Abstract
Gutob is notorious for its variable placement of agreement markers. Gutob has independent pronouns and, for first and second persons, postverbal pronominal clitics which function as subject agreement markers. The placement of the pronominal clitics is quite complex, and has not been studied extensively. Pronominal clitics cannot only attach to verbs, but also to certain adverbs preceding the predicate. Furthermore, the placement of pronominal clitics within the verb complex varies considerably between different auxiliary constructions. The aim of this article is to present a new analysis of person markers in Gutob. Firstly, a discussion of the placement of person markers in sentences with different types of predicates will be given. Secondly, person markers at different positions will be compared on the basis of co-occurrence possibilities and morphosyntactic criteria. It will be argued that person markers in sentence-initial and postverbal position fall into two separate categories: independent pronouns and agreement markers. However, preverbal person markers cannot be assigned to either category, as they share features of both.
List of Abbreviations
- 1
First person
- 2
Second person
- 3
Third person
- ACT
Active
- AUX
Auxiliary
- DET
Determiner
- ECHO
Echo word
- EMPH
Emphatic
- FUT
Future
- IMP
Imperative
- HAB
Habitual
- HON
Honorific
- LOC
Locative
- MID
Middle
- NPST
Non-past
- OBJ
Object
- PL
Plural
- PROG
Progressive
- PST
Past
- SEQ
Sequential converb
- SG
Singular
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Dabney Grewe, Uta Reinöhl and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
References
Abbi, Anvita & Devi Gopalakrishnan. 1991. Semantics of explicator compound verbs in South Asian languages. Language Sciences 13(2). 161–180.10.1016/0388-0001(91)90012-PSearch in Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2007. The Munda verb: Typological perspectives (Tends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 174). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110924251Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D. S. & Norman H.Zide. 2001. Recent advances in the reconstruction of the Proto–Munda (Austroasiatic) verb. In Laurel J. Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999, 13–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.215.03andSearch in Google Scholar
Berger, Peter. 2007. Füttern, Speisen und Verschlingen: Ritual und Gesellschaft im Hochland von Orissa, Indien (INDUS: Ethnologische Südasien-Studien 11). Berlin: Lit Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Wilhelm Geuder. 2003. Light verbs in Urdu and grammaticalization. In Regine Eckardt, Klaus von Heusinger & Christoph Schwarze (eds.), Words in time: Diachronic semantics from different points of view, 143–295. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110899979.295Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael A. 2005. Morphology in the wrong place: a survey of preposed enclitics. In Wolfgang U. Dressler (ed.), Morphology and its demarcations: Selected papers from the 11th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004, 17–37. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.264.02cysSearch in Google Scholar
Donegan Patricia J. & David Stampe. 2002. South-East Asian features in the Munda languages: Evidence for the analytic-to-synthetic drift of Munda. In Patrick Chew (ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Special session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian linguistics, in honor of Prof. James A. Matisoff, 111–129. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v28i2.1041Search in Google Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 1999. Locality in post-syntactic operations. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34. 265–317.Search in Google Scholar
Ghosh, Arun. 2003. Linguistic sketch of Gutob. In Arun Ghosh (ed.), An ethnolinguistic profile of eastern India: A case of South Orissa, 107–131. Burdwan: University of Burdwan.Search in Google Scholar
Griffiths, Arlo. 2008. Gutob. In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 633–681. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: Another look at the suffixing preference. Language 90(4). 927–960.10.1353/lan.2014.0105Search in Google Scholar
Hook, Peter E. 1991. The compound verb in Munda: An areal and typological overview. Language Sciences 13(2). 181–195.10.1016/0388-0001(91)90013-QSearch in Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61(1). 95–120.10.2307/413422Search in Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20. 303–318.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fenning (eds.). 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (17). Dallas, TX: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com/ (accessed 7March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Mathews, Susan. 2003. Desia grammar write-up. Lamptaput: Asha Kiran Society.Search in Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Neukom, Lukas. 2001. Santali (Languages of the World/Materials 323). München: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar
Osada, Toshiki. 2008. Mundari. In Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 99–164. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Peterson, John. 2011. A Grammar of Kharia: A South Munda language (Brill’s Studies in South and Southwest Asian Languages). Leiden: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004187207.i-474Search in Google Scholar
Pinnow, Heinz-Jürgen. 1965. Personal pronouns in the Austroasiatic languages: A historical study. In G.B. Milner & Eugénie J. A. Henderson (eds.), Indo-Pacific linguistic studies (Lingua 14), 3–42. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co.10.1016/0024-3841(65)90034-3Search in Google Scholar
Rajan, Herold F. & Jamuna Rajan. 2001. Grammar write-up of Gutob-Gadaba. Lamptaput: Asha Kiran Society.Search in Google Scholar
Rau, Felix. 2013. Approaching the family from the southwest. Presentation held at ICAAL 5. ICAAL 5, 4–5 September 2013, Canberra.Search in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2011. Person marking. In: Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 322–345. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0017Search in Google Scholar
Sloetjes, Han & Wittenburg, Peter. 2008. Annotation by category – ELAN and ISO DCR. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008). Elan [Computer program]. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Version 4.5.1. http://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/ (accessed 19 March 2013).Search in Google Scholar
Voß, Judith. 2013. Echo words in Gutob. Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Voß, Judith. 2014. Light verbs in Munda. Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Zide, Norman H. 1968. Some comparative notes on pronouns. In J.C. Heesterman, G.H. Schokker & V.I. Subramoniam (eds.), Pratidānam: Indian, Iranian and Indo-European studies presented to Franciscus Bernardius Jacobus Kuiper on his sixtieth birthday (Janua Linguarum; Series Maior 34), 348–358. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Zide, Norman H. 1997. Gutob pronominal clitics and related phenomena elsewhere in Gutob-Remo-Gta?. In Anvita Abbi (ed.), Languages of tribal and indigenous peoples of India: The ethnic space, 307–334. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Search in Google Scholar
Zide, Norman H. & Gregory D. S. Anderson. 2001. The Proto-Munda verb: Some connections with Mon-Khmer. In K. V. Subbarao & P. Bhaskararao (eds.), Yearbook of South-Asian languages and linguistics 2001, 517–540. Delhi: Sage Publications.10.1515/9783110245264.517Search in Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On clitics (Papers). Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61(2). 283–305.10.2307/414146Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Introduction – advances in the study of Munda languages
- Prosody, phonological domains and the structure of roots, stems and words in the Munda languages in a comparative/historical light
- From “finite” to “narrative” – The enclitic marker =a in Kherwarian (North Munda) and Sadri (Indo-Aryan)
- Person markers in Gutob
- Book Reviews
- Pollet, G. and van Damme, G.: Corpus topographicum Indiae antiquae. III. Indian toponyms in Ancient Greek and Latin Texts
- LaDousa, Chaise: Hindi is our ground, English is our sky: Education, language, and social class in contemporary India
- Holst, Jan Henrik: Advances in Burushaski linguistics
- Dubi Nanda Dhakal: Darai Texts
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Introduction – advances in the study of Munda languages
- Prosody, phonological domains and the structure of roots, stems and words in the Munda languages in a comparative/historical light
- From “finite” to “narrative” – The enclitic marker =a in Kherwarian (North Munda) and Sadri (Indo-Aryan)
- Person markers in Gutob
- Book Reviews
- Pollet, G. and van Damme, G.: Corpus topographicum Indiae antiquae. III. Indian toponyms in Ancient Greek and Latin Texts
- LaDousa, Chaise: Hindi is our ground, English is our sky: Education, language, and social class in contemporary India
- Holst, Jan Henrik: Advances in Burushaski linguistics
- Dubi Nanda Dhakal: Darai Texts