arguments in the above linguistic expressions. All languages do disambiguation fairly well using any or a mixture of the three mechanisms: (i) changing the form of words of the dependent argument; i.e., by case-marking morphology (1a–2b); (ii) putting agreement markers on the head predicate; and (iii) using the ordering of the arguments (1b and 2b).
Argument structure defines the semantic roles of the arguments. Arguments are divided into (i) core arguments and (ii) oblique arguments. The former are normally mapped onto the surface subject and any objects (including possibly agentive complements) (1a–2b) while the latter are typically marked by oblique case markers or prepositions (Manning 210) (3). Core arguments are of three types—A, S, and O (following the notation of Dixon (1994)). S is the single argument of an intransitive verb, and A and O are the two core arguments of a transitive verb, the former being the more agent-like argument and the latter the more undergoer-like argument.
In many morphologically ergative languages, grammatical relations appear to follow a pattern different from that exhibited by the case marking morphology (Robert D. Van Valin 361).
In majority of the world’s languages A and S show the same grammatical behavior while O is marked differently. In such languages, the nouns in the A and S slots usually take their citation forms (nothing added to or removed from their basic forms); i.e., the nominative (3a). The case O is marked with is called accusative (3b). Such languages are called nominative-accusative languages.
(3a) I run.
(3b) I know him.
In some of the world’s languages, however, S shows surface grammatical behavior similar in many respects to that of O in which their case is usually unmarked; i.e., they take their citation or absolute (in other word, nominative) forms and they are both glossed as absolutive in case. “Absolute” here can be understood as something like ‘complete in itself’ so that the word (i.e., noun in this case’s position) does not need to be inflected to indicate relation to other words in the sentence. In such languages, A is assigned an oblique case and the cased marked for it is called ergative (from Greek ergatis, meaning ‘workman’). Languages with these features dominant in their nature are called ergative-absolutive languages. The Yalarnnga (Australia) examples in (4) illustrate this point.
(4a) Yirri tjala ngami-mi yimarta-ta
Man.ABS this.ABS go-FU fish-PURP
The man will go for fish.
(4b) Kilawurru tjala yirri-nthu wala-mu payarla-yu.
galah.ABS this.ABS man-ERG hit-PT boomerang-ERG
The man hits the galah with a boomerang.
It is quite possible that a language may exhibit features of both types and many linguists are of the view that there is no fully ergative language in the world while many languages classified as (dominantly) nominative-accusative shows traits of ergative-absolutive. Thus, it must be emphasized that no assumption is made that a language must fall neatly into one category or the other (Robert D. Van Valin 362).
SPLIT ERGATIVITY
In relatively smaller number of languages that show ergative-absolutive features, the core grammar is organized in such a way that the argument of some one-place predicates (S) is marked like the A of a two-place verb while the argument of the other one-place predicates (S) is marked like the O of two-place verb. In such core grammar organization of language, the case space of the language is split (evenly or unevenly) between accusativity and ergativity. Such a case of distribution in which a language has features of accusativity and ergativity side by side is conventionally called split ergativity. The diagram above cannot account for such languages (see examples, particularly, 5a, and 6d-f). Examples from one of the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) languages in (5) illustrate this point.
SPLIT ERGATIVITY
In relatively smaller number of languages that show ergative-absolutive features, the core grammar is organized in such a way that the argument of some one-place predicates (S) is marked like the A of a two-place verb while the argument of the other one-place predicates (S) is marked like the O of two-place verb. In such core grammar organization of language, the case space of the language is split (evenly or unevenly) between accusativity and ergativity. Such a case of distribution in which a language has features of accusativity and ergativity side by side is conventionally called split ergativity. The diagram above cannot account for such languages (see examples, particularly, 5a, and 6d-f). Examples from one of the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) languages in (5) illustrate this point.
(5a) Bere-k imgars.
child-ERG 3SG.cry
The child cries.
(5b) Bere oxori-s doskidu.
child.ABS house-DAT 3SG.stay
The child stayed in the house.
(5c) Baba-k meccaps skiri-s cxeni
father-ERG 3SG.give child-DAT house-ABS
The father gives a horse to the child.
The suffix -k, glossed as ergative on the basis of its appearance on A in (5c), also appears on S in (5a). On the other hand, S in (5b) is unmarked like the O in (5c) glossed as ergative.
ELEMENTS OF ERGATIVITY IN MANIPURI
In certain circumstances Manipuri arguments don’t carry case markers while in other circumstances they do. At times case-marking is optional (this is critically an issue in typologizing a language) and marking or not marking (I want to avoid the term case-dropping which seems problematic in Manipuri) is a matter of idiosyncrasy. When the cases are necessarily marked, Manipuri shows a mixture of both nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive features, a phenomenon that (so far as I know now) does not seem to be explained or described satisfactorily by split ergativity (maybe this is a huge claim, and I have yet to look into this into greater detail) in that in many circumstances, the same idea can be expressed by using ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative and at times even ergative-accusative (6e and 6f) sentences.
There are six major points to consider when studying ergativity in Manipuri. (The examples illustrating the points are mostly drawn from some contemporary Manipuri literary texts. Number and gender agreements don’t figure in Manipuri syntax and so they have largely been ignored in labeling in the examples. As the ergativity related features discussed here appear to be quite ubiquitous across all tenses and aspects in Manipuri, their labeling is not essential (despite the aesthetics in the analysis).
ELEMENTS OF ERGATIVITY IN MANIPURI
In certain circumstances Manipuri arguments don’t carry case markers while in other circumstances they do. At times case-marking is optional (this is critically an issue in typologizing a language) and marking or not marking (I want to avoid the term case-dropping which seems problematic in Manipuri) is a matter of idiosyncrasy. When the cases are necessarily marked, Manipuri shows a mixture of both nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive features, a phenomenon that (so far as I know now) does not seem to be explained or described satisfactorily by split ergativity (maybe this is a huge claim, and I have yet to look into this into greater detail) in that in many circumstances, the same idea can be expressed by using ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative and at times even ergative-accusative (6e and 6f) sentences.
There are six major points to consider when studying ergativity in Manipuri. (The examples illustrating the points are mostly drawn from some contemporary Manipuri literary texts. Number and gender agreements don’t figure in Manipuri syntax and so they have largely been ignored in labeling in the examples. As the ergativity related features discussed here appear to be quite ubiquitous across all tenses and aspects in Manipuri, their labeling is not essential (despite the aesthetics in the analysis).
1. Manipuri does not usually, but not always, case-mark S and O while it does A.
(6a) oza cǝurzit ǝmuk cǝŋlǝki (Biprachand 55)
oza cǝurzit ǝmuk cǝŋlǝk-i
sir chourjit-ABS again-ADV enter-3SP
Sir Chourjit enters again.
Examples of this type of sentences include:
niŋthem pisǝk puŋŋak ŋak-i (Maisnamba 219)
ningthem pisak-ABS (is) completely surprised-3SP
Ningthem Pisak is completely surprised.
fǝmmaŋdǝ nujam safǝbi lepli (Maisnamba 219)
in front of the bed-ADV nuyam safabi—ABS stand-3SP Progressive
Nuyam Safabi stands in front of the bed.
ǝŋaŋ tum-khre
child-ABS slept-has-3SP Perf
Child has slept.
niŋthem purel fuk hǝugǝt-li. (Maisnamba 298)
ningthem purel-ABS suddenly-ADV rise-s-3PS
Ningthem Purel gets to his feet.
tǝmpak jumdǝ hǝllǝk-le. (Benubala 49)
tampak-ABS home-ADV return-has-3SP Perf
Tampak has returned home.
(6b) aŋaŋ-nǝ ǝmǝmbǝ ki
child-ERG darkness-ABS fear-3SP
Children fear darkness.
Another example:
mǝnai mǝsǝlsiŋ-nǝ mǝtuŋ1 inzej (Maisnamba 397)
his entourage-ERG him-ABS follow-3SP
His entourage follow him.
Some determiners carry the case marker of a noun and they are glossed as ABS while the noun is glossed as NOM if it is the subject.
(6c) nupamǝca ǝmǝna ca purǝki (Biprachand 55)
nupamǝca ǝmǝ-na ca purǝk-i
boy -NOM a-ERG tea-ABS bring-3SP
A boy brings tea.
2. Sometimes S (6d) and A (6f) are equally marked to indicate (and at times to emphasize) agency though it is absolutely usual in some circumstances (6e), and O (6f) is marked differently to overtly indicate patienthood.
(6d)
thaibemmǝ-nǝ magi boifrend pamhǝibǝ-gǝ jamnǝ nǝksinnǝnǝ fǝm-mi. (Subadani 12)
thaibemma-ERG her boyfriend Pamheiba-with/to -COM very close-ADV sit-3SP
Thaibemma sits very close to her boyfriend.
(6e) mǝhak-nǝ safǝbi-bu ǝsukki mǝtik thajǝ-khi. (Maisnamba 219)
he-ERG safabi-ACC so much-ADV believe-3S Past simple
He believed Safabi so much.
This is done in more formal circumstances both in speech and writing and especially in poetry. Case-marking both A and O may at other times be awkward though understandable. O-marking is even less frequent (6g). However, in replies to questions asking for agentive information and in statements that emphasize the agentive sense, A is usually marked (6f-g).
(6f) nǝŋ-nǝ kǝna-bu theŋnǝ-rǝkke?
you-ERG whom-ACC meet.past
Who did you meet?
(6g) kokcao-nǝ gilas thugaj-re.
kokchao-ERG glass-ABS break-3SP Perf
Kokchao has broken the glass.
At times, A is unmarked like S while O is marked. Thus, (6e) can have another version in which A (whether it is noun or a pronoun) is unmarked:
mǝhak safǝbi-bu ǝsukki mǝtik thajǝ-khi
he-NOM safabi-ACC so much-ADV believe-3S Past simple
He believed Safabi so much.
3. In rare circumstances, A is marked like O in other transitive sentences but in such sentences O is almost always unmarked though marking is not unacceptable.
(6h) nǝŋ-bu kǝri khǝŋ-gene?
you-ERG what-ABS know
What do I know?
Some may still argue that -bu suffixed to A is not a subject case marker and there is still the covert -nǝ present and -bu is suffixed only after it.2 When -nǝ becomes overt, -bu marking both A and O is absolutive in form (i.e., unmarked).
4. Manipuri S, A, and O are often unmarked, and the disambiguation is done by the language’s usual word order (though word order is not always a sure guide) and other linguistic properties within the sentence including tone and intonation (especially when the unmarked A and O transpose their order/positions.
(6i) devraz cǝt-khre
Devraj-NOM go.3SP Perf
Devraj has gone.
(6j) Mǝsa mǝma mǝsǝk khǝŋ-de
Masha-NOM her mother-ACC know-not.3SP
Masha does not know her mother.
5. Interestingly, in a great many circumstances, transitive sentences of the case-marking type 1 can be recast as transitive sentences of the case-marking type 2 and vice versa (though the versions of the type where they belong are better). This sometimes applies to types 3 and 4.
(6e) in (2) can be recast in the form of (1) as
mǝhak-nǝ safǝbi … thajǝ-khi. (Maisnamba 219)
he-ERG safabi-ABS believe-3S Past simple
He believed Safabi.
(6e) can also be recast by dropping the case marker from A and adding the marker to O for the sentence to realize a NOM-ACC form.
mǝhak safǝbi-bu … thajǝ-khi. (Maisnamba 219)
he-NOM safabi-ACC believe-3S Past simple
He believed Safabi.
At the same time, we can drop all the case markers from both A and O to realize a mixed paradigm:
mǝhak safǝbi … thajǝ-khi. (Maisnamba 219)
he-NOM safabi-ABS believe-3S Past simple
He believed Safabi.
6. In what specific linguistic circumstances the operations in (5) can be executed and what “in a great many circumstances” leaves out are yet to be defined.
If we look at the features in (1) alone, Manipuri, though probably not a language with dominantly ergative features, displays elements of ergativity abundantly. Conversely, (2) shows the features of a nominative-accusative language. The feature in (3) is one that does not seem to figure exactly in the same way in reported ergative-absolutive or nominative-accusative languages that I am aware of though there are some slightly similar cases in Hindi (aap-ko kya pata hai?) and in informal English (Me knows you well). Case-unmarkedness (I want to avoid the term “dropping” because it presupposes an assumed and favored “underlying” form with a case marker while the form that most frequently occurs is unmarked) coupled with word scrambling in order in (4) makes the water muddier with tone and intonation left alone to do the disambiguation. (5) unscrews or transposes all the nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive typologization of the language. If (5) is the case, what do we mark S as—absolutive or nominative? This is the core problem (posed in 6) any substantial research on ergativity in Manipuri should address at least for now. No further research work in the field can be meaningful without first successfully addressing these issues.
There are still what looks like (semi?-)markers of case in Manipuri -ti and its phonetic variant -di, and -pudi and its phonetic variant -budi which can be suffixed to S, A and O, and -tǝ and its phonetic variant -dǝ marking dative noun phrases and -ŋondǝ marking dative pronomials. These markers add to the complexity of Manipuri case system. Further research on ergativity in Manipuri should also account for these markers and systematically identify the nature of their roles.
CONCLUSION
The above data from Manipuri shows that this language shows a very complex mixture of nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive features. As a language shows patterns and is always rule-governed and, there must be some rules governing these features or patterns in Manipuri as well. The current indecisiveness among Manipuri linguists as to where to typologically put Manipuri in regard to ergativity points to the need for a detailed study in this field, which we seem to be drastically lacking. Until then, the questions posed in (6) above will remain unanswered.
ENDNOTES
1. The word “mǝtuŋ” (splitable morphologically into two as mǝ (he, she, they or hi, her and their) and tuŋ (back), literally meaning, in this case, “after him/her.” The word does is not the equivalent of the overt English objective case forms “him” or “her.”
2. Care should be taken not to confuse the -nǝ in mǝhak-nǝ karam touba? Mǝhak here is neither a subject nor an object, and this is beyond the ambit of our current study.
ENDNOTES
1. The word “mǝtuŋ” (splitable morphologically into two as mǝ (he, she, they or hi, her and their) and tuŋ (back), literally meaning, in this case, “after him/her.” The word does is not the equivalent of the overt English objective case forms “him” or “her.”
2. Care should be taken not to confuse the -nǝ in mǝhak-nǝ karam touba? Mǝhak here is neither a subject nor an object, and this is beyond the ambit of our current study.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benubala, H. Warep. Imphal: Cultural Forum Manipur, 2013.
Biprachand, P. Ichel Machagi Iraokhol. Kakching: Loumi Publishers Kakching, 2002.
Dixon, R.M.W. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Maisnamba, B.M. Ningthemnubi. Imphal: Srimati Thourani on behalf of Uma Publications, 2006.
Manning, C. D. "Ergativity." Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Ed. Keith Brown and Ron Asher. 14 vols. Elsevier, 2005. 210-217.
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. "Grammatical Relations in Ergative Languages." Studies in Language 5.3 (1981): 361-394.
Subadani, Kshetrimayum. Meisa Amasung Meichak. Imphal: Linthoingambi Publications, 2012.