Article published In:
[Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:2] 2021
► pp. 248–298
Thematic section
Source constructions as a key to alignment change
The case of Aramaic
Published online: 23 July 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.19046.noo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.19046.noo
Abstract
Alignment patterns in the Eastern varieties of modern Aramaic varieties are generally said to originate in an
ergative source construction based on the so-called ‘passive’ participle qṭīl- ‘killed’ and the preposition
l- where ergative person markers gradually extended to all intransitive predicates. While various source
constructions have been suggested, this article demonstrates that most explanatory power and scope for the complex historical
background of the alignment microvariation in Neo-Aramaic is offered by the typology of resultatives. There was instability from
the beginning due to the versatile nature of resultatives and the increasing polyfunctionality of the preposition
l-. This, in turn, indicates that the suggested source constructions for ergative alignment need not be
mutually exclusive. Moreover, this also points to ergativity as merely one among several outcomes rather than the original
source.
Keywords: ergativity, dative, resultative participle, alignment change, Semitic
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Alignment typology
- 3.Morphosyntax in nena and Ṭuroyo
- 3.1nena morphosyntax
- 3.2Alignment debates: Ergative > semantic > accusative?
- 3.3Origin debates: Passive, possessive, experiencer?
- 4.Versatility of resultatives
- 4.1Resultative constructions
- 4.2Agent-oriented resultatives: What it takes to be a ‘possessive’ resultative
- 4.3Agent-oriented resultatives in Late Eastern Aramaic
- 4.4From resultative to anterior in Western Aramaic
- 4.5From resultative to anterior in nena
- 5.Polyfunctional dative preposition l-
- 5.1Functions of l-
- 5.2Morphosyntax of ‘non-canonical’ subjects
- 5.3Patient-orientations and inversion
- 5.4Non-canonical subjects in rpcs
- 6.tam-based marking and cross-system harmonization
- 7.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Abbreviations
References
References (128)
Primary sources
Act.Thom. = Wright, William. 1871. Apocryphal
Acts of the Apostles I: Syriac
Texts. London: Williams & Norgate.
Anon.Abr. = Brock, Sebastian P. 1981. An anonymous Syriac
homily on Abraham. Orientalia Lovaniensia
Periodica 121.225–260.
Aphr. = Wright, William. 1869. The
Homilies of Aphraates, the Persian
Sage. London: Williams & Norgate.
BLC = Drijvers, H. J. W. 1964. Book
of the Laws of the Countries: Dialogue on Fate of Bardaisan of Edessa (Semitic Texts with
Translations 3). Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp.
Joh.Eph.LES = John of
Ephesus. 1924. Lives of the Eastern Saints
II (=Patrologia Orientalis XVIII) ed. by Ernest W. Brooks. Paris: Firmin-Didot.
Uncited data come from the author’s fieldwork
Secondary sources
Adams, James Noel. 2013. Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Andrews, Avery D. 2007. The Major Functions of the
Noun Phrase. Language Typology and Syntactic Description I: Clause
Structure ed. by T. Shopen, 132–223. 2nd
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnold, Werner. 1990. Das
Neuwestaramäische. V. Grammatik (Semitica Viva
4/5). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Aro, Jussi. 1965. Parallels to the Akkadian Stative in West Semitic Languages. Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965 (= Assyriological Studies 16) ed. by Hans G. Güterbock & Thorkild Jacobsen, 407–411. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bar-Asher, Elitzur A. 2008. The Origin and the Typology
of the Pattern qtil li in Syriac and Babylonian Aramaic. Sha’arey Lashon.
Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish Languages in Honor of Moshe
Bar-Asher II1 ed. by A. Mamman, S. Fassberg & Y. Breuer, 360–392. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. [in Hebrew]
(Siegal). 2011. On
the Passiveness of one Pattern in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: A Linguistic and Philological
Discussion. Journal of Semitic
Studies 561.111–143.
(Siegal). 2014. From
a Non-argument-dative to an Argument-dative. The Character and Origin of the qtīl lī Construction in
Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Folia
Orientalia 511.59–101.
Barotto, Alessandra. 2014. Typology
of Case Alignments in NENA Dialects. RiCOGNIZIONI. Revista di lingue, literature e culture
moderne 2:1.83–94.
. 2015. Split
Ergativity in NENA Dialects. Neo-Aramaic in its Linguistic
Context ed. by Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska, 232–249. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Barsky, Eugene & Sergey Loesov. 2021. A
History of the Intransitive Preterite of Ṭuroyo: From a Property Adjective to a Finite
Tense. Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of
Neo-Aramaic (=Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures IV) ed.
by Geoffrey Khan & Paul M. Noorlander. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.
Benveniste, Emile. 1966
[1952]. La construction passive du parfait transitif. Problèmes de linguistique générale
I ed. by Emile Benveniste, 176–186. Paris: Gallimard.
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1915. Neuaramäische
Märchen: und andere Texte aus Ma’lūla: hauptsächlich aus der Sammlung E. Prym s und A.
Socin. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.
Bickel, Balthasar, Giorgio Iemmolo, Taras Zakharko & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2013. Patterns
of Alignment in Verb Agreement. Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna
Siewierska ed. by Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath, 15–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. On
the Scope of the Referential Hierarchy in the Typology of Grammatical Relations. Case and
Grammatical Relations. Papers in Honor of Bernard Comrie ed. by Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan, 191–210. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le
marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe. Actance et Valence dans les Langues de
I’Europe ed. by J. Feuillet, 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brockelmann, Carl. 1913. Grundriss
der vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. II:
Syntax. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.
Bybee, Joan L. & Östen Dahl. 1989. The
Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in Languages of the World. Studies in
Language 13:1.51–103.
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The
Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the
World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The
Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic. Cycles of Alignment
Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, David. 1984. La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal sémitique: Études de syntaxe historique. Paris.
Cole, Peter, Harbert, Wayne, Hermon, Gabriella Hermon & S. N. Sridhar. 1980. The
Acquisition of
Subjecthood. Language 561.719–743.
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. Syntactic
Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language ed. by W. P. Lehmann, 329–393. Sussex: Harvester Press.
. 1989. Language
Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. 2nd
ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
. 2005. Alignment
of Case Marking. In The World Atlas of Language
Structures ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Mathew S. Dryer, D. Gil & Bernard Comrie, 398–404. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Contini, Riccardo. 1998. Considerazione sul presunto « dativo etico » in aramaico pre-cristiano. Etudes sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain. ed. by C.-B. Amphoux, Albert Frey & Ursula Schattner-Rieser, 83–94. Lausanne: Editions du Zèbre.
Creissels, Denis. 2008a. Direct
and Indirect Explanations of Typological Regularities: The Case of Alignment
Variations. Folia
Linguistica 42:1.1–38.
. 2008b. Remarks
on Split Intransitivity and Fluid Intransitivity. Empirical Issues in Syntax and
Semantics 71 ed. by Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 139–168. Paris: Colloque de syntaxe et sémantique.
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2013. The
Referential Hierarchy. Reviewing the Evidence in Diachronic Perspective. Languages across
Boundaries. Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska ed. by Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath, 69–93. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Croft, William. 1993. Case
Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs. Semantics and the
Lexicon ed. by James Pustejovksi, 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Diem, Werner. 2012. Vom
Status pendens zum Satzsubjekt: Studien zur Topikalisierung in neueren semitischen
Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann. 2008. The
Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doron, Edith & Geoffrey Khan. 2010. The
Debate on Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Proceedings of the Israel Association for Theoretical
Linguistics 261.1–16.
Drinka, Bridget. 2017. Language
Contact in Europe: The Periphrastic Perfect through
History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Folmer, Margaretha. 1995. The
Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic
Variation. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
Fox, Samuel E. 2009. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of
Bohtan (=Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 9). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Gildea, Spike & Fernando Zúñiga. 2016. Referential
Hierarchies: A New Look at Some Historical and Typological
Patterns. Linguistics 54:3.483–529.
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Direct
Object and Dative Shifting: Semantic and Pragmatic Case. Objects: Towards a Theory of
Grammatical Relations ed. by F. Plank, 151–182. New York: Academic Press.
Goetze, Albrecht. 1942. The So-Called Intensive of the Semitic Languages. Journal of the American Oriental Society 62:1.1–8.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008a. The
Emergence of Ergativity in Iranian: Reanalysis or Extension? Aspects of Iranian
Linguistics ed. by Simin Karimi, Don Stilo & Vida Samiian, 113–112. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
. 2008b. Alignment
Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach (=Empirical Approaches to Language
Typology 37). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
. 2017. Deconstructing
Iranian Ergativity. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity ed.
by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis, 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 2018. The
Grammaticalization of Object Pronouns: Why Differential Object Indexing is an Attractor
State. Linguistics 56:4.781–818.
Halevy, Rivka. 2008. Grammaticalization
‘Chains’ of the Subject Coreferential Dative in Semitic and Elsewhere. New Re-flections on
Grammaticalization, Leuven 17–19 July 2008. Conference
presentation.
Happ, Heinz. 1967. Die
lateinische Umgangssprache und die Kunstsprache des
Plautus. Glotta 451.60–104.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The
Grammaticalization of Passive Morphology. Studies in
Language 14:1.25–72.
. 1994. Passive
Participles across Languages. Voice: Form and Function ed.
by Barbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper, 151–177. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hemmauer, R. & M. Waltisberg. 2006. Zum
relationalen Verhalten der Verbalflexion im Ṭurojo. Folia Linguistica
Historica 27:1–2.19–59.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession:
Cognitive Sources, Forces and
Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoberman, Robert D. 1983. Verb Inflection in Modern
Aramaic: Morphosyntax and Semantics. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Chicago.
Hopkins, Simon. 1989. Neo-Aramaic
Dialects and the Formation of the Preterite. Journal of Semitic
Studies 341.413–432.
Jastrow, Otto. 1985. Laut-
und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Mīdin im Ṭur ʕAbdīn. 3rd
ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
. 1988. Der
neuaramäische Dialekt von Hertevin (Province Siirt) (Semitica Viva
3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Joosten, Jan. 1989. The
Function of the So-called dativus ethicus in Classical
Syriac. Orientalia 581.473–492.
Jügel, Thomas. 2015. Die
Entwicklung der Eregativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen: Eine Korpusbasierte Untersuching zu Kasus, Kongruenz
und
Satzbau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kapeliuk, Olga. 2008. Between
Nouns and Verbs in Neo-Aramaic. Neo-Aramaic in its Linguistic
Context ed. by Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska, 131–147. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a Universal
Definition of Subject. Subject and Topic ed.
by C. N. Li, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
. 2004b. Aramaic
and the Impact of Languages in Contact With it Through the Ages. Lenguas en Contacto: el
testimonio escrito ed. by Pedro Bádenas de la Peña, Eugenio R. Luján, María Angeles Gallego & Sofía Torallas Tovar, 87–108. Madrid: Consejo superiores de investigaciones científicas.
. 2007a. Grammatical
Borrowing in North Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic
Perspective ed. by Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel, 197–214. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
. 2013. Some
Historical Developments of the Verb in Neo-Aramaic. Diachronic and Typological Perspectives
on Verbs ed. by Folke Josephson, 425–435. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2016. The
Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. I: Phonology and
Morphology. Leiden: Brill.
. 2017. Ergativity
in Neo-Aramaic. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity ed.
by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis, 873–899. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kutscher, E. Y. 1969. Two
‘Passive’ Constructions in Aramaic in the Light of Persian. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Semitic Studies held in Jerusalem, 19–23 July
1965, 132–151. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Ledgeway, Adam. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology. Oxford (etc.): Oxford University Press.
Loesov, Sergey. 2012. A
New Attempt at Reconstructing Proto-Aramaic. Babel und Bibel 6: Annual of Ancient Near
Eastern, Old Testament and Semitic Studies ed. by Leonid E. Kogan, Natalia V. Koslova, Sergey Loesov & Sergey V. Tishchenko, 421–456. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Split
Intransitives, Experiencer Objects and ‘Transimpersonal’ Constructions: (Re-)establishing the
Connection. In Donohue & Wichmann 2008: 76–100.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. 2002a. Israel
of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe: A Story in a Truthful Language Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th
Century) I: An Anthology. Leuven: Éditions Peeters.
. 2002b. Israel
of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe: A Story in a Truthful Language Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th
Century) II: Introduction and
Translation. Leuven: Éditions Peeters.
. 2005. Neo-Aramaic
and the So-called ‘Decay of Ergativity’ in Kurdish. Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of
Hamito–Semitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics ed. by Pelio Fronzaroli & Paolo Marassini, 239–256. Florence: Dipartimento di linguistica, Università di Firenze.
Molin, Dorota. 2021. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok: A Comparative Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Mor, Uri & Na’ama Pat-El. 2016. The
Development of Predicates with Prepositional Subjects in Hebrew. Journal of Semitic
Studies 61:2.327–346.
Morgenstern, Matthew. 2011. Studies in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: Based upon Early Eastern Manuscripts. Winona Lake, IN: Brill.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2004. The
Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi Kurdistan), (=Semitica Viva
32). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
. 2008. Trans-Zab
Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies 1(3): 409–431.
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical
Transitivity (=Typological Studies in Language 72). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1988. Typology of Resultative
Constructions (=Typological Studies in Language 12). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2001. Resultative
Constructions. Language Typology and Language
Universals (=Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 20) ed.
by Martin Haspelmath, 928–940. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergej J. Jaxontov. 1988. The
Typology of Resultative Constructions. In Nedjalkov, 1988, 3–62.
Nöldeke, Theodor. 1868. Grammatik
der neusyrischen Sprache am Urmia-See und in
Kurdistan. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel.
Noorlander, Paul M. 2012. Neo-Aramaic Alignment in a
Historical Perspective: Some Preliminary Remarks. Semitics Philology
Seminar 3 December 2012. Cambridge. Conference presentation.
2014. Diversity in Convergence:
Kurdish and Aramaic Variation Entangled. Journal of Kurdish
Studies 2:1.201–224.
2017. The Proximative and its
Correlatives in North Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Prospective and Proximative in Turkic, Iranian
and Beyond ed. by Agnes Korn & Irina Nevskaya, 187–210. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.
2018a. Me Likes the
Subject-Subject-like Properties of Experiencers in Aramaic. Neo-Aramaic Languages across
Space and
Time 5–7 October 2018. Uppsala. Conference presentation.
2018b. Alignment in Eastern
Neo-Aramaic Languages from a Typological Perspective. Doctoral
dissertation, Leiden University.
2019. One Way of Becoming Perfect?
‘Possessive’ Resultatives in Semitic and Aramaic in Particular. Semitics Philology
Seminar 14 October 2019. Cambridge. Conference presentation.
2021a. Towards a Typology of
Possessors and Experiencers in Neo-Aramaic: Non-canonical Subjects as Relics of a Former Dative
Case. Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic (=Cambridge
Semitic Languages and Cultures IV) ed. by Geoffrey Khan & Paul M. Noorlander, 29–93. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.
2021b. Ergativity and Other
Alignment Types in Neo-Aramaic: Investigating Morphosyntactic Variation. To appear in Studies in
Semitic Languages and Linguistics
103. Leiden: Brill.
Noorlander, Paul M. & Dorota Molin. Forthcoming. Word
Order Typology in North Eastern Neo-Aramaic: Towards a Corpus-Based
Approach. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung
75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Onishi, Masayuki. 2001. Non-canonically
Marked Subjects and Objects: Parameters and Properties. Non-canonical Marking of Subjects
and Objects (= Typological Studies in Language
46) by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi, 1–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pinkster, Harm. 1987. The
Strategy and Chronology of the Development of Future and Perfect Tense Auxiliaries in
Latin. The Historical Development of Auxiliaries ed.
by Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat, 193–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ritter, Helmut. 1967–1971. Ṭūrōyō:
Die Volksprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʕAbdîn A.
Texte I1: 1967, II1: 1969, III1: 1971. Beirut: Steiner.
Rubin, Aaron D. 2005. Studies in Semitic
Grammaticalization (=Harvard Semitic Studies 57). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Siewierska, Anna. 2003. Person
Agreement and the Determination of Alignment. Transactions of the Philological
Society 101:2.339–370.
. 2005. Alignment
of Verbal Person Marking. World Atlas of Language Structures ed.
by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie, 406–409. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sokoloff, Michael. 1992. A
Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. 2nd
ed. Ramat–Gan: Bar Ilan University Press / Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
. 2002. A
Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian
Aramaic. Ramat–Gan: Bar Ilan University Press / Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Trask, R. L. 1979. On
the Origins of Ergativity. Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical
Relations ed. by F. Plank, 385–404. New York: Academic Press.
