File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Extended ergativity in Bumthang

TitleExtended ergativity in Bumthang
Authors
KeywordsCase marking
ergativity
Bumthang
transitivity
lexical semantics
Issue Date2019
PublishereScholarship: University of California. The Journal's web site is located at https://escholarship.org/uc/himalayanlinguistics
Citation
Himalayan Linguistics, 2019, v. 18 n. 2, p. 57-72 How to Cite?
AbstractThis paper addresses ergativity in Bumthang. In 2016, Donohue & Donohue reported on the variable use of the ergative case marker in Bumthang transitive clauses. They identified a number of largely pragmatic, semantic, and informational structural contexts that license the use of the ergative case on the subjects. Given the nature of the factors involved we examined similar conditions for arguments of monovalent verbs, not a typical context for receiving ergative case if structural conditions were uniquely determining case, but which would likely also be sensitive to these same factors. We find that there are some contexts in which the sole argument of an monovalent verb can bear ergative case, drawing on some of the same features, but not identical to those relevant for transitive verbs. In particular, the notion of agentivity is of paramount importance for licensing ergative case arguments of monovalent verbs, and we discuss the set of factors that need to coincide for this to happen.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/276049
ISSN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDonohue, C-
dc.contributor.authorDonohue, M-
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-10T02:54:55Z-
dc.date.available2019-09-10T02:54:55Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationHimalayan Linguistics, 2019, v. 18 n. 2, p. 57-72-
dc.identifier.issn1544-7502-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/276049-
dc.description.abstractThis paper addresses ergativity in Bumthang. In 2016, Donohue & Donohue reported on the variable use of the ergative case marker in Bumthang transitive clauses. They identified a number of largely pragmatic, semantic, and informational structural contexts that license the use of the ergative case on the subjects. Given the nature of the factors involved we examined similar conditions for arguments of monovalent verbs, not a typical context for receiving ergative case if structural conditions were uniquely determining case, but which would likely also be sensitive to these same factors. We find that there are some contexts in which the sole argument of an monovalent verb can bear ergative case, drawing on some of the same features, but not identical to those relevant for transitive verbs. In particular, the notion of agentivity is of paramount importance for licensing ergative case arguments of monovalent verbs, and we discuss the set of factors that need to coincide for this to happen.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publishereScholarship: University of California. The Journal's web site is located at https://escholarship.org/uc/himalayanlinguistics-
dc.relation.ispartofHimalayan Linguistics-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectCase marking-
dc.subjectergativity-
dc.subjectBumthang-
dc.subjecttransitivity-
dc.subjectlexical semantics-
dc.titleExtended ergativity in Bumthang-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailDonohue, C: donohue@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityDonohue, C=rp01762-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.5070/H918243953-
dc.identifier.hkuros303395-
dc.identifier.volume18-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage57-
dc.identifier.epage72-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-
dc.identifier.issnl1544-7502-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats