Case and Agreement in Nepali

• Main Authors: Chen, Guan yu, 陳冠瑜
• Other Authors: 廖秀娟
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2014
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/77639443495282442822

碩士 === 國立清華大學 === 語言學研究所 === 102 === Nepali shows rich diversity and high complexity of case and agreement patterns. This thesis thus aims to investigate case and agreement patterns in Nepali. Although a few studies have introduced typical types of split-ergative case-marking and agreement system in Nepali, few studies have determined both typical and atypical patterns. Nepali case marking system is examined in this work by using Payne (1997, 2006)’s definition of S (the only nominal argument of a single-argument clause), A (agent-like argument of a multi-argument clause), and O (patient-like arguments of a multi-argument clause), and Dixon’s (1979, 1994, 2010) four conditioning factors of split-ergativity, i.e. tense, mood, semantics of verb, and the status of a clause. Two types of phenomena are discussed in terms of these conditions: (i) Ss and As under splitting conditions, and (ii) atypical case marking under splitting conditions. The important findings of this study are as follows. First, split-ergative case-marking patterns are conditioned by tense/aspect. That is, the A is marked by the ergative marker -le in the past tense, but A receives a nominative case (i.e. a zero marking) in the non-past tense. However, tense does not affect the marking of S and O. S and O keep unmarked in both the past and non-past tenses. Second, differential subject case-marking patterns are found in Nepali. More specifically, (i) A is unmarked in the past tense; (ii) A is marked by the ergative marker in the non-past tense; and (iii) S is marked by the ergative marker. Moreover, in the differential object case-marking pattern, O may be marked by the dative marker -lai, which is conditioned by Animacy Hierarchy proposed by Silverstein (1976) . Finally, Nepali shows concord (of numerals, possessors, and adjectives) and S/A verb agreement in canonical agreement patterns. However, exceptions to the generalization of S/A agreement are found in three types of constructions: (i) dative subject construction; (ii) obligational mood construction; and (iii) passive construction. In general, in these constructions, verbs tend to agree with the third person singular masculine entity. However, exceptions are also found in that verbs may agree with a third person singular feminine, a first person plural, and a second person plural entities.