Startseite Copy-verb constructions in Tibeto-Burman and beyond
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Copy-verb constructions in Tibeto-Burman and beyond

  • Pavel Ozerov EMAIL logo und Henriëtte Daudey
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 6. Juli 2017

Abstract

The subject of this study is the copy-verb construction {verbal_stem=discourse_clitic final_verb} in the Tibeto-Burman family, with particular emphasis on two languages, Burmese and Pumi. Both languages show a highly diverse functional span of this construction, thereby offering insights for its analysis and for our understanding of the interaction of verbal categories with information structure and context. The copy-verb construction of Pumi and Burmese is subsequently compared with parallel phenomena in Tibeto-Burman and is situated in a wider crosslinguistic perspective.

Acknowledgements

This article stems from our joint research and discussions at the Centre of Research on Language Diversity (formerly RCLT) at La Trobe University, Melbourne. We are thankful to our CRLD colleagues Stephen Morey and Stefan Schnell for providing comments on an earlier version of the article. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of three anonymous reviewers and of Frans Plank for their comments and suggestions throughout the reviewing process. In addition, we are grateful for the helpful feedback of the audience at the 47th ICSTLL on a partial version of this article, in particular Liu Danqing, who referred us to his work on copy-verb constructions in Chinese and Tibeto-Burman, and Linda Konnerth who drew our attention to a number of valuable examples of copy-verb constructions in Tibeto-Burman literature, in particular in Kuki-Chin and Tangkhul, and contributed additional examples from her own work in progress on Monsang. Erik Andvik referred us to his analysis of the construction in Tshangla. Additional thanks go to the respective language communities and consultants, especially Ashin Sopaka and Mr. Myo Tha Htet for Burmese, and Gerong Pincu and other contributors from Wadu village for Pumi. We also thank Ginny Larson and Ellen Bartee who proofread successive versions of the article.

Abbreviations

1/2/3

1st/2nd/3rd person

abl

ablative

add

additive

addfoc

additional focus

agt

agentive

agrm

agreement attitude

caus

causative

ch

Chinese loanword

cl

class pronoun

clf

classifier

cntrtop

contrastive topic

coll

collective

comp

complementiser

coord

coordinator

csb

co-subordinate

cul

culminative

custexcl

exclusive customary

decl

declarative

def

definite

disjtop

disjunctive topic

diss

dissatisfaction

down

downwards

du

dual

ego

egophoric

emph

emphatic particle

epist

epistemic

excl

exclusive

exist:ab

existential (abstract)

exist:an

existential (animate)

exist:at

existential (attached)

exist:poss

existential (possessive)

expt

expectational

f

feminine

foc

focus

frsp

from speaker

fut

future

fv

final vowel

gen

genitive

gnomic

gnomic

imp

imperative

in

inwards

incl

inclusive

indf

indefinite

inf

infinitive

infr

inferential

intj

interjection

ipfv

imperfective

irr

irrealis

link

linker

loc

locative

log

logophoric

m

masculine

neg

negative

nego

non-egophoric

nmlz

nominaliser

nf

non-final verbal suffix

nvl

non-volitional

np

noun prefix

nsg

non-singular

obj

object

out

outwards

pfv

perfective

pl

plural

pn

proper name

pol

politeness

prf

perfect

prs

present

prt

particle

pst

past

ptc

participial suffix

quot

quotative

r

realis

rel

relative

rhet

rhetorical question

rinf

reinforce

sbj

subject

sc2

subject concord of class 2

seq

sequentional

sg

singular

spec

speculative

tam

tense and aspect marker

top

topic

tosp

to speaker

trail

trailing knowledge

up

upwards

vol

volitive

vn

verbal noun

warn

warning.

References

Aboh, Enoch O. 2006. When verbal predicates go fronting. In Fiedler & Schwarz (eds.) 2006, 21–48.10.21248/zaspil.46.2006.334Suche in Google Scholar

Ameka, Felix K. 1992. Focus constructions in Ewe and Akan. In Chris Collins & Victor Manfredi (eds.), Proceedings of the Kwa Comparative Syntax Workshop (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 17), 1–25. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Suche in Google Scholar

Ameka, Felix K. 2005. Multiverb constructions on the West African littoral: Microvariation and areal typology. In Mira Vulchanova & Tor A. Afarli (eds.), Grammar and beyond: Essays in honour of Lars Hellan, 15–42. Oslo: Novus.Suche in Google Scholar

Andvik, Erik E. 2010. A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004178274.i-490Suche in Google Scholar

Arokianathan, S. 1987. Tangkhul Naga grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.Suche in Google Scholar

Athanasiadou, Angeliki. 2007. On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences 29. 554–565.10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.009Suche in Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 1999. Topic. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 142–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 2007. Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese. In Norbert Corver & Jairo Nunes (eds.), The copy theory of movement, 151–173. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/la.107.07cheSuche in Google Scholar

Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Luis Vicente. 2013. Verb doubling in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 22. 1–37.10.1007/s10831-012-9095-6Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, Eran. 2006. The Old Babylonian paronomastic infinitive in -am. Journal of the American Oriental Society 126. 425–432.Suche in Google Scholar

Dài, Qìngxià, Liú Júhuáng & Fù Àilán. 1991. Kèlúnyǔ. [The Karen language.] In Dài Qìngxià, Huáng Bùfán, Fù Àilán, Rénzēng Wàngmǔ & Liú Júhuáng (eds.), Zàngmiǎnyǔ shíwǔ zhǒng, 388–414. Beijing: Yanshan Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511993473Suche in Google Scholar

Daudey, Henriëtte. 2014a. Volition and control in Wǎdū Pǔmǐ. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37. 75–103.10.1075/ltba.37.1.03dauSuche in Google Scholar

Daudey, Henriëtte. 2014b. A grammar of Wadu Pumi. Melbourne: La Trobe University doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

De Kind, Jasper, Sebastian Dom, Gilles-Maurice de Schryver & Koen Bostoen. 2015. Event-centrality and the pragmatics–semantics interface in Kikongo: From predication focus to progressive aspect and vice versa. Folia Linguistica Historica 36. 113–163.10.1515/flih-2015-0005Suche in Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar, part 1: The structure of the clause. Edited by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–273.10.1353/lan.1998.0211Suche in Google Scholar

Fiedler, Ines. 2006. Focus expressions in Yom. Cahiers Voltaïques 7. 112–121.Suche in Google Scholar

Fiedler, Ines & Anne Schwarz (eds.). 2006. Papers on information structure in African languages (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 46). Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung. http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/187.html10.21248/zaspil.46.2006.332Suche in Google Scholar

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1971. Tautological infinitive. Israel Oriental Studies 1. 36–85. Reprinted in Gideon Goldenberg, Studies in Semitic linguistics: Selected writings, 66–115. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998.Suche in Google Scholar

Good, Jeff. 2003. Clause combining in Chechen. Studies in Language 27. 113–170.10.1075/sl.27.1.05gooSuche in Google Scholar

Greif, Markus. 2010. Tones and intonation in Prinmi – a first survey. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 63. 221–251.10.1524/stuf.2010.0020Suche in Google Scholar

Güldemann, Tom. 2003. Present progressive vis-à-vis predication focus in Bantu: A verbal category between semantics and pragmatics. Studies in Language 27. 323–360.10.1075/sl.27.2.05gulSuche in Google Scholar

Güldemann, Tom & Ines Fiedler. 2013. Verb fronting in Bantu in typological perspective. Paper presented at the workshop “Information Structure in Bantu Languages”, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10–11 December. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/predicate_focus_africa/data/2013-12-10_G%C3%BCldemann_Fiedler.Bantu.focus.fronting.pdfSuche in Google Scholar

Güldemann, Tom, Sabina Zerbian & Malte Zimmermann. 2015. Variation in information structure with special reference to Africa. Annual Review of Linguistics 1. 155–178.10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125134Suche in Google Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica R. Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 209–239. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.17.16gunSuche in Google Scholar

Haig, Geoffrey. 2002. Noun-plus-verb complex predicates in Kurmanjî Kurdish: Argument sharing, argument incorporation, or what? Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55. 25–48.10.1524/stuf.2002.55.1.15Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry & John R. Watters. 1984. Auxiliary focus. Studies in African Linguistics 15. 233–273.10.32473/sal.v15i3.107511Suche in Google Scholar

Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2011. A grammar of Kurtöp. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Jenny, Mathias. 2008. Finiteness in Burmese. Paper presented at the 41st International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, School of Oriental and Asian Studies, London, 18–21 September.Suche in Google Scholar

Kim, Yoo-Ko. 2009. The function of the tautological infinitive in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.10.1163/9789004370067Suche in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Konnerth, Linda. 2014. A grammar of Karbi. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39. 463–516.10.1515/ling.2001.021Suche in Google Scholar

Liu, Danqing. 2004. Identical topics: A more characteristic property of topic prominent languages. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 32. 20–64.Suche in Google Scholar

Manfredi, Victor. 1993. Verb focus in the typology of Kwa/Kru and Haitian. In Francis Byrne & Donald Winford (eds.). Focus and grammatical relations in Creole languages, 3–51. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cll.12.05manSuche in Google Scholar

Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49. 127–63.10.1017/S0022226712000345Suche in Google Scholar

McCoy, Svetlana. 2003. Connecting information structure and discourse structure through “kontrast”: The case of colloquial Russian particles -to, že, and ved’. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12. 319–335.10.1023/A:1024110711090Suche in Google Scholar

Morey, Stephen. 2011. Nominalization in Numhpuk Singpho. In Yap et al. (eds.) 2011, 289–312.10.1075/tsl.96.10morSuche in Google Scholar

Muraoka, Takamitsu. 1985. Emphatic words and structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.10.1163/9789004433496Suche in Google Scholar

Okell, John & Anna J. Allott. 2001. Burmese (Myanmar) dictionary of grammatical forms. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203037232Suche in Google Scholar

Ozerov, Pavel. 2012. It is not so: Nominal and ‘emphatic’ negation in colloquial Burmese. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 41. 219–285.10.1163/19606028-04102003Suche in Google Scholar

Ozerov, Pavel. 2014. The system of information packaging in colloquial Burmese. Melbourne: La Trobe University doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Ozerov, Pavel. 2015a. Information structure without topic and focus: Differential Object Marking in Burmese. Studies in Language 39. 386–423.10.1075/sl.39.2.04ozeSuche in Google Scholar

Ozerov. Pavel. 2015b. Telling a story with (almost) no tenses: The structure of written narrative in Burmese. Linguistics 53. 1169–1202.10.1515/ling-2015-0027Suche in Google Scholar

Peterson, David A. & Kenneth VanBik. 2004. Coordination in Hakha Lai (Tibeto-Burman). In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 333–356. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.58.18petSuche in Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen F. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In Peter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax (Syntax and Semantics 29), 261–302. San Diego: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.10.1007/BF02342617Suche in Google Scholar

Soe, Myint. 1999. A grammar of Burmese. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Túngdìm, Philip Thangliènmāng. 2011. Syntactic, semantic and, pragmatic functions of Zo verbal stem alternations. Paper presented at the 44th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan languages and linguistics, Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, 7–9 October.Suche in Google Scholar

Victor, Ahum. 1997. Tangkhul-Naga grammar: A study of word formation. New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Vittrant, Alice. 2013. Psycho-collocational expressives in Burmese. In Jeffrey P. Williams (ed.), The aesthetics of grammar, 255–279. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139030489.021Suche in Google Scholar

Wáng, Zhìjìng. 1994. Zàngyǔ Lāsà kǒuyǔ yǔfǎ. [A grammar of spoken Lhasa Tibetan.] Beijing: Central Nationality University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Wolff, H. Ekkehard & Doris Löhr. 2006. Encoding focus in Kanuri verbal morphology: Predication focus and the “Kanuri focus shift”. In Fiedler & Schwarz (eds.) 2006, 185–209.Suche in Google Scholar

Yap, Foong Ha, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.). 2011. Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 289–312. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.96Suche in Google Scholar

Zimmermann, Malte & Edgar Onea. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121. 1651–1670.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2014-11-25
Revised: 2016-3-18
Published Online: 2017-7-6
Published in Print: 2017-7-26

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 20.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingty-2017-0002/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen