Abstract

Languages from the same genetic lineage often exhibit differences in certain parameters, but significant variation in their morphological typology is uncommon. Austroasiatic languages present a notable paradox, where Munda languages are categorized as polysynthetic, while Mon-Khmer languages are considered isolating. This contrast within the same linguistic family, with both sub-branches occupying opposite ends of the synthesis continuum, is particularly intriguing. This paper aims to explore whether the morphological disparity between Munda and Mon-Khmer languages can be reconciled by examining specific bound elements in Munda languages that contribute to their synthetic characteristics. The study conducts a detailed analysis of numerous bound elements in Munda languages, comparing these to similar structures in Mon-Khmer languages. The focus is on understanding whether these bound markers are better classified as clitics rather than affixes, especially in the context of multi-verb constructions. The analysis suggests that many bound elements in Munda languages are more likely to be clitics rather than affixes. The study specifically investigates phrase-level affixation involving multi-verbs, concluding that when these markers attach at the phrase level, they should be considered clitics. This study sheds light on the synthetic nature of Munda languages within the Austroasiatic family, arguing for a reclassification of certain bound markers as clitics rather than affixes, particularly in multi-verb constructions. This reclassification could help reconcile the typological differences observed between Munda and Mon-Khmer languages.

Keywords

Phrasal Affixes, Clitics, Multi-Verb, Serial Verb, Compound Verb, Munda, Austroasiatic,

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A.Y., & Dixon, R.M. (2005). Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. OUP Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199279159.001.0001
  2. Anderson, Gregory D.S. (2007). The Munda Verb: Typological Perspectives. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924251
  3. Anderson, Gregory D.S. (2008). “Gtaʔ”. The Munda Languages, Routledge (Taylor and Francis), London.
  4. Anderson, Gregory D.S. (2008). The Munda Languages. Routledge (Taylor and Francis), London.
  5. Anderson, Gregory D.S. (2016). Austroasiatic Languages of South Asia. The Languages and Linguistics of South Asia: A Comprehensive Guide, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, Germany.
  6. Anderson, Gregory D.S., David Harrison. K. (2008). “Sora” The Munda. Routledge (Taylor and Francis), London.
  7. Anderson, Gregory D.S., Norman H. Zide. (2001). Recent Advances in The Reconstruction Of The Proto-Munda Verb. Historical Linguistics 1999. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.215.03and
  8. Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511586262
  9. Anderson, Stephen R. (1993). Wackernagel’s Revenge: Clitics, Morphology and the Syntax of Second Position. Language 69(1), 68-98. https://doi.org/10.2307/416416
  10. Anderson, Stephen R. (2005). Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279906.001.0001
  11. Bhattacharya, T. (2018). Pronominalisation in South Asian Languages: Of People and Their Actions. Nepalese Linguistics, 33(1), 60-68. https://doi.org/10.3126/nl.v33i1.41102
  12. Blench, R. (2015). The Origins of Nominal Classification Markers in MSEA Languages. The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia, De Gruyter Mouton, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501501685-013
  13. Bonami, O., & Boyé, G. (2005). French Pronominal Clitics and the Design of Paradigm Function Morphology. Mediterranean Morphology Meetings University of Patras, 5, 291-322.
  14. Dilip, M.J., & Kumar, R. (2020). Clitic or Agreement Restriction in Santali: A Typological Analysis. Acta Linguistica Asiatica, 10(1), 9-33. https://doi.org/10.4312/ala.10.1.9-33
  15. Ghosh, Arun Kumar. (1994). Santali - A Look into Santal Morphology. Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi.
  16. Grierson, G.A. (1906). Linguistic Survey of India. Munda and Dravidian. New Delhi.
  17. Hagemeijer, T. (2001). Underspecification in Serial Verb Constructions. Semi-Lexical Categories, De Gruyter Mouton, Germany.
  18. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. The View from Building, MIT Press, Cambridge
  19. Haspelmath, M. (2016). The Serial Verb Construction: Comparative Concept and Cross-Linguistic Generalizations. Language and Linguistics, 17(3), 291-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002215626895
  20. Hoffmann, J. (1903). Mundari Grammar. Bengal Secretariat Press, Calcutta
  21. Koshy, A. (2007). Pronominal Clitics in Pnar and Khasi. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
  22. Koshy, A. (2009). Pronominal Clitics and the Alternate Word Order VSO in Pnar and Khasi. Language Vitality in South Asia AMU Press. Aligarh, India.
  23. Koshy, A. (2019). Question Formation in Pnar and Khasi: The Role of Clitics. International Journal of Literature, Linguistics and Language Teaching, 1(1), 21-29.
  24. Nagaraja, K.S. (1993). Agreement in Khasi and Munda Languages. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, 53(1-4), 271-276.
  25. Nagaraja, K.S. (2014). Standard Khasi. The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, 2, 1145-1185. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004283572_026
  26. Neukom, L. (2001). Santali (Languages of the World/Materials). Lincom Europa, München.
  27. Osada, T. (2008). Mundari. The Munda Languages. Routledge, London, New York.
  28. Ramamurti, G.V. (1931). A Manual Of The So:Ra (Or Savara) Language. Government Press.
  29. Ramaswami, N. (1992). Bhumij Grammar. Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore.
  30. Simon, I.M. (1974). The Verbal Piece in Khasi. University Of London, School of Oriental and African Studies. United Kingdom.
  31. Spencer, A., & Luís, A.R. (2012). Clitics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139033763
  32. Veenstra, T. (1993). Serial Verb Constructions, Parameter Settings and Thematic Restrictions on Argument Sharing. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 10(1), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.10.16vee
  33. Zide, N.H. (1997). Gutob Pronominal Clitics and Related Phenomenon Elsewhere In Gutob-Remo-Gtaʔ. Languages of Tribal and Indigenous People of India: The Ethnic Space, New Delhi, India.
  34. Zwicky, A.M. (1977). On Clitics. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.
  35. Zwicky, A.M. (1985). Clitics and Particles. Language, 61(2), 283-305. https://doi.org/10.2307/414146
  36. Zwicky, A.M., & Pullum, G.K. (1983). Cliticization Vs. Inflection: English N't. Language, 59(3), 502-513. https://doi.org/10.2307/413900