Morphology

, Volume 21, Issue 3–4, pp 545–572 | Cite as

The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective

Original Paper

Abstract

The original case system found in Sanskrit (Old Indo-Aryan) was lost in Middle Indo-Aryan and then reinvented in most of the modern New Indo-Aryan (NIA) languages. This paper suggests that: (1) a large factor in the redevelopment of the NIA case systems is the expression of systematic semantic contrasts; (2) the precise distribution of the newly innovated case markers can only be understood by taking their original spatial semantics into account and how this originally spatial semantics came to be used primarily for marking the core participants of a sentence (e.g., agents, patients, experiencers, recipients). Furthermore, given that case markers were not innovated all at once, but successively, we suggest a model in which already existing case markers block or compete with newer ones, thus giving rise to differing particular instantiations of one and the same originally spatial postposition across closely related languages.

Keywords

Case Indo-Aryan Diachrony Semantic factors 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackerman F., Moore J. (1999) Syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions of causee encodings. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(1): 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, T. (2006). Spatial, temporal and structural usages of Urdu ko. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), On-line proceedings of the LFG06 conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/site/ONLN.shtml.
  3. Aissen J. (1999) Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aissen J. (2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen W. (1960) Notes on the Rājasthāanī verb. Indian Linguistics 21: 4–13Google Scholar
  6. Allen C.L. (1995) Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Alsina, A., & Joshi, S. (1991). Parameters in causative constructions. In L. Dobrin, L. Nichols, & R. Rodriguez (Eds.), Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) (pp. 1–16).Google Scholar
  8. Barðdal, J. (2001). Case in Icelandic—a synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. Ph.D. thesis, Lund University.Google Scholar
  9. Barðdal J. (2009) The development of case in Germanic. In: Barðdal J., Chelliah S. (eds) The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 123–159Google Scholar
  10. Bashir E. (1999) The Urdu and Hindi ergative postposition ne: Its changing role in the grammar. In: Singh R. (eds) The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics. Sage Publications, New Delhi, pp 11–36Google Scholar
  11. Beames, J. (1872–1879). A comparative grammar of the modern Aryan languages of India. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal (republished 1966).Google Scholar
  12. Blake B. (2001) Case. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Böhtlingk, O. (1839–1840). Pâninis Grammatik. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (republished in 1998).Google Scholar
  14. Butt M. (2001) A reexamination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo-Aryan. In: Butt M., King T.H. (eds) Time over matter: Diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 105–141Google Scholar
  15. Butt M. (2006) Theories of case. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Butt, M., & Deo, A. (2001). Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. KURDICA, 5(3). http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/.
  17. Butt M., King T.H. (2003) Case systems: Beyond structural distinctions. In: Brandner E., Zinsmeister H. (eds) New perspectives on case theory. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 53–87Google Scholar
  18. Butt M., King T.H. (2004) The status of case. In: Dayal V., Mahajan A. (eds) Clause structure in South Asian languages. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Berlin, pp 153–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Butt, M., King, T. H., & Varghese, A. (2004). A computational treatment of differential case marking in Malayalam. In Proceedings of the international conference on natural language processing (ICON) 2004. Hyderabad.Google Scholar
  20. Bynon T. (2005) Evidential, raised possessor and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(1): 1–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chatterji, S. K. (1926). The origin and development of the Bengali literature (Vol. II). Calcutta: D. Mehra, Rupa & Co (1975 edition).Google Scholar
  22. Dahl E. (2009) Some semantic and pragmatic aspects of object alternation in early Vedic. In: Barðdal J., Chelliah S. (eds) The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 23–55Google Scholar
  23. Dehalvi M.A. (1804) Bagh-o-Bahaar. Calcutta, Fort William CollegeGoogle Scholar
  24. Dixon R.M.W. (1979) Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dixon R.M.W. (1994) Ergativity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Farrell T. (1995) Fading ergativity? A study of ergativity in Balochi. In: Bennett D.C., Bynon T., Hewitt B.G. (eds) Subject, voice and ergativity. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London, pp 218–243Google Scholar
  27. Haig G.L. (2008) Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harris A.C., Campbell L. (1995) Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Hewson J., Bubenik V. (2006) From case to adposition: The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European languages. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Jamison, S. (1976). Functional ambiguity and syntactic change: The Sanskrit accusative. In Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, 12th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 126–135).Google Scholar
  31. Jamison S. (2000) Lurching towards ergativity: Expressions of agency in the Niya documents. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 63: 64–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Katre, S. M. (1987). Astādhyāyī of Pānini. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (republished in 1989).Google Scholar
  33. Kellogg, S. H. (1893). Grammar of the Hindi language (2nd edn.). Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (reprinted 1990).Google Scholar
  34. Khan, M.A. (eds) (2001) Aakhiyaa baba farid ne. Lahore, Punjabi Adabi BoardGoogle Scholar
  35. Khan, T. A. (2009). Spatial expressions and case in South Asian languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
  36. Kiparsky P. (1987) Morphology and grammatical relations. Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Kiparsky P. (1988) Agreement and linking theory. Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Kiparsky P. (1997) The rise of positional licensing. In: Kemenade A., Vincent N. (eds) Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 460–494Google Scholar
  39. Kiparsky P. (2001) Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111: 315–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klaiman M.H. (1980) Bengali dative subjects. Lingua 51: 275–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lakoff G., Johnson M. (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  42. Masica C. (1976) Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  43. Masica C. (1991) The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Mohanan T. (1994) Argument structure in Hindi. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Montaut A. (2003) Oblique main arguments in Hindi/Urdu as localizing predications: Questioning the category of subject. In: Bhaskarao P., Subbarao K. (eds) Non nominative subjects. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 33–56Google Scholar
  46. Montaut A. (2006) The evolution of the tense-aspect system in Hindi/Urdu: The status of the ergative alignment. In: Butt M., King T.H. (eds) Proceedings of the LFG06 conference. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 365–385Google Scholar
  47. Montaut A. (2009) Ergative and pre-ergative patterns in Indo-Aryan as predications of localization: A diachronic view of past and future systems. In: Faithi A. (eds) Language vitality in South Asia. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, pp 295–325Google Scholar
  48. Oberlies, T. (1998). Historische Grammatik des Hindi: Die Genese seines morphologischen Systems aus dem Mittel- und Altindischen. Verlag für Orientalische Fachpublikationen.Google Scholar
  49. Peterson J.M. (1998) Grammatical relations in Pāli and the emergence of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. München, LINCOM EuropaGoogle Scholar
  50. Plank, F. (eds) (1979) Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. Academic Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  51. Poudel T. (2008) Diachronic and semantic aspects of ergativity, talk held at a workshop ‘A noncanonical perspective on case’. University of Konstanz, KonstanzGoogle Scholar
  52. Saksena A. (1980) The affected agent. Language 56(4): 812–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sen S.K. (1973) Proto-New Indo-Aryan. Calcutta, Eastern PublishersGoogle Scholar
  54. Sharma D. (2001) Case clitics and person hierarchy effects. In: Sells P. (eds) Formal and empirical issues in Optimality Theoretic syntax. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 225–256Google Scholar
  55. Shirani M. (1987a) Sabras az mulla vajhi. In: Shirani M.M. (eds) Maqaalaat-E-Hafiz Mahmood Shirani (Papers of Hafiz Mahmood Shirani). Lahore, Majilis-e-Taraqqi-e-AdabGoogle Scholar
  56. Shirani M. (1987b) Urdu ki shakh haryani zaban mein talifat. In: Shirani M.M. (eds) Maqaalaate-Hafiz Mahmood Shirani (Papers of Hafiz Mahmood Shirani). Lahore, Majilis-e-Taraqqi-e-AdabGoogle Scholar
  57. Silverstein M. (1976) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: Dixon R.M.W. (eds) Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp 112–171Google Scholar
  58. Singh J.D. (1970) A descriptive grammar of Bangru. Kurukshetra University Press, KurukshetraGoogle Scholar
  59. Speijer, J. S. (1886). Sanskrit syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas (republished 1973).Google Scholar
  60. Stolz T., Stroh C., Urdze A. (2006) On comitatives and related categories: a typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  61. Subbarao, K. (1999). Agreement in South Asian langauges and minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Proceedings of the international symposium on language contact, convergence and typology in South Asia. Tokyo: The Institute for the Study of Language and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
  62. Sweetser E. (1991) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  63. Tessitori, L. (1913). On the origin of the dative and genitive postpositions in Gujarati and Marwari. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 553–567.Google Scholar
  64. Tessitori, L. (1914). Notes on the Grammar of the Old Western Rājasthāni with special reference to Apabhraṃśa and to Gujarā and Mārwaṛī. Indian Antiquary, XLIII, 181–216, 225–236, Chap. 3.Google Scholar
  65. Trumpp E. (1872) Grammar of the Sindhi language. Osnabrück, Biblio Verlag (reprinted 1970)Google Scholar
  66. Tuite, K. J., Agha, A., & Graczyk, R. (1985). Agentivity, transitivity, and the question of active typology. In W. Eilfort, P. Kroeber, & K. Peterson (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity at the 21st regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) (pp. 252–270).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations