Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 48:1 (2025) ► pp.99–131

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

The ergative and its differential marking in Mùwe Ké

ORCiD logo with link | Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University
Published online: 17 April 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.24011.arc
Abstract
This paper showcases the Mùwe Ké ergative -gane / -gadiː, a unit formed from -ga, a particle of specificity, with ablative marker -ne or demonstrative dìː. This is unique in the language family, where ergative -gi is usually found, and it is shown that ‘modern’ -gane has replaced historical -gi in the language, which is still found on pronominals. The functions of -ga and -gane are shown to centre around precise indication, highlighting, and intersubjective focussing of attention. The second half of the paper provides a presentation of the differential use of -gane. Looking at possible differential argument marking triggers, it is shown that only information structure and the notion of focus account for the differential patterns found in the language.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods of data collection
  • 3.Terminology
    • 3.1Grammatical notions
    • 3.2Information structure
    • 3.3Differential argument marking
  • 4.The Mùwe Ké ergative
  • 5.Differential ergative marking in Mùwe Ké
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (66)
References
Aissen, Judith L. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(4).673–711. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3).435–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Archer, Jon. 2023. Mùwe Ké focus structures. Himalayan Linguistics, 22(3).9–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Shobhana Lakshmi Chelliah (eds.). 2009. The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1982. Der Präpositionale Akkusativ im Sardischen. In Otto Winkelmann & Maria Braisch (eds.), Festschrift für Johannes Hubschmid zum 65. Geburtstag : Beiträge zur Allgemeinen, Indogermanischen, und Romanischen Sprachwissenschaft, 579–599. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics. Selected papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Urbana-Champaign, April 7–9, 19881, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winfred Philipp Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. Markedness, grammar, people and the world. In Fred R. Eckman, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica R. Wirth (eds.), Markedness, 85–106. New York: Plenum Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3). 626–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Classical Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 255–269. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1).59–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stephanie. 2011. Differential agent marking and animacy. Lingua 121(3).533–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate agents: A cross-linguistic study. Leuven: Katholiek Universiteit Leuven PhD Dissertation. [URL]
Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara. 2016. Introduction. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 1–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Manfred Krifka. 2008. Information structure: Notional distinctions, ways of expression. In Piet van Sterkenburg (ed.), Unity and diversity of languages, 123–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9(1).77–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaby, Alice. 2010. From Discourse to Syntax and Back: The lifecycle of Kuuk Thaayorre ergative morphology. Lingua 120(7). 1677–1692. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., N. Hedberg, & R. Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 691.274–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hahn, Michael. 2005. Textbook of Classical Literary Tibetan. (Trans.) Ulrich Pagel. London: SOAS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language 14(1).79–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heusinger, Klaus von & Georg A. Kaiser. 2007. Differential object marking and the lexical semantics of verbs in Spanish. In Georg A. Kaiser & Manuel Leonetti (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop “Definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance languages,” 83–109. Universität Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaf. [URL]
. 2011. Affectedness and differential object marking in Spanish. Morphology 211.593–617. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2002. Documentary and descriptive linguistics (full version). In Osamu Sakiyama & Fubito Endo (eds.), Lectures on Endangered Languages 51, 37–83. Kyoto: Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim. [URL]
Hoop, Helen de & Andrej L. Malchukov. 2007. On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117(9).1636–1656. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoop, Helen de & Peter de Swart (eds.). 2009. Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Robert Schikowski. 2014. Differential object coding. Ms. University Zurich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2008. Animacy effects on differential goal marking. Linguistic Typology 12(2). 245–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of Information structure. In Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds.), Working Papers of the SFB 632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS), Vol. 6, 13–56. [URL]
. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4).243–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Renate Musan. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure (The expression of cognitive categories 5), 1–43. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laca, Brenda. 1987. Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español. In El complemento directo preposicional, 61–97. Madrid: Visor. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2017. Cognitive grammar. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 262–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2).203–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood. 2013. The Meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49(1). 127–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, Where Are You? New York: Dial Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1992. The semantics of ergative marking in Gooniyandi. Linguistics 301. 275–318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1998. Optional ergative marking in Gooniyandi revisited: Implications to the theory of marking. Leuvens Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 87(3–4). 491–571.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua 116(4).393–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistic Compass 3(1). 480–508. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120(7).1610–1636. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2010. Optional ergative marking and its implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 120(7). 1607–1609. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meakins, Felicity. 2009. The case of the shifty ergative marker: A pragmatic shift in the ergative marker of one Australian mixed language. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana Lakshmi Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 59–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 451. 233–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2004. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 114(9–10).1186–1212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst Ph.D Dissertation. [URL]
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Alternative semantics. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 19–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–71. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics 52(2).281–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, Ines Fiedler, Sam Hellmuth, Manfred Krifka, Anne Schwarz, & Ruben Stoel. 2006. Questionnaire on information structure (QUIS): Reference manual. Potsdam: Univ.-Verl. [URL]
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2014. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area, 105–129. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda Dorje. 2003. Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and civilization. Ithica, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Ilja A. Seržant. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2009. Differential subject marking at argument structure, syntax and PF. In Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking, 17–40. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2016. Predicate focus. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 314–335. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue