to DeLancey's
Linguistics Home Page
comments welcome: delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu
ROUGH DRAFT -- please do not cite without consulting the author
Deixis, Topicality, and the Inverse
Scott DeLancey
University of Oregon
0. Introduction
Direct-inverse marking, like dative-subject marking, ergativity,
active-stative typology, and evidentiality before it, is an
exotic typological pattern which, once recognized, turns out to
be far more common than anyone ever suspected. A generation ago
it was considered, by those linguists who were aware of it at
all, to be a strange idiosyncratic feature of Algonquian
languages. As the typological database of general linguistics
expanded, a handful of similar examples began to be pointed out
(Comrie 1980, DeLancey 1980, 1981a, b, Whistler 1979/85). In the
1970's the phenomenon was, for obvious reasons, of some
theoretical interest to practitioners of Relational Grammar (e.g.
LeSourd 1976, Jolley 1981), and attracted some typological
attention (e.g. Comrie 1980, DeLancey 1981a). Recently it has
become a topic of increasing interest in both formal and
functional frameworks. My primary purpose in this paper is to
reassert the hypothesis of the fundamentally deictic nature of
inverse marking presented in DeLancey 1981a with reference to a
quite different functional approach recently developed by Chad
Thompson and T. Givn.
1 The traditional category of direction
1.1 A simple inverse system: Nocte
The inverse phenomenon in its simplest form is illustrated by
Nocte. The intransitive indices in Nocte are 1st -@, 2nd
-O?, 3rd -a or -?. The transitive paradigm
is (Weidert 1985:925):
OBJECT 1st 2nd 3rd
SUBJECT
1st - -@
2nd -h-@ -O?
3rd -h-@ -h-O? -a
The transitive paradigm of Nocte
There are two significant facts about this paradigm. The first
is that the verb always indexes a 1st or 2nd in preference to a
3rd person, so that both the 13 and the 31 verb forms have the
1st person -@ suffix, and both 23 and 32 the 2nd person
-O?. (I will refer to the category of 1st and 2nd person
as speech act participants, of SAP's). Note the unique index for
the 12 form. Otherwise the distribution of the personal indices
in the transitive paradigm perfectly reflects a 1 > 2 > 3
hierarchy, i.e. agreement is with 1st person if possible,
otherwise 2nd, and 3rd only if no argument is 1st or 2nd person.
The other element of a classic inverse system is represented
here by the -h- suffix, which is a typical inverse marker.
This
occurs in just those verbs with 3rd person subject and SAP
object, as well as in the 2nd person subject/1st person object
(21) configuration, and is thus cannot be assigned any value as
a personal index; rather, it indexes the relation of the two
arguments of a transitive verb in terms of the same 1 > 2 > 3
person hierarchy. With this marking, each verb form is
unambiguous as to the identity and role of its arguments.
Nocte represents a maximally simple direction system, in
that there are only two categories, direct and inverse (see below
for other possibilities), and only one of these is marked; and in
that it is functionally a pure inverse system, reflecting no
ranking among more or less thematic third person arguments (i.e.
only the direct verb form occurs when both subject and object are
third person). Thus the correct semantic interpretation of a
conjugated Nocte verb requires the interpretation of the presence
or absence of the inverse -h, which indicates whether it
is subject or object that is being indexed.
In all but the 12 form the indexed argument is the
principal participant as determined by a ranking of 1st > 2nd >
3rd. When the direction of the event is from a participant lower
on the hierarchy to one higher, the verb is marked as inverse.
The 12 form, however, introduces a complication into our
analysis of the person hierarchy. By analogy with the rest of
the paradigm we would expect 1st person indexation here; what we
have instead is a distinct form. I will argue (following
DeLancey 1981a) that this reflects a difference between the
fundamental and universal ranking SAP > 3rd and the weaker,
language-particular ranking of the two SAP's.
1.2 The classic inverse: Algonquian
A more complicated version of the classic pattern is found in the
Algonquian languages, where the phenomenon of inverse marking was
first identified and named. A straightforward example is Plains
Cree (Wolfart 1973, cp. Dahlstrom 1986) which overtly marks four
direction categories--direct, inverse, and the two "local"
categories 12 and 21--with morphemes from a single paradigm,
and consistently indexes the principal participant in all
configurations. The verb forms with both arguments singular in
the independent order of the transitive animate paradigm (i.e.
verbs with animate objects) can be schematized as follows (where
V represents the verb stem):
object
1st 2nd 3rd
subject
1st ki-V-i-n ni-V-aa-wa
2nd ki-V-eti-n ki-V-aa-wa
3rd ni-V-ekw ki-V-ekw V-ekw / V-ee-wa
The prefixes and second position suffixes are person indices:
ki- '2nd', ni- '1st', -wa '3rd proximate',
and -n '1st or 2nd'. The first position suffixes are
direction markers: -ekw marks unambiguously inverse, and
-aa unambiguously direct, configurations, while the two
local categories each have their own direction marker, -i
'12' and -eti '21'.
The distribution of the personal prefixes clearly reflects a
2nd > 1st > 3rd person hierarchy. Such a hierarchy should, as in
Nocte, define every configuration except 33 as clearly either
direct, i.e. with subject higher on the hierarchy than object, or
inverse, with object higher than subject. In Cree, however, we
find not a two- but a four-term direction system; as I have
argued at greater length in DeLancey 1981a, this reflects the
fact that the language-particular ranking among SAPs is of a
different order from the universal SAP > 3rd ranking.
The other significant respect in which the Cree system
differs from that of Nocte is in the subdivision of the 33
category according to the relative topicality of the two
participants. The form -ee-aw, which Wolfart glosses as
'direct-3rd', is used with proximate, i.e. more topical, subject
and obviative, i.e. less topical, object, and the clearly inverse
form -ekw with obviative subject and proximate object.
(This -ee is analyzed as an allomorph of the direct
morpheme. The fact that this allomorphy is not phonologically
conditioned should be the cause for some discomfort, as it
suggests that Cree does not treat these configurations as
belonging to the same category as truly direct SAP3
configurations). Thus in Algonquian relative topicality can
define the principal participant when hierarchical ranking fails
to do so.
1.3 Parameters of classic inverse marking
The characteristic features of a classic inverse system are
hierarchical indexation and inverse marking. Hierarchical
agreement is, prototypically, agreement with an SAP in preference
to a 3rd person argument, regardless of grammatical role, though
many languages show various idiosyncratic complications of this
general pattern. Inverse marking is a special morphological mark
on the verb in the 31 and 32 configurations; some languages may
also apply the same mark to 3Obv3Prox and/or to one of the 12 or
21 categories.
1.3.1 Direct and local categories
Many inverse-marking languages show additional morphological
complications. The Algonquian system, still the most complex
synchronically coherent system I know of, includes both direct
and special local morphemes: the direct marker is found in the
13 and 23 forms, while each of the two local categories, 12
and 21, has its own unique direction marker. As we will discuss
in the next section, the Algonquian languages also are among
those in which the direct/inverse distinction is extended to 33
configurations. (It is important to note that, although
Algonquianists, on the basis of the verb agreement pattern,
identify the 21 form as direct and the 12 form as inverse,
there is no obvious relation between these direction morphemes
and the true inverse and direct markers).
The widespread occurrence of special marking for one or both
local categories demonstrates the lack of a clear, universal
ranking of the speech act participants relative to one another on
the person hierarchy. While some scholars find sufficient
evidence to assert a universal tendency for 1st person to outrank
2nd (see Dixon 1994:88-90), it is clear that any such ranking is
of a different, and lesser, order than the drastic and universal
ranking of the SAP's over 3rd person. In the data that we have
examined here, Cree (and all Algonquian languages, but cp.
DeLancey 1981a:643-4) verbal indexation reflects a ranking of 2nd
person above 1st. Direction marking, on the other hand, appears
to treat them as equal; in any case it shows that the ranking of
2>1 is of a different order from the ranking SAP>3. Nocte
explicitly ranks 1st above 2nd in direction marking, marking 21
but not 21 as inverse, but the odd personal index in the 12
form (and the fact that both SAP's, but not 3rd person, are
indexed) suggest again that 1st person outranks 2nd by much less
than both of them outrank 3rd. Cree treats both local categories
as special direction categories, but both show normal
hierarchical indexation. Nocte treats 21 as inverse and 12 as
non-inverse, but the indexation paradigm treats 12 as a special
category. Taken together, then, Nocte and Cree imply a universal
schema in which SAP arguments are clearly distinguished from and
ranked above all others, and there is no universal ranking of the
two SAP's (since Cree shows one of the possible rankings, and
Nocte the other).
The categories which an inverse system may distinguish can
be schematized as follows:
Object
1 2 3
Subject ͻ
LOCAL1
1 or DIRECT
Ĵ DIRECT
2 LOCAL2 or
INVERSE
Ķ
3 INVERSE 0, 3rd,
or D/I
ͼ
As far as I know, the inverse is the characteristic element of
this system, in the sense that many languages have an inverse
morpheme but no special direct or local marking, while we do not
find direct and/or local marked when inverse is not. Thus it is
clear that inverse is the marked member of the direct/inverse
opposition. There languages which distinguish the two 33
categories without marking the inverse category proper (Thompson
1989, Dryer 1994), but for me it is not yet established in
exactly what sense these systems should be treated as
exemplifying the same functional category as the classic inverse.
1.3.2 The treatment of 33
Some inverse-marking languages extend the direct/inverse
distinction to 33 configurations, treating them as inverse when
the object rather than the subject is more topically central.
The clearest example I know of is Chepang (Caughley 1978, 1982,
DeLancey 1980, 1981b, Thompson 1990). The Chepang paradigm,
with some complexities ignored, is given below (from Caughley
1982; a slightly different paradigm is given in Caughley 1978).
The direct and inverse morphemes apparently are optional in at
least some of these configurations (double hyphens indicate slots
where other suffixes, not part of the direction/person paradigm,
can occur):
object
1st 2nd 3rd
subject
1st -ne?-- -?(-u)
2nd -te?--ci
-te?-u?
-te?--ta-?
3rd -ta-? -te?
-u/-tha
Here the -u suffix marks all of the unambiguously direct
configurations, and the -ta both of the 1st person object
forms. Note that verb agreement follows a hierarchical pattern.
Caughley describes the -ta/-tha and -u suffixes as
registering which of the two core participants, subject or
object, is cross-referenced by the personal suffix; thus the
-u can be glossed 'subject indexed', and -ta/-tha
'object indexed'. The absence of either in the 2nd person object
configurations can for our purposes be considered a historical
accident.
In the 33 configuration either the inverse or the direct
morpheme can occur, and the description by Caughley of the
conditions for this alternation are reminiscent of those which
condition normal active/passive alternations. However, as both
Caughley (1982) and Thompson (1990) argue, the overall system is
much more inverse- than passive-like: note in particular that
both categories are marked, and that in inverse as in direct
forms both arguments remain obligatory, and the inverse shows no
evidence of detransitivization.
Chepang is somewhat unusual (not unique, I'm sure; I'd love
a collection of examples, but don't have one) in using exactly
the same morphological forms to distinguish SAP vs. 3 and 3 vs.
4. More commonly, in my experience, we find either inverse
marking restricted to SAP vs. 3, or, as in Algonquian, distinct
morphological forms for these two functions. Thus we need an
interpretation of the data which will let us say something
sensible about languages like Chepang, but without asserting
greater naturalness for this pattern than for equally well-
attested patterns like those of Nocte or Algonquian.
1.4 The Obviation Hypothesis
A recent interpretation of the inverse category developed by
Thompson (1989, 1990, 1994) and Givn (1990, 1994, cf. various
papers in Givn, ed., 1994), presents a functional definition of
the inverse category which considerably expands the set of
inverse constructions, to include constructions from a number of
languages which have little or nothing in common structurally
with the classic inverse:
An inverse construction indicates a deviation from the
normal degree of relative topicality between agent and
non-agent. Traditional uses of the word "inverse" have
been limited to those languages in which inverse
constructions are based on the ranking of persons. In
such systems, speech act participants are viewed as
being greater in rank than third person and inverse
morphology is used when the agent is third person and
the non-agent first or second person. In some
languages, such as Nocte, the direction system is not
operative between two third person arguments, while in
other languages, such as Algonquian, the direction
system operates between all persons including the third
person subject and the third person object. One of the
contributions of this paper and Thompson (1989a) is to
extend the term "inverse" to languages such as Koyukon,
where the direction system can operate between third
person arguments, but not obligatorily between speech
act participants and third persons. Below is a summary
of the various types of ranking involved in inverse
constructions.
1. Generic ranking between SAP and third persons
(e.g. some Tibeto-Burman languages such as
Nocte)
2. Generic ranking between SAP and third persons and
contextual or generic ranking between third
persons (e.g. Algonquian languages and
Chamorro)
3. Contextual or generic ranking between third
persons (e.g. Athabaskan)
(Thompson 1994:60-1)
This approach treats the inverse as another voice type, parallel
to the passive and the antipassive.
Givn, in recognition of the discreteness of the classic
inverse, distinguishes it as the "semantic inverse", a
recognizable subcategory of the broader inverse category.
Thompson's type 3 is then labelled the "pragmatic inverse".
Especially in light of the discussion in Givn 1990 (pp. 611-18)
it is hard to see how this notion of "pragmatic inverse" differs
from the notion of obviation, which has long been known to be
often associated with inverse, but nevertheless recognized as a
distinct phenomenon. I will refer to the suggestion that these
phenomena be considered subcategories of a single functional
category as the "Obviation Hypothesis"; in this paper I am
particularly addressing Thompson and Givn's proposals, but basic
my argument concerning the fundamentally deictic nature of the
inverse is equally addressed to any other proposal along these
lines.
Part of the empirical argument for the Obviation Hypothesis
is the existence of languages such as Chepang in which exactly
the same mechanism (cf. Thompson 1990) is used to encode a
person-based direct/inverse system and to categorize 33
configurations according to whether the subject or object is more
topical. Thus Givn notes:
One can, of course, detect a fundamental unity in the
use of the semantic and pragmatic inverse in a language
that unites both functions in the very same
construction. (1994:22-3)
One argument which I will advance below is that there seem to be
relatively fewer such languages than we might expect to find if
there were in fact the "fundamental unity" which Thompson and
Givn suggest.
But the broader argument is not empirical in this sense.
Rather, it assumes that the differences between speech act
participants and 3rd person arguments which is reflected in
inverse marking is simply a special case of the broad category of
differences in topicality. A clear statement of this assumption
is provided by Doris Payne:
Because 1st and 2nd person participants are already,
simply by the pragmatics of the speech act,
individuated from the world of things "out there" to be
talked about, they are inherently more topical than 3rd
persons. The speech act participants are also always
available in memory; by definition, if a hearer is
attending to a speaker, the hearer must always have an
"open file" for the speaker. There is also a natural
sense in which speech act participants are generally
taken for granted as "more important" or the "natural
center of interest", over 3rd persons. Thus,
regardless of any particular discourse context, the
hierarchy in (8) [i.e. 1 > 2 > 3] can be taken as an
inherent topicality hierarchy. (Payne 1994:316)
Thus the expression of topicality relations among 3rd person
participants and the deictic SAP/3rd opposition are seen as
belonging to the same functional domain (in the sense of Givn
1981). Since topicality maintenance in the broad sense is
clearly the larger and more functionally central domain, the
implication--made explicit by Givn--is that the "semantic"
inverse is only a variant of the broader inverse category:
In many languages with a direct vs. inverse voice
contrast, the inverse clause must be used
obligatorily under certain grammatical
conditions. Most commonly, such obligatory 'inversion'
occurs when the agent is third person but the
patient is first/second person, or when the
agent is inanimate/non-human but the patient is
animate/human. One may consider this an
inherent topicality inversion: Universally,
speaker and hearer outrank 3rd persons in topicality,
and animates/humans outrank inanimates/non-humans.
These cases of obligatory inversion are in essence
grammaticalized uses of the inverse voice under
the same basic conditions--the patient outranks the
agent in topicality. (Givn 1990:617; emphasis
original)
I will argue in the following sections that there is another
typological context in which inverse constructions can be viewed.
The inverse clearly has both typological and diachronic
connections with other phenomena which clearly are or can be
shown to be fundamentally concerned with the functional domain of
deictic orientation. Viewed from this perspective, the
"semantic" inverse can be seen to be primary, and to the extent
that some "pragmatic" constructions can be shown to be connected
to the classic inverse pattern, it is probable that they
represent extension of an originally deictic pattern, rather than
the reverse.
Givn further makes the tentative suggestion that the
"semantic" inverse may be seen universally as arising
diachronically from a grammaticalization of a pragmatic inverse
construction:
... it was suggested that word-order inversion
precedes--and gives rise to--pronominal morphological
inversion. Since all word-order inverses known to us
are purely pragmatic, the inference is strong that
pragmatic inversion is the diachronically early,
general ('unmarked') phenomenon, and that semantic
inversion is the more special ('marked') sub-phenomenon
within it ... However, if this hypothesis is to
prevail, the existence of the purely-semantic, purely
pronominal inverses ... must be interpreted as a
vestigial survival of an erstwhile mixed
semantic-pragmatic inverse.
I will argue below that there is no evidence whatever for such an
inference, and substantial evidence against the claim that the
classic inverse pattern necessarily arises from a "pragmatic"
inverse construction.
2 Variations on a theme
The "semantic inverse" refers to a structural category which
explicitly indicates the relative ranking on a hierarchy of
person of the Actor and Undergoer of a transitive verb. There
are, as it happens, a range of other phenomena which fall within
the same functional domain. While the structural expression of
this functional category varies considerably, I see no way to
distinguish several of these construction types from the classic
inverse through a functional definition; thus, in the spirit of
the Obviation Hypothesis, we must include them as exponents of
the same functional category. I present these here as the basis
for an argument that the classic inverse pertains to another
functional domain distinct from that of topicality management.
2.1 Inverse marking without hierarchical agreement
The "semantic" definition will also apply to an unusual (so far
as I know so far) pattern in which some morpheme indicating
spatial deixis is inducted into the verbal system to mark the
inverse relation. This pattern is sharply differentiated from
the classic inverse by the fact that agreement does not follow a
hierarchical pattern, but a more familiar subject-agreement
system.
2.1.1 Inverse from cislocative in Kuki-Chin
In several languages of the Kuki-Chin group a simple inverse
marking system has developed from the marking of deictic
orientation on motion verbs (DeLancey 1980). In most of these
languages a motion verb ho 'come' has become partially or
completely grammaticalized as a cislocative 'hither' prefix on
motion verbs (see DeLancey 1985 for details). In some
languages--the development is reliably reported for the closely
related Tiddim (Henderson 1965), Sizang (Stern 1963), and Paite
(Konow 1904), and the more distant Banjogi (Konow 1904) or Bawm
(Reichle 1981)--this morpheme has developed the additional
function of optionally marking some transitive or ditransitive
configurations with SAP or, in Bawm, all configurations with 1st
person object.
In Tiddim and Sizang, we find the cislocative marker used at
least optionally with any transitive or ditransitive verb with
1st or 2nd person object or goal, as in (exx. from Stern 1984:52,
56):
1) na-l:i ho thk ka-: a:
2nd-letter CIS send 1st-receive NF
'I having received your letter which [you] sent
to me ...'
2) k-o thk k:k l-l:u h:
1st-CIS reply again once.more FIN
'... I in turn reply to you.'
3) ho s:t th:i l:
CIS beat ever INTER
'Do [they] ever beat you?'
4) ho s:t l: k-pe: tl do* k-ta:i t:
CIS beat if 1st-leg break until 1st-flee FUT
'If [they] beat me I'll run till my legs break.'
This (h)o occurs when there is a SAP goal or object, even
when, as in (1-2), the subject is the other SAP. Its
distribution in the transitive paradigm is thus almost identical
to that of the Nocte inverse marker, except that it marks both
local categories rather than only one:
object
1st 2nd 3rd
subject
1st ho --
2nd ho --
3rd ho ho --
This pattern shows that there is a natural category of marked
direction which includes all configurations with SAP objects or
goals, and provides further evidence for the non-universality of
any ranking of SAPs. (Ranking of SAP's is attested in the Bawm
Chin paradigm, which reflects a 1st > 2nd ranking. In Bawm the
cislocative prefix hawng- occurs (although not
obligatorily) in 1st person object forms, thus marking these as
most contrary to the natural direction for transitive events as
defined in terms of the Bawm hierarchy).
In Sizang-Tiddim, unlike the languages that we have
previously considered, personal indexation in the transitive
verb, if present, is consistently with the subject rather than
with the principal participant. (This is clear in ex. (1); in
(3-4), with 3rd person agent, there is no subject index; however,
forms such as a-ho s:t '3rd-CIS beat' = 's/he beat
you/me' normally occur except under certain syntactic conditions;
see Stern 1963:254-5). Thus while inverse forms with SAP
subject, such as (1), are unambiguous in isolation, 3rd person
subject forms depend upon context for the identification of the
SAP object.
2.1.2 The Dravidian "special base"
In two Dravidian languages, Kui (Winfield 1929) and Pengo (Burrow
and Bhattacharya 1970), we find a similar system of inverse
marking with consistent subject agreement, which appears to have
the same cislocative origin as the Chin construction. The
morpheme in question is a suffix which forms what Burrow and
Bhattacharya call the "special base" (glossed SB in the examples
below) of the verb, after which are suffixed ordinary negative,
tense/aspect, and personal index morphemes. It occurs "when the
object, direct or indirect, is the first or second person"
(Burrow and Bhattacharya 1970:70), regardless of the person of
the subject, as in:
huR-d-av-at-an
see-SB-NEG-PAST-3m.s.
'He did not see (me, us).'
huR-d-av-at-ang
-1s
'I did not see you.'
cp. also:
kaal noo-d-na-t
leg hurt-SB-IMPF-3s.f.
'My leg hurts.'
Note that the subject is always indexed by the subject suffix.
We can represent the distribution of the Pengo "special" morpheme
/d/ and the personal indices as follows:
object 1st 2nd 3rd
subject
1st d-1st -1st
2nd d-2nd -2nd
3rd d-3rd d-3rd -3rd
Note that the distribution of Pengo -d is identical to
that of Tiddim Chin -ho.
Emeneau (1945), on the basis of deictically-specified verbs
of motion and giving elsewhere in Dravidian, reconstructs essen-
tially the Kui-Pengo inverse marking for Proto-Dravidian, where
it marked not only inverse transitive forms, but also, like the
Chin *ho reflexes, motion verbs with SAP or deictic center as
goal. Analogy with the Chin system, as well as the general
tendency for historical development to proceed from more concrete
to more abstract grammaticalized functions, suggest that this
morpheme probably originated in a cislocative marker which later
developed an inverse function. In the modern languages which
retain a form of this system, the inverse marker no longer has a
cislocative function (which further suggests that the Chin-like
stage reconstructed by Emeneau was a transitional stage between
an originally exclusively motional function and the exclusively
inverse function found in modern Kui and Pengo) but it still
occupies the same suffixal slot as other motional orientation
morphemes.
The important difference between the Chin/Pengo system and
that of more typical direction systems is that while in the
latter argument indexation is hierarchically determined, often
completely independent of case or grammatical relations, in Chin
and Kui-Pengo the verb indexes the actor, with hierarchical
status irrelevant. Thus this pattern demonstrates the
independence of this direction-marking from any sort of
subject-selection process.
2.1.3 Loloish
The first stage of a very similar development is found in some
languages of the Loloish sub-branch of Tibeto-Burman, again
involving grammaticalization of the verb 'come'. Bradley
(1979:374) reconstructs the pattern for Proto-Loloish; the best
available synchronic description of the pattern is Matisoff's
account of Lahu. Matisoff (1972:325-6) defines this use of
l 'come' as 'benefactive: action impinging on a non-third
person', but "benefactive" is to be interpreted broadly here; the
following examples illustrate the usage:
5) tho l l
tell COME ASP INTERROGATIVE
'Has [he] told [you] already?'
6) y l-?
take COME-IMPERATIVE
'Bring [it] to me!' / 'Take [it] from me!'
In both these examples the identity of the non-subject argument
is recoverable only from the deictic specfication provided by
l. Note that, as in Kuki-Chin and Kui-Pengo, this
l occurs whenever the affected argument is a SAP,
regardless of the person of the subject (cf. (6)), i.e. it marks
local as well as inverse configurations.
In this function l is in contrast with p
'give' in what is originally a benefactive construction; but
since this grammaticalized 'give' is restricted to clauses with
3rd person affected arguments, alternating with l in
inverse and local configurations, its function in Lahu is very
like a direct marker:
7) ? t kO^? l-?
I OBJ PROH scare COME-IMPERATIVE
'Don't scare me!'
8) y-m=' chi t kO^? p-?
girl this PROH scare GIVE-IMPERATIVE
'Don't scare the little girl!'
This system is clearly reflecting the same functional pattern as
in Chin; a typologically interesting difference is that the
Loloish languages have no verb agreement whatsoever, hierarchical
or otherwise.
2.2 Further afield
The definition which I have given also includes person-based
split ergative morphosyntax, which, as argued in DeLancey 1981,
likewise serves to distinguish between the marked and unmarked
transitive configurations. Givn (1994:32-4) also notes the
connection, but interprets it diachronically, suggesting that
split ergative case marking always represents "the frozen vestige
of obligatory semantic inversion" (1994:34).
2.3 Hierarchical agreement without direction marking
It is not clear, however, whether a definition for the "semantic
inverse" properly applies to another pattern, which may be
commoner than any (or all) of the others discussed so far, that
of hierarchical agreement without overt direction marking or
other stigmata of inversion. I have elsewhere (DeLancey 1981a,
b) adduced Tangut, an extinct Tibeto-Burman language, as an
example of this (cf. Comrie 1980, Kepping 1979, 1981); here let
us look at two other examples--Nungish, another Tibeto-Burman
group, and Nez Perce, a Plateau Penutian language of Oregon.
2.3.1 Nungish verb agreement
The Nungish languages of Yunnan manifest a rather complex
agreement system involving old suffixes and apparently innovative
prefixes. The transitive paradigm of Tarong (or Dulong) paradigm
(Sun 1982, 1983:25-6; cp. Lo 1945) is as follows:
OBJECT 1st 2nd 3rd
SUBJECT
1st - -
2nd n@- - n@-
3rd n@- - n@- --
The transitive paradigm of Tarong
There is no 3rd person index. The 1st person suffix -
occurs on any verb with a 1st person argument. There is a prefix
n@- which occurs on intransitive 2nd person subject verbs,
and in all transitive forms with a 2nd person argument except for
the 12 form. The synchronic identification of this prefix as a
2nd person index is complicated by its occurrence in the 31
form, which has no 2nd person argument, but this is apparently a
secondary development involving the replacement of another prefix
(which may have been part of an older direction-marking system)
by the original 2nd person form (DeLancey 1989). Despite this
complication the hierarchical nature of the indexation pattern is
clear: any 1st person argument must be indexed; any 2nd person
argument is indexed unless subject is 1st person; 3rd person is
not indexed.
2.3.2 Sahaptian pronominal clitics
Another example of the same hierarchical phenomenon is found in
the Sahaptian languages Nez Perce and Sahaptin. In these
languages, which also have a distinct system of subject and
object indexation in the verb, pronominal clitics, ordinarily in
sentence-second position, occur in a purely hierarchical
indexation pattern. In Nez Perce these occur primarily in
subordinate clauses; in Sahaptin they occur in main clauses. The
Nez Perce paradigm is (Aoki 1970, Rude 1985):
Intransitive 1st -x, 2nd -m, Inc. -nm, 3rd 0
Transitive:
object
1st 2nd 3rd
subject
1st -m-ex -x
2nd -m -m
3rd -x -m --
Note that the 12 configuration has both arguments indexed, in a
pattern reminiscent of the special marking of this configuration
in Nocte, Chepang, and Carib.
3 Why is there inverse?
Gildea (1994:190) observes that linguists with a structural
orientation tend to approach the inverse problem starting with
the syntactic problem of the obligatory alternation in the
"semantic" inverse, while discourse-oriented functionalists focus
first on the discourse-pragmatic function of the obviative
"pragmatic inverse" alternation, and extrapolate from there to
explanations for the structurally-determined "semantic" pattern.
Perhaps it is natural, then, that as a cognitively-oriented
functionalist I take the "semantic" pattern as my starting point,
but seek a functional rather than a structural explanation for
it. However, this is not simply a matter of theoretical and
methodological inclination; as I will argue in sec. 3.2, the data
provide substantial arguments against the notion that the person
hierarchy reflected in the classic inverse is simply a special
case of the general notion of topicality.
The deictic nature of the systems that I have discussed here
is self-evident, in that all of them mark the special status of
the speech act participants relative to all other participants.
Other distinctions may occur, but are not universal. The
fundamental importance of deixis in the way of viewing the world
which is reflected in human language has long been noted (cf.
e.g. Bhler 1934/1990, Benveniste 1946, 1956, 1958), though in a
field imbued with the myth of language as a reflection of
objective reality it has received less attention than it merits.
In my view, a major problem with Thompson and Givn's approach to
the inverse problem, and others (cf. Aissen 1997) which treat the
phenomenon of obviation as basic to the entire inverse complex,
is their neglect of the deictic dimension.
3.1 Viewpoint and attention flow
In DeLancey 1981a, I presented an interpretation of split
ergative marking and inverse constructions in terms of a conflict
between what I termed viewpoint and attention flow. These
categories correspond neatly to the two characteristic features
of the classic inverse system, hierarchical agreement and inverse
marking.
Hierarchical agreement is on its face a rather puzzling
feature, especially when it occurs without direction marking--
since if the same personal index can mark a transitive verb with
either a 1st person subject or a 1st person object, then it seems
to convey relatively little information compared to more familiar
subject- or object-agreement. The viewpoint hypothesis holds
that natural utterances are not construed as uttered in some
imaginary realm of objective description, but are always
presented and construed as describing a situation or event from a
specific point of view--either that of a participant in the
situation or that of an observer:
We are accustomed to think of a sentence as describing
an event from an external, objective point of view, but
this is not always true. Novelists, film-makers, and
language-users are all aware that a scene may be
described from a number of points of view. Prototype
scenes have, at most, three participant roles which can
be filled by human actors ... Thus there are, a priori,
several possible viewpoints from which such a scene can
be described: the external viewpoint associated with a
disinterested observer, and a viewpoint associated with
each participant. Recent work ... has shown that
languages allow--or require--a speaker to specify which
of these viewpoints he is taking in reporting an event,
and that grammatical and lexical mechanisms exist,
presumably in all languages, for specifying the
viewpoint of a sentence. (DeLancey 1981a:635)
A situation in which the speaker or addressee was a participant
will most naturally be presented from that point of view. In
DeLancey 1981a I argued that verb agreement in general can be
naturally interpreted as indicating viewpoint, and that
hierarchical agreement then reflects what we can call natural
viewpoint.
Attention flow refers to the presentation of the unfolding
of an event. Any sentence depicts a situation, and like any
other mode of depiction, relies on various devices for entraining
the addressee's attention so that the situation can be
reconstructed as the speaker chooses to depict it. For various
narrative and other rhetorical purposes, the speaker may wish the
addressee to attend to the various elements of the situation in
some particular order; however, situations and events do have an
intrinsic natural attention flow, which in the case of a
transitive event is from actor to undergoer. The phenomena of
inverse marking and split ergative case marking demonstrate that
the unmarked transitive configuration is one in which the onset
of natural attention flow corresponds to the most natural
viewpoint; inverse marking can be seen as reflecting a conflict
between natural viewpoint and natural attention flow. (A roughly
similar suggestion is made in Payne 1994).
The notion of natural viewpoint is essentially deictic--I
will most naturally describe a situation from the vantage point
from which I see it; and, in the most natural speech situation,
speaker and addressee share the same vantage point with respect
to everything in the speech situation except one another. This
is why the local categories frequently show exceptional marking
in inverse and hierarchical agreement systems: with respect to
everything else in the universe of discourse, the natural
viewpoint is unambiguously that of whichever SAP may be involved
in the situation being described; but when both SAP's are
involved, there is an inevitable conflict. Languages may resolve
this conflict by fiat, one way or another, but, as we have seen,
a common resolution involves special or double marking of these
configurations.
3.2 Problems with the Obviation Hypothesis
My basic objection to Thompson's and Givn's interpretation of
the nature of inverse constructions is that I like mine better.
But there are also specific objections to be raise to the
approach to the inverse problem outlined in Givn 1994, which is
unconvincing on a range of empirical grounds.
The notion that inverse marking is always a "vestigial"
relic of a once productive pragmatic inverse, and that split
ergative marking universally represents a further step in this
decay, does not seem well-supported by the typological facts
presently available. There is a substantial number of languages,
around the world, that manifest one or the other pattern, which
implies that these patterns have some natural motivation, rather
than being relics left behind by the decay of a motivated system.
Moreover, there are language families--most prominently
Algonquian--where a robust classic inverse system is attested
throughout the family, and must thus be reconstructed for its
common ancestor. This implies a stability through time which we
would not necessarily expect of a vestigial remnant pattern.
Certain characteristics of the classic inverse pattern seem
inconsistent with Givn's hypothesis. In particular, the
characterization of the classic inverse as a "rigidification" of
a pragmatic inverse offers no explanation for the widespread
special marking of local categories--especially where, as in
Algonquian (or certain Tibeto-Burman languages; see DeLancey
1981a, b), the markers of the local categories belong to the same
morphological series as the direct and inverse. Where in a
pragmatic inverse system is there any place for special local
categories--and, more to the point, where in the data is there
any evidence for a language with such a system? But if no
pragmatic inverse system marks either local category, then how
could a semantic inverse system which developed from a pragmatic
inverse acquire them? Less crucially (only because it is
problematic for any other interpretation as well), where on this
hypothesis would a semantic inverse system such as that of
Algonquian acquire a direct marker?
And here we can mention another problem for the diachronic
account: if the semantic inverse represents "simply an
extension" of a pre-existing pragmatic inverse, how could it come
about that a language would have distinct marking for inverse
with respect to the SAP vs. 3rd and the 3rd vs. obviative
oppositions, as is the case in Carib (Gildea 1994) and
Algonquian? Givn's diachronic scenario would seem to predict
that any language in which the inverse construction served both
functions must be of the Chepang type, with the same marking in
both cases.
Another problem for this approach is the existence of
languages with pure hierarchical agreement, with no vestige of
direction marking. To begin with, it is far from clear, assuming
the Obviative Hypothesis, why these should be separable at all;
they would appear to be aspects of the same basic phenomenon.
But it is hard to see how Givn's scenario can offer any
explanation at all for pure hierarchical agreement, except
perhaps as the final vestige of a semantic inverse system in the
last stages of decay. Again, this explanation would predict that
this phenomenon should be quite rare, which does not seem to be
the case.
Givn's interpretation of the relation between the classic
inverse and his pragmatic inverse would neatly explain the facts,
if the facts were that "semantic" inverse systems consistently
looked like this:
Object
1 2 3
Subject ͻ
1 DIRECT (0-marked)
Ŀ
2
Ķ
3 INVERSE 0 /
(marked) INVERSE
ͼ
But recall that the typological evidence gives us a much more
complex picture:
Object
1 2 3
Subject ͻ
LOCAL1
1 or DIRECT
Ĵ DIRECT
2 LOCAL2 or
INVERSE
Ķ
3 INVERSE 0, 3rd,
or D/I
ͼ
Along with these essentially typological arguments, we can
take issue with Givn's diachronic scenario on more narrowly
empirical grounds. As presented in Givn 1994, the relationship
between the pragmatic and the semantic inverse is typologically
and historically unidirectional, with the classic inverse
constituting a narrowing and specialization of the more motivated
pragmatic pattern. However, no evidence, in the form of actual
historical reconstruction, has yet been put forward for the
development of any attested classic inverse system from a
pragmatic inverse. Such diachronic studies as we have in fact
are inconsistent with the universality of Givn's claim, though
they do not rule out the possibility of the kind of development
that he posits. For example, Givn's claim has been called into
question by Gildea (1994), who demonstrates the existence in
Cariban languages of two distinct constructions--one, which he
calls "inverse alignment", is an obligatory classic inverse, the
other, "inverse voice", is a reflection of obviativion
corresponding to Givn's "pragmatic" inverse. Gildea further
shows that the origins and development of the two systems are
completely independent of one another. While Gildea's findings
do not preclude the hypothetical possibility that his "inverse
alignment" construction might ultimately have originated in an
earlier pragmatic inverse construction, it remains true that
diachronic investigation and reconstruction of this pattern in
Cariban turns up no evidence for Givn's hypothesized path of
development. Similarly, Watkins (1996) reconstructs a reasonably
well-behaved "semantic" inverse system for Proto-Kiowa-Tanoan,
with both inverse and more pragmatic, voice-like systems in the
daughter languages developing from it.
And hierarchical agreement doesn't seem to arise from any
"pragmatic" reference-management construction. My guess is that
it arises just as other agreement constructions do--clitic
pronouns, or possessive clitics on nominalized verb forms.
Consider the well-known proposition by which agreement markers
identical to possessive clitics arise is through nominalization
of the verb, with concommitent genitivization of its dependents,
and Givn's further suggestion that finer points of typology can
be explained along the same line, e.g. the syncretism of ergative
with genitive case (Givn 1980). Along similar lines, can we
take evidence from Carib and Tibeto-Burman for hierarchical
indexation apparently deriving from possessive clitics and argue
that differential possession of the nominalized verb might follow
person rather than role--if you and somebody else were involved
in a beating, then it's your beating, not theirs. If I
was involved, with somebody else, obviously it's mine when I talk
of it to you. If we were both involved, it might be polite to
refer to it non-contentiously as ours, rather than
emphasizing one another's Agent- or Patienthood.
In any case, the reconstruction of Tibeto-Burman establishes
that there is no shade of a "pragmatic inverse" lurking in the
background to the development of hierarchical agreement, though
both the mechanisms mentioned above seem to be attested. Proto-
Tibeto-Burman certainly had hierarchically determined argument
indexation (Bauman 1979, DeLancey 1980, 1989a, van Driem 1993).
Several attested languages show a hierarchically-determined
pattern of indexation without, or with only indistinct traces of,
direction marking (see e.g. Sun 1983). There is some evidence,
though far from conclusive, for a direction-marking system as
well (DeLancey 1980, 1981b), but much of the evidence which I
adduced for this conclusion in earlier work now seems to reflect
a competing secondary agreement system deriving from possessive
clitics.
The classic inverse could easily be seen as a
straightforward development from the hierarchical indexation
pattern. Given a Tangut-style system, there is obvious
functional motivation to develop some construction which will
distinguish the transitive configurations which have the same
surface form: 13/31, and usually 12/21. A likely source for
such marking would be spatial deictics of some kind, as we have
seen happen in Chin, Lahu, and Dravidian.
3.3 The primacy of deixis
While the diachronic scenario envisioned by Givn remains
unattested, we do have a documented pathway for the development
of an inverse-like construction, that exemplified in the Chin,
Kui-Pengo, and Loloish languages. In the two Tibeto-Burman
groups the path of development is quite clear, and the same
appears to be reconstructible for the Dravidian case. Examining
the functions of *ho in the Chin languages, we can clearly
establish a diachronic sequence (DeLancey 1980, 1985). Beginning
as a cislocative motion verb, *ho, like deictic motion verbs in
many T-b and other languages, enters a serialized construction in
which it provides deictic specification for some other motion
verb ('run', 'fly', etc.). It enters the transitivity system
first in connection with 'give' verbs, which from their semantics
have a particular affinity with motional constructions (DeLancey
1981a). From the ditransitive verb paradigm it then spreads to
ordinary transitive verbs, probably first, as in Lahu, with some
benefactive sense about it. Eventually, as in Tiddim-Sizang or
Kui-Pengo, it spreads through the entire transitive paradigm,
becoming in effect a full-fledged inverse marker.
Thus this development is completely independent of any
notion of obviation or topicality management; these inverses
originate directly in the system of spatial deixis.
3.4 Deixis and topicality
We can argue from these data that there are two, at least
superficially distinct, functions being served by a system such
as that of Chepang--orientation of the event described to the
deictic center of the participants in the speech event, and
maintenance of reference in narrative. Note that reference to
1st and 2nd persons is the whole of the first function, and
completely irrelevant to the second.
Givn argues for conflating the two into one broad
functional domain:
One is thus justified in considering obligatory
semantic inversion as one--important but not criterial-
-typological dimension along which inverse clauses may
vary. that the association between pragmatic and
semantic inversion is not arbitrary goes without
saying, given the topicality-related nature of the
hierarchies in (24). (Givn 1994:24)
The hierarchies referred to are a set of "generic topic
hierarchies", including 1st > 2nd > 3rd person, human > animate >
inanimate, male > female, adult > child, definite > indefinite,
and pronoun > full NP. Givn's reference to this broad set in
connection with the semantic inverse is misleading. I claimed in
DeLancey 1981--and have yet to see explicit refutation of the
claim--that of these, the person hierarchy is overwhelmingly the
one involved in split ergative patterns. I will assert here that
it is only the person hierarchy which is ever reflected in a
morphological inverse system.
My fundamental argument is that the classic inverse is a
natural category in its own right, not, as implied in Givn's
formulation, a vestigial evolutionary appendage of a more virile,
vital functional category. The category of deixis is a core
element in the organization of language, and hierarchical
agreement and the classic inverse are natural expressions of this
category.
In the words of Benveniste:
The establishment of "subjectivity" in language creates
the category of person--both in language and also, we
believe, outside of it as well. Moreover, it has quite
varied effects in the very structure of languages,
whether it be in the arrangement of the forms or in
semantic relationships. (1958/1971:227)
Notes
1) Nocte, or Namsangia, belongs to the Konyak group in the
Baric branch of the Tibeto-Burman family. Nocte data presented
here are from unpublished materials of Alfons Weidert; a partial
paradigm was published in Weidert 1985. Relatively full
paradigms, but lacking tone and other phonologically relevant
detail, can be found in Das Gupta 1971.
2) This I infer from the silence of the available sources on
Nocte. Since all of these are rather limited, my inference may
turn out to be incorrect.
3) My reference to first and second position suffixes counts
only those which we examine here; my first and second position
are actually second and third, first being occupied by an
optional obviative suffix -em.
4) Chepang, spoken in central Nepal, belongs to the East
Himalayan branch of Tibeto-Burman.
5) I depart somewhat from Caughley's analysis of the personal
indices and other morphemes here, as there are comparative
grounds for challenging some parts of his analysis; the questions
involved do not critically affect the outline of the system.
6) I use these terms advisedly, since they avoid commitment to
any contentful claim about what these easily recognizable
categories are.
7) The Kuki-Chin languages, spoken in western Burma and eastern
India and Bangladesh, belong to the Baric branch of Tibeto-
-Burman.
8) This seems a natural development, given that the SAPs of
necessity are associated with the deictic center (see DeLancey
1981a for extended argument for the parallellism between
cislocative and SAP-centered categories). However at present I
know of only two other cases in which transitive direction
marking of some kind has developed from the marking of spatial
deixis: the Dravidian case discussed below and the origin
suggested by Rude (1991) for the unusual Sahaptin split ergative
case marking pattern.
9) Though it is apparently not absolutely obligatory. In its
original function of specifying motional deixis it also occurs
marking motion toward a contextually established center or highly
topical third person participant, as in the Bawm example (Reichle
1981:148):
Jisu sinah a-hawng p
Jesus to 3rd-CIS conduct
'He conducted [him] to Jesus.'
Here the cislocative hawng clearly refers to the motion
toward Jesus as deictic center, rather than the transitive action
toward the anaphoric 3rd person object.
I have found no examples in the Chin data I have examined of
cislocative marking triggered by 3rd person objects, as opposed
to motional goals; the transitive use of the construction, which
is rarer than and clearly a later and more grammaticalized
development of the motional deictic use, is strictly restricted
to marking SAP (or, as in Bawm, 1st person) objects, and thus
represents a strictly "semantic" inverse marker with no pragmatic
function in distinguishing 3rd person referents.
10) While there is an obvious parallel here to Kuki-Chin, the
two systems clearly represent separate developments; the syntax
of the two constructions is quite different, and they involve
different etyma.
11) In light of work by Nichols (1986) which has since appeared,
the hypothesis adumbrated there of the relationship between these
structural systems can be given more precise formulation as a
suggestion that hierarchical person indexation and split ergative
case marking are head- and dependent-marking manifestations of
the same functional phenomenon.
12) Tarong represents the native pronunciation; Dulong is a
transliteration of the Chinese version of the name. Both
dialectology and nomenclature for the Nungish group are quite
confusing; see DeLancey 1990. This Nungish should not be
confused with Nung, a Tai language spoken in Vietnam.
13) The Sahaptian languages, which belong to the Penutian
phylum, are spoken in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
References
Aoki, Haruo. 1970. Nez Perce grammar. UCPIL 62.
Bauman, James. 1975. Pronouns and pronominal morphology in
Tibeto-Burman. Ph.D. dissertation, UC Berkeley.
Benveniste, Emile. 1946. Les relations de personne dans le verbe.
BSLP 43:1-12. English trans. in Benveniste 1971, pp.
195-204.
. 1956. La nature des pronoms. M. Halle, et. al., eds.,
For Roman Jakobson, pp. 34-37. The Hague: Mouton.
Eng. trans. in Benveniste 1971, pp. 217-222.
. 1958.
. 1971. Problems in general linguistics. Coral
Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
Bradley, David. 1979. Proto-Loloish. Scandinavian
Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series no. 39. London:
Curzon.
Bhler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion
der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer. Trans. (1990) as
Theory of Language. (Foundations of Semiotics 25).
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Burrow, T., and S. Bhattacharya. 1970. The Pengo language.
London: Oxford.
Caughley, Ross. 1978. Participant rank and verbal cross-reference
in Chepang. Papers on discourse, ed. by J. Grimes,
pp. 163-78. Dallas:SIL.
. 1982. The syntax and morphology of the verb in
Chepang. (Pacific Linguistics Series B, no. 84).
Canberra: Australian National University.
Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Inverse forms in Siberia: evidence from
Chukchee. Koryak, and Kamchadal. Folia Linguistica
Historica 1:61-74.
Dahlstrom, Amy. 1986. Plains Cree morphosyntax. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Das Gupta, Kamalesh. 1971. An introduction to the Nocte
language. Shillong: North East Frontier Agency
DeLancey, Scott. 1980. Deictic categories in the Tibeto-Burman
verb. Ph.D dissertation, Indiana University.
. 1981a. An interpretation of split ergativity and related
patterns. Lg. 57.626-57.
. 1981b. The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 6.1:83-101.
. 1985. The analysis-synthesis-lexis cycle in Tibeto-Burman:
a case study in motivated change. pp. 367-89 in J. Haiman,
ed., Iconicity in syntax. (Typological Studies in
Language 6). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 1989. Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies 52:315-33.
. 1990. Tibetan evidence for Nungish metathesis.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 12.2:25-31.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. (Cambridge Studies in
Linguistics 69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Driem, George van. 1993. The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement
system. BSOAS 56:292-334.
Dryer, Matthew. 1994. The discourse function of the Kutenai
inverse. pp. 65-99 in Givn, ed., 1994.
Emeneau, M.B. 1945. The Dravidian verbs 'come' and 'give'.
Lg. 21:184-213.
Gildea, Spike. 1994. Semantic and pragmatic inverse: 'Inverse
alignment' and 'inverse voice' in Carib of Surinam. pp.
187-230 in Givn, ed., 1994.
Givn, T. 1980. 1980. The drift away from ergativity: Diachronic
potentials in Sherpa. Folia Linguistica Historica
1.1.
. 1981. Typology and functional domains. Studies in
Language 5.163-193.
. 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction,
Volume II. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 1994. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional
and typological aspects of inversion. pp. 3-44 in Givn,
ed. 1994.
, ed. 1994. Voice and inversion. (Typological
Studies in Language 28). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Henderson, E.J.A. 1965. Tiddim Chin: A descriptive analysis
of two texts. London: Oxford University Press.
Jolley, Catherine. 1981. The passive in Plains Cree. Journal
of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest
4.2.161-84.
Kepping, Ksenia B. 1979. Elements of ergativity and transitivity
in Tangut. Ergativity, e.d by Frans Plank, 263-77.
New York: Academic Press.
. 1981. Agreement of the verb in Tangut. Linguistics of
the Tibeto-Burman Area 6.1:39-48.
Konow, Sten. 1903. Tibeto-Burman family: Specimens of the Bodo,
Naga, and Kachin groups. vol. 3, pt. 2 of Grierson, George,
ed. 1903-9. Linguistic survey of India. Calcutta.
(reprinted 1967. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass).
. 1904. Tibeto-Burman family: Specimens of the Kuki-Chin
and Burma groups. vol. 3, pt. 3 of Grierson, George, ed.
1903-9. Linguistic survey of India. Calcutta.
(reprinted 1967. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass).
LeSourd, Phillip. 1976. Verb agreement in Fox. Harvard
Studies in Syntax and Semantics 2.445-528.
Lo, Ch'ang-p'ei. 1945. A preliminary study on the Trung language
of Kung Shan. Havard Journal of Asiatic Studies
8:343-8.
Matisoff, James. 1972. The grammar of Lahu. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking
grammar. Lg. 62:56-119.
Payne, Doris. 1994. The Tup-Guaran inverse. pp. 313-40 in B.
Fox and P. Hopper, eds., Voice: Form and function
(Typological Studies in Language 27). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Reichle, Verena. 1981. Bawm language and lore. (European
University Papers, Series XXI (Lingusitics), vol. 14). Bern:
Peter Lang.
Rude, Noel. 1985. Studies in Nez Perce grammar and discourse.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon.
. On the origin of the Nez Perce ergative NP suffix.
IJAL 57:24-50.
Stern, Theodore. 1963. A provisional sketch of Sizang Chin. Asia
Major n.s. 10.222-78.
. 1984. Sizang (Siyin) Chin texts. Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman Area 8.1:43-58.
Sun, Hong-kai. 1982. Dulungyu jianzhi. Beijing: Minzu
Chubanshe.
. 1983. Wo guo zang-mian yu dungci-de rencheng fanchou (The
category of personal agreement of the verb in Tibeto-Burman
languages of China). Minzu Yuwen (Beijing) 1983,
no.2:17-29.
Thompson, Chad. 1989. Voice and obviation in Athabaskan and other
languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon.
. 1990. On the treatment of topical objects in Chepang:
Passive or inverse? Studies in Language 14:405-27.
. 1994. Passives and inverse constructions. pp. 47-63 in
Givn, ed., 1994.
Watkins, Laurel. 1996. Reconstructing person and voice in Kiowa-
Tanoan: Pitfalls and progress. Proceedings of the
Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society: Special Session on Historical Topics in Native
American Languages.
Weidert, Alfons. 1985. Paradigmatic typology and its application
to verb agreement analysis. pp. 903-936 in Pieper & Stickel,
eds., Studia Linguistica Diachronica et Synchronica.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Whistler, Kenneth. 1985. Focus, perspective, and inverse person
marking in Nootkan. pp. 227-65 in J. Nichols and A.
Woodbury, eds., Grammar inside and outside the
clause. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winfield, W.W. 1929. A grammar of the Kui language.
(Bibliotheca Indica no. 245, issue n.s. no. 1496). Calcutta:
Asiatic Society of Bengal.
Wolfart, H. Christoph. 1973. Plains Cree: a grammatical
study. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society vol. 63, part 5. Philadelphia.