Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistic Typology

Founded by Plank, Frans

Editor-in-Chief: Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria

3 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.304

CiteScore 2017: 0.45

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.285
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.810

Online
ISSN
1613-415X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 22, Issue 1

Issues

Optional ergative, agentivity and discourse prominence – Evidence from Yali (Trans-New Guinea)

Sonja Riesberg
  • 'zɔn.ja 'ʁi:s.b̥ɛɐ̯kʰ, Abteilung für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Institut für Linguistik, Universität zu Köln, 50923 Köln, Germany
  • ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-04-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2018-0002

Abstract

A phenomenon often termed “optional ergative marking” is found in a number of genetically unrelated languages. Yali, a Trans-New Guinea language spoken in West Papua, shows striking similarities to optional ergative systems as described in the literature. This paper focuses on the relation between agentivity and discourse prominence, and argues in favour of a systematic distinction between semantic and syntactic contexts as conditioning factors for optional ergative marking. It further provides new evidence for the close interplay of ergative marking and what has been termed “discourse prominence” in descriptions of some other languages and shows that in Yali, optional ergative marking operates on both the global and the local level of discourse.

Keywords: optional ergative marking; agentivity; prominence; Trans-New Guinea; Yali

References

  • Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. Versatile cases. Journal of Linguistics 44. 565–603.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Anderson, Neil & Martha Wade. 1988. Ergativity and control in Folopa. Language and Linguistics in Malenesia 19. 1–16.Google Scholar

  • Årsjö, Britten. 1999. Words in Ama. SIL Manuscript. http://www01.sil.org/pacific/png/pubs/928474531105/Ama_Words.pdf (accessed 28 April 2017).

  • Bromley, H. Myron. 1981. A grammar of Lower Grand Valley Dani. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Janessa L. 2009. A brief sketch of Urama grammar with special consideration of particles marking agency, aspect, and modality. University of North Dakota M.A. Thesis.Google Scholar

  • Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subjects and topics, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Chelliah, Shobhana L. & Gwendolyn Hyslop. 2011. Introduction to special issue on optional case marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2). 1–7.Google Scholar

  • Christensen, Steve. 2010. Yongkom discourse: Ergativity and topic. In Joan Hooley (ed.), Papers on six languages of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Coupe, Alexander R. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Coupe, Alexander R. & Sander Lestrade. 2017. Non-structural case marking in Tibeto-Burman and artificial languages. Linguistic Discovery 15(1). 1–34.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In James Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the lexicon, 55–72. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

  • de Vries, Lourens. 2006. Areal pragmatics of New Guinea: Thematization, distribution and recapitulative linkage in Papuan narratives. Journal of Pragmatics 38. 811–828.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DeLancey, Scott. 2011. “Optional” “ergativity” in Tibeto-Burman languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34.2. 9–20.Google Scholar

  • Donohue, Cathryn & Mark Donohue. 1997. Fore case marking. Language and Linguistics in Malenesia 28. 69–98.Google Scholar

  • Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Farr, Cynthia J. M. 1999. The interface between syntax and discourse in Korafe, a Papuan language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Franklin, Karl J. 1971. A grammar of Kewa, New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Gaby, Alice. 2008. Pragmatically case-marked. Non-syntactic functions of the Kuuk Thaayorre ergative suffix. In Ilana Mushin & Brett Baker (eds.), Discourse and grammar in Australian languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Gaby, Alice. 2010. From discourse to syntax and back: The lifecycle of Kuuk Thaayorre ergative morphology. Lingua 120. 1677–1692.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Heeschen, Volker. 1992. A dictionary of the Yale (Kosarek) language (with sketch of grammar and English index). Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar

  • Heeschen, Volker. 1998. An ethnographic grammar of the Eipo language spoken in the central mountains of Irian Jaya (West New Guinea), Indonesia. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar

  • Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Beatrice Primus. 2015. Prominence beyond prosody – A first approximation. In A. De Dominicis (ed.), pS-Prominence: Prominence in Linguistics. Proceedings of the International Conference. Viterbo: DISUCOM Press.Google Scholar

  • Hynum, David. 2010. Ergativity in Numanggang. In Joan Hooley (ed.), Papers on six languages of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Jasinskaja, Katja, Sofiana Chiriacescu, Marta Donazzan, Klaus von Heusinger & Stefan Hinterwimmer. 2015. Prominence in discourse. In Amedeo De Dominicis (ed.), pS-Prominence: Prominence in Linguistics. Proceedings of the International Conference. Viterbo: DISUCOM Press.Google Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Caroline Féry, Gisbert Franselow & Manfred Krifka (eds.), The notions of information structure. Working Papers of the SFB 632. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar

  • Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Li, Charles N. & Rainer Lang. 1979. The syntactic irrelevance of an ergative case in Enga and other Papuan languages. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity, 307–324. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood. 2013. The meaning of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49.1. 127–163.Google Scholar

  • Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar

  • McGregor, William B. 2006. Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua 116. 393–423.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McGregor, William B. 2007. Ergative marking of intransitive subjects in Warrwa. Australian Journal of Linguistics 27(2). 201–229.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McGregor, William B. 2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120. 1610–1636.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McGregor, William B. & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2010. Optional ergative marking and its implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 120. 1607–1609.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Meakins, Felicity. 2015. From absolutely optional to only nominally ergative: The life cycle of the Gurindji ergative suffix. In Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev & Nino Amiridze (eds.), Borrowed morphology, 189–218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Meakins, Felicity & Carmel O’Shannessy. 2010. Ordering arguments about: Word order and discourse motivations in the development and use of the ergative marker in two Australian mixed languages. Lingua 120. 1693–1713.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ozerov, Pavel. 2015. Information structure without topic and focus. Differential object marking in Burmese. Studies in Language 39(2). 386–423.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pennington, Ryan. 2013. Topic as evidence for nominative case in Ma Manda. Language & Linguistics in Melanesia 31(2). 1–26.Google Scholar

  • Riesberg, Sonja, Kristian Walianggen & Siegfried Zöllner. 2012-2016. DoBeS Documentation Summits in the Central Mountains of Papua. The Language Archive MPI Nijmegen, http://dobes.mpi.nl/.

  • Ross, Malcolm & John Natu Paol. 1978. A Waskia grammar sketch and vocabulary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Rumsey, Alan. 2010. ‘Optional’ ergativity and the framing of reported speech. Lingua 120. 1652–1676.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rumsey, Alan, Lila San Roque & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 2013. The acquisition of ergative marking in Kaluli, Ku Waru and Duna (Trans New Guinea). In Edith L. Bavin & Sabine Stoll (ed.), The acquisition of ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Schnell, Stefan. forthc. Attention focus and information packaging in Vera’s demonstratives. In Sonja Riesberg, Asako Shiohara & Atsuko Utsumi (eds.), A cross-linguistic perspective on information structure in Austronesian languages. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

  • Scott, Graham. 1986. On ergativity in Fore and other Papuan languages. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics 24. 167–175. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Simard, Candide & Eva Schultze-Berdt. 2011. Documentary linguistics and prosodic evidence for the syntax of spoken language. In Geoffrey L. J. Haig, Nicole Nau, Stefan Schnell & Claudia Wegener (eds.), Documenting endangered languages. Achievements and perspectives. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Simpson, Jane. 1988. Case and complementizer suffixes in Warlpiri. In Peter Austin (ed.), Complex sentence constructions in Australian Aboriginal languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Skopeteas, Stavros, Ines Fiedler, Sam Hellmuth, Anna Schwarz, Ruben Stoel, Gisbert Franselow, Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka. 2006. Questionnaire on information structure (QUIS): Reference manual. Working Papers of the SFB 632. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar

  • Spaulding, Craig & Pat Spaulding. 1994. Phonology and grammar of Nankina. Ukarumpa via Lae: SIL.Google Scholar

  • Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2006. On comitatives and related categories. A typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Suter, Edgar. 2010. The optional ergative in Kâte. In John Bowden & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), Festschrift for Andrew Pawley. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative types. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and semantics 6: The Grammar of causative constructions, 43–116. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2010. Animacy and information structure in the system of ergative marking in Umpithamu. Lingua 120. 1637–1651.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zöllner, Siegfried & Ilse Zöllner. 2017. A Yali (Angguruk) – German dictionary. Wörterbuch Yali (Angguruk) – Deutsch. In Sonja Riesberg (ed.), in collaboration with Carmen Dawuda, Lucas Haiduck, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Kurt Malcher, A Yali (Angguruk) – German dictionary. Wörterbuch Yali (Angguruk) – Deutsch, 45–212. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-04-30

Revised: 2017-11-20

Published Online: 2018-04-27

Published in Print: 2018-04-25


Citation Information: Linguistic Typology, Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 17–50, ISSN (Online) 1613-415X, ISSN (Print) 1430-0532, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2018-0002.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in