Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 47:2 (2024) ► pp.318–342

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Phasal polarity in Suansu

ORCiD logo with link | University of Zurich
ORCiD logo with link | University of Zurich
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Zurich.

Published online: 8 October 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.00023.iva
Abstract
This contribution provides a descriptive account of the phasal polarity domain (encompassing the concepts not yet, already, still, and no longer) in Suansu, using a corpus of naturalistic and semi-spontaneous data. It aims at filling the descriptive gap of this category in Tibeto-Burman and frames the properties of Suansu phasal polarity system within a cross-linguistic framework. Findings reveal that Suansu expresses these concepts through various means, including versatile verbs, discourse markers, aspectual markers, and dedicated forms. Results also show that Suansu phasal polarity domain revolves around an interconnected semantic network based on internal negation, polarity change, and actualization (or existence) at the reference point.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Phasal polarity
  • 3.Suansu
  • 4.Goal of the study and data sources
  • 5.Phasal polarity in Suansu
    • 5.1Coverage
    • 5.2Pragmaticity
    • 5.3Telicity
    • 5.4Wordhood and expressibility
    • 5.5Paradigmaticity
  • 6.The structure of Suansu PhP domain
  • 7.Summary and outlook
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (42)
References
Allott, Anna J. 1965. Categories for the description of the verbal syntagma in Burmese. Lingua 151. 283–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arokianathan, S. 1987. Tangkhul Naga grammar. Vol. 161. Central Institute of Indian Languages, 1987.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 1993. ‘Already’ and ‘still’: Beyond duality. Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (6). 613–653. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Phasal Adverbials in the languages of Europe. In Johan van der Auwera & Dónall P. O. Baoill (eds.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 25–145. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Baar, Theodorus M. 1997. Phasal polarity. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L. 1997. A grammar of Meitei. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems (Vol. 21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11. 33–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 369–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Jens G., Bastian Persohn, and Veronika Ritt-Benmimoun. 2023. Phasal polarity in Tunisian Arabic. Studies in Language. 48(1). 121–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. & Thorstein Fretheim. 2006. Topic and focus. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2004. A grammar and glossary of the Manange language. In Carol Genetti (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa, 1–189. (Pacific Linguistics 557). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivani, Jessica K. 2019. A first overview on Suansu, a Tibeto-Burman language from Northeastern India. Paper presented at the 29th Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS 29), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan 27–29 May 2019. 341.
2022. Comparative constructions in Suansu and the languages of northeastern India. Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2(1). 65–93.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2023. Suansu language from northeastern India: A field report. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 46(1). 138–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2024. Some preliminary notes on Challow, a Trans-Himalayan language from Manipur, India. Languages and Peoples of the Eastern Himalayan region (LPEHR). Special issue of Himalayan Linguistics 23(2).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2008. Particles at the semantics/pragmatics interface: synchronic and diachronic issues: a study with special reference to the French phasal adverbs (Vol. 191). Leiden: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2012. ‘Mirativity’ does not exist: ḥdug in ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16(3). 389–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form and use in context. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkerhardt. 1977. Temporal and non-temporal uses of ‘noch’ and ‘schon’ in German. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 173–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kramer, Raija L. 2017. Position paper on phasal polarity expressions. Unpublished manuscript. University of Hamburg. [URL]
2021a. The expression of phasal polarity in African languages. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2021b. Introduction: The expression of phasal polarity in African languages. In Raija Kramer (ed.), The expression of phasal polarity in African languages, 3–24. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 31. 91–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, EunHee. 2008. Aspectual and focus adverbs in English and Korean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(2). 339–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 1989. Schon – erst – noch: An integrated analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (2). 167–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 1999. Why German schon and noch are still duals: a reply to van der Auwera. Linguistics and Philosophy 221. 45–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1969. Verb concatenation in Lahu: The syntax and semantics of ‘simple’ juxtaposition. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 12(1). 69–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molochieva, Zarina. 2011. Aspect in Chechen. Linguistic Discovery 9(2).104–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mortensen, David & Jordan Picone. 2021. East Tusom. a phonetic and phonological sketch of a largely undocumented Tangkhulic language. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 44(2). 168–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1999. Converbal constructions in Chantyal. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Okell, John. 1979. ‘Still’ and ‘anymore’ in Burmese: another look at /theì/, /oùn/ and /tó/. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 4(2). 69–82.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olsson, Bruno. 2013. Iamitives. Perfects in Southeast Asia and beyond. Stockholm: University of Stockholm MA thesis. Retrieved from [URL]
Ozerov, Pavel. 2018. Tracing the sources of information structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 1381. 77–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Post, Mark W. & Robbins Burling. 2017. The Tibeto-Burman languages of northeast India. In Graham Thurgood and Randy J, LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages 2nd edn, 213–242. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. 1999. A typology of phasal meanings, in Abraham, Werner & Leonid Kulikov (eds.), Tense-aspect, transitivity and causativity: Essays in honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov (Studies in Language Companion Series 50), 311–321. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romeo, Nicoletta. 2008. Aspect in Burmese: Meaning and function. (Studies in Language 96). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S., Linda Forrest, Ming Ming Pu & Myung Hee Kim. 2011. Discourse semantics. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 2nd edn, 37–63. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Treis, Yvonne. 2021. The expression of phasal polarity in Kambaata (Cushitic). In Raija Kramer (ed.), The expression of phasal polarity in African languages, 311–334. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Treis, Yvonne & Martine Vanhove. Forthcoming. Converb constructions and clause chaining in Cushitic. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Hannah Sarvasy (eds.), Clause chaining in the languages of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Veselinova, Ljuba, Leif Asplund & Jozina Vander Klok. Forthcoming. Phasal polarity in Malayo-Polynesian languages of South East Asia. In Alexander Adelaar & Antoinette Schapper (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Malayo-Polynesian languages of South East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yliniemi, Juha. 2023. Similarity of mirative and contrastive focus: three parameters for describing attention markers. Linguistic Typology 27(1). 77–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue