- Place: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Bern (Switzerland)
- Deadline for abstracts: 10 February 2025
The Sino-Tibetan (ST) languages, spoken in a vast area of Asia, are known for their typological diversity. One of the salient features, particularly in the languages of the conservative branches of the ST family – South Central, Kiranti, and Gyalrong – is the use of different verb stems in different phonological, morphological and morphosyntactic environments. Unlike the Indo-European languages, where distinct verb stems can be used for different moods, e.g., I will in affirmative, but I won’t in negative in English, the use of diverse verb stems in ST is complex and yet to be fully understood. Contrary to Van Bik’s claim that diverse verb stems are innovative in the South Central branch, we often see comparable verb stems outside the South Central branch. For example, the use of different verb stems can depend on transitivity, which is attested across the ST family. In Bantawa (Kiranti), ruk ‘be angry’ is an intransitive verb, but rukt ‘be angry at someone’ is transitive. In Khroskyabs (Gyalrong), the form və̂ ‘go’ is intransitive, but vǽd ‘bring’ is transitive. Similarly, in Tedim (South Central), ta:n ‘be bright’ is intransitive, but tàt ‘flash a light at/on something’ is transitive. The transitive stems – ruk-t, væ̂-d and tà-t – in these three languages from different branches of the ST family evidently demonstrate the reflexes of a dental (t/d) transitivizing suffix.
Jacques (2016) also notes that the conservative branches of the ST family have similar dental suffixes with transparent functions to the *-s suffix reconstructed for Old Chinese. Comparing the causative and applicative functions of qùshēng as noted in Downer (1959) in Old Chinese, Jacques presents examples demonstrating two dental suffixes – a -s causative suffix and a -t applicative suffix – from Limbu. In addition to demonstrating reflexes of the two valence-increasing suffixes – *-s causative and *-t applicative – the South Central, Kiranti, and Gyalrongic languages diverge in the manner they treat different verb stems derived by these suffixes.
The verbs in South Central languages furthermore demonstrate the reflex of a nominaliser *-k suffix. For example, the nominalised form tɔ́ʔ ‘weaving’ of the verb tɔ́ ‘weave’ in Sumtu, a Southeastern South Central language, can be used both as a nominal argument and as a matrix clause verb. The verb stems attesting the reflexes of these three distinct suffixes – *-s causative, *-t applicative and *-k nominaliser – collapsed into different functions differently across the South Central languages.
So, the questions remain 1) how did these causative and applicative stems formally collapse into the nominalized stems in South Central? 2) how do we explain why some South Central verbs have causative stems and other applicative stems? and 3) how these stems are related to other Sino-Tibetan languages? From a functional point of view, we also don’t know yet: whether there are any common motivations for the Stem 2 verbs to have different functions, as we commonly see across the South Central languages, e.g., Stem 1 in affirmative clauses and Stem 2 in negative clauses, and how did the different uses of different verb stems develop in South Central?
The objectives of this workshop are to:
- Explore the typological diversity of verb stems across the Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family, with a focus on understanding the different phonological, morphological, and morphosyntactic environments that influence verb stem alternations in conservative ST branches, particularly South Central, Kiranti, and Gyalrong.
- Investigate how transitivity affects verb stem selection in various ST languages.
- Study the functions of causative (-s) and applicative (-t) suffixes across different branches of the ST family, drawing on comparisons to Old Chinese and other branches to understand the historical development and distribution of these valence-increasing suffixes.
- Address key unresolved questions, including the formal processes through which causative and applicative stems collapsed into nominalized stems in South Central, the morphosyntactic motivations behind verb stem alternations in specific environments and the broader implications for ST languages as a whole.
- Formulate and discuss hypotheses regarding potential functional motivations for verb stem alternations within South Central and other ST languages, particularly regarding the roles of Stem 1 and Stem 2 in various clause types (e.g., affirmative vs. negative), and the historical and functional forces shaping these distinctions.
This workshop is supported by The History of Verb Stem Alternations in South Central Tibeto-Burman project funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. It will be held as a part of the 58th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. We invite abstracts from scholars working on Sino-Tibetan languages showing verb stem alternations. The submission deadline and notice of acceptance of this workshop will be the same as for general papers for the conference. Submissions must be made via EasyAbs.
- Abstract Submission Opens: 1 December 2024
- Abstract Submission Closes: 10 February 2025
- Notification of Acceptance: 31 March 2025
Selected bibliographies
Bedell, G., Mang, K.S., and Suntak, K. (2023). The morphosyntax of verb stem alternation. Himalayan Linguistics, 22.1: 202-242.
Chhangte, L. (1993). Mizo Syntax. PhD Dissertation, University of Oregon.
Davis, T. D. (2017). Verb stem alternation in Sizang Chin narrative discourse. MA thesis, Payap University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3889339.
Downer, G. B. (1959). Derivation by tone-change in Classical Chinese. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 22.1/3:258–290.
Ebert, K. (1994). The Structure of Kiranti Languages: Comparative Grammar and Texts. Zurich: ASAS, Universitat Zurich.
Henderson, E. (1965). Tiddim Chin: a descriptive analysis of two texts. London: Oxford University Press.
Hillard, E. J. (1974). Some Aspects of Chin Verb Morphology. Linguistics of the Tibeto- Burman Area, 1:178-85.
Jacques, G. (2016). How Many *-s Suffixes in Old Chinese? Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics, 9: 205-217.
Kathol, A. and Van Bik, K. (1999). Morphology–syntax interface in Lai relative clauses. In P. Tamanji, M. Hirotani, and N. Hall (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 427–441. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
King, D. (2009). Structural and pragmatic functions of Kuki-Chin verbal stem alternations. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 1:141-157.
Konnerth, L. (2016). The Proto-Tibeto-Burman nominalizing prefix *gV-. Linguistics of the Tibeto Burman Area, 39.1: 3–32.
Lai, Y. (2021). The complexity and history of verb-stem ablauting patterns in Siyuewu Khroskyabs. Folia Linguistica, 55.1: 75-126.
Lorrain, J. H., and Savidge, F. W. (1898). A grammar and dictionary of the Lushai language (Dulien dialect). Shillong: Assam Government Press.
Lotven, S. (2021). The sound systems of Zophei dialects and other Maraic languages. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.
Michailovsky, B. (1985). Tibeto-Burman dental suffxes: Evidence from Limbu (Nepal). In Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan area: The state of the art, 363–375. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Osburne, A. G. (1975). A Transformational Analysis of Tone in the Verb System of Zahao (Laizo) Chin. PhD Dissertation, Cornell University.
Par, N. (2016). Agreement and Verb Stem Alternation in Senthang Chin. MA thesis, Payap University.
Peterson, David A. (1998). The morphosyntax of transitivization in Lai. Linguistics of the TibetoBurman Area, 21.1: 87 153. https://doi.org/10.15144/ltba-21.1.87.
Peterson, D. A. (2020). The stem alternation in Rengmitca. Languages and Peoples of the Eastern Himalayan Region, Himalayan Linguistics, 19.2: 80-94. https://doi.org/10.5070/H91150997
Shobhana, C., Peterson, D., Utt, T., Blair, E. & Khular, S. (2019). Lamkang verb conjugation. Himalayan Linguistics, 18: 3-25.
So-Hartmann, H. (2009). A descriptive grammar of Daai Chin. Berkely: University of Berkely. Thounaojam, H & Chelliah, S. (2007). The Lamkang language: grammatical sketch, texts and lexicon. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 30: 1-189.
Túngdìm, P. (2011). Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic functions of Zo verbal stem alternations. Paper presented at 44th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Mysore, India.
VanBik, K. (2009). Proto-Kuki-Chin: A Reconstructed Ancestor of the Kuki-Chin Languages. STED Monograph 8. Berkeley: UC Berkeley.
Watson, J. (2019). Participant Reference Patterns in Senthang Narrative. MA thesis, Payap University.
Zakaria, M. (2018). A grammar of Hyow. Ph.D diss, Nanyang Technological University. 10.32657/10356/73237.
