The rise and fall of ergativity in Aramaic : cycles of alignment change / Eleanor Coghill.

Format:

Book

Author/Creator:

Coghill, Eleanor, author.

Series:

Oxford linguistics

Oxford studies in diachronic and historical linguistics ; 21.

Oxford Linguistics

Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics ; 21

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Aramaic language--Ergative constructions.

Aramaic language.

Physical Description:

xxi, 381 pages : illustrations, maps ; 24 cm.

Edition:

First edition.

Place of Publication:

Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2016.

Summary:

This book traces the changes in argument alignment that have taken place in Aramaic during its 3000-year documented history. Eleanor Coghill examines evidence from ancient Aramaic texts, recent dialectal documentation, and cross-linguistic parallels to provide an account of the pathways through which this alignment change took place. She argues that what became the ergative construction was originally limited mostly to verbs with an experiencer role, such as 'see' and 'hear', which could encode the experiencer with a dative. While this dative-experiencer scenario shows some formal similarities with other proposed explanations for alignment change, the data analysed in this book show that it is clearly distinct. The book draws important theoretical conclusions on the development of tense-conditioned alignment cross-linguistically, and provides a valuable basis for further research.

Contents:

1 Introduction 1

2 Alignment 6

2.1 Alignment of verbal arguments 6

2.1.1 Syntactic alignment 6

2.1.2 Semantic/Split-S alignment 9

2.1.3 Manifestation of alignment 12

2.2 Pathways of alignment change 16

2.2.1 Introduction 16

2.2.2 Accusative > ergative 18

2.2.3 Ergative > accusative 25

2.2.4 Tense-conditioned alignment arising via new constructions 28

2.2.5 Shift from tense-conditioned to consistent alignment 28

2.2.6 Accusative > semantic alignment via demotion/suppression of agent 29

2.2.7 Accusative > semantic alignment via extension 31

2.2.8 Ergative > semantic alignment via demotion/suppression of object 32

2.2.9 Similarities and differences between the pathways from syntactic to semantic alignment 35

2.2.10 Semantic > syntactic (accusative or ergative) alignment 37

2.2.11 Reconstructing alignment change on the basis of markedness 38

2.2.12 Processes involved in alignment change 39

2.2.13 The role of language contact 39

2.3 The development of tense-conditioned ergativity in Aramaic, Iranian, and Indie 40

2.4 A full cycle of alignment change 43

3 Aramaic 45

3.1 Historical stages of Aramaic 45

3.2 Morphosyntactic typology of Aramaic 49

3.2.1 Root-and-pattern system 50

3.2.2 Argument marking 52

3.2.3 Word order 53

3.2.4 Nominal morphology 53

4 Alignment in Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects 55

4.1 Overview 55

4.2 Dialects with only accusative alignment 58

4.2.1 Definition 58

4.2.2 Dialects with full inversion of subject/object indexes 62

4.2.3 Dialects which only allow S-suffix objects in the third person or not at all 62

4.2.4 Summary 65

4.3 Jewish South-Eastern Trans-Zab dialects 65

4.3.1 Definition 65

4.3.2 Alignment in argument indexes 66

4.3.3 Semantic/Split-S alignment 71

4.4 Excursus: Is there syntactic ergativity in NENA? 73

4.4.1 Indexation 74

4.4.2 Coreferentiality 75

4.4.3 Word order 78

4.4.4 Control of reflexives 78

4.4.5 Relativization 80

4.4.6 Summary 81

4.5 Dialects with non-accusative alignment in the perfect 81

4.5.1 Definition 81

4.5.2 Jewish SE Trans-Zab dialects with non-accusative perfect 81

4.5.3 Non-SE Trans-Zab dialects with a transitive/intransitive distinction in the perfect 83

4.5.4 Summary 84

4.6 Turoyo Neo-Aramaic 84

4.6.1 Alignment in argument indexes 85

4.6.2 Alignment in argument marking on noun phrases 87

4.6.3 Absence of ergative alignment elsewhere in the Turoyo Group 90

4.7 Split-S/semantic alignment in NENA, Turoyo, and beyond 90

4.8 Alignment patterns in NENA and Turoyo argument indexes 100

5 The verbal system and alignment in earlier Eastern Aramaic 102

5.1 Predication and tense-aspect-mood (TAM) categories 102

5.2 Alignment 111

5.3 The morphosyntax of the Qtil li construction in Late Eastern Aramaic 118

5.3.1 Patient marking 118

5.3.2 Agent marking 127

5.3.3 The role of information structure in agent expression 137

5.3.4 Other syntactic behaviour of Qtil li 146

5.3.5 Tense-aspect-mood (TAM) values of Qtil li 156

6 The origin and development of the Qtil li construction 162

6.1 Introduction 162

6.2 Influence of Iranian languages 165

6.3 Qtil li: From a possessive construction? 170

6.4 Link to perfect aspect 174

6.5 Possessive versus Passive Theory 175

6.6 Passive + Experiencer Dative Theory 181

6.7 Experiencer Dative versus Possessive Theory 196

6.8 L - marking another semantic role with, non-experiential verbs 197

6.9 Qtil li and passivity 216

6.9.1 Claims as to the passive nature of the construction at various diachronic stages 216

6.9.2 Is NENA Qplli passive? 218

6.9.3 Is Late Aramaic Qtil li passive? 218

6.9.4 Does Qtil li result from the reanalysis of a passive plus agent? 222

6.10 Origin of Qtil li: Summary 223

6.11 Reconstructing the development of Qtil li 223

6.11.1 Reanalysis off-as agent marker 223

6.11.2 Qtil li takes over as the general past perfective 225

6.11.3 Development of person indexes on the Present and Past Bases 227

6.11.4 The disappearance in most dialects of ergative flagging of noun phrases 230

6.12 L- as marker of focused agent in NENA 232

6.13 The fate of Qtil H in Neo-Mandaic 242

6.14 Role of language contact and the linguistic area 243

6.15 Summary of the development of tense-conditioned ergativity in Eastern Aramaic 247

7 The decline of ergative alignment and new developments 250

7.1 Introduction 250

7.2 Ergative to Accusative via Split-S/semantic alignment 250

7.3 Some observations on typological tendencies in Split-S systems 263

7.4 Alternative strategies developed for P 264

7.5 Why was the ergative not generalized in any Aramaic dialect? 268

7.6 Later development of PAST-S and the emergence of new perfects 268

7.6.1 PAST-S used for passive 268

7.6.2 PAST-S used actively, with implied, usually 3pl., agent 270

7.6.3 PAST-S specialized for perfect with intransitives only, creating gap for transitives 272

7.6.4 Asymmetry resolved in various ways 279

7.6.5 Summary of the development of PAST(intr)-S and competing forms 283

7.6.6 Parallels in Aramaic and Semitic to the extension of an intransitive perfect construction to transitives 283

8 Conclusions 287

8.1 The renewal of the Eastern Aramaic verbal system and resultant change in alignment 287

8.2 The development of new perfects as a potential trigger for alignment change 294

8.3 Implications for theory and future research 299.

Notes:

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN:

9780198723806

0198723806

OCLC:

958464304